I wasn't so sure he was lying, by the way. I think he believed what he was saying at the moment he said it
My understanding that the entire relationship to words and rhetoric in traditional Arab society (I don't know anything about Afghans) is quite different than in the west. The need to tell the truth will play second fiddle to the need to maintain honor, particularly in any situation where honor is felt to be at risk; there is also a tendency to indulge in rhetoric and substitute high-flown rhetoric for action. The best source I know for cultural anthropology on the Arabs is Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind.
Here's what Patai says about conflict resolution in traditional Arab society:
In the Arab world, mediation on the tribal and village level has for centuries been the traditional method of settling disputes, and the same method has, in modern times, been adapted for settling political and military issues within and between Arab states.
In tribal and village society, the role of a mediator (wasit) or mediators in resolving conflict has been, and still is, a crucial one. In every conflict those involved tend to feel that their honor is at stake, and that to give in, even as little as an inch, would diminish their self-respect and dignity. Even to take the first step towards ending a conflict would be regarded as a sign of weakness, which, in turn, would greatly damage one's honor. Hence, it is almost impossible for an Arab to come to an agreement in direct confrontation with an opponent. Given the Arab tradition of invective and proclivity to boasting and verbal exaggeration, any face-to-face encounter between two adversaries is likely to aggravate the dispute rather than constitute a step towards its settlement.
The function of the mediator, therefore, is first of all to separate the fighting sides, to make it impossible for them to continue the conflict, to force them to stop fighting, and at the same time to enable them to do so without incurring the shame of exhibiting weakness or admitting defeat. After the actual fighting has stopped, the presence of the mediator imposes restraints on both sides, if not over the actual demands or positions, at least in regard to their verbal expression. The entrance of a mediator into a conflict has the same restraining effect also in cases in which the two sides are not involved in actual hand-to-hand fighting but maintain a status of inactive belligerency. This restraint results from the respect in which the mediator is held by both parties to the conflict. The greater the prestige of the mediator and the deeper the respect he commands, the better the chances that his efforts at mediating a dispute will be successful.
For this reason, the role of mediator is in many parts of the Arab world traditionally assigned to members of special descent groups, who as such have a high ascribed status.
from Chapter XIV Conflict Resolution and "Conferentiasis" |
