Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (15704)	11/9/2003 6:51:04 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 793624

A confused note. I think Gutman may be wrong or incomplete about societies as shame-based as opposed to guilt-based. What happened in the Anglo Saxon example is that the preferment of honour and recovery of honour was brought into the crown. Heralds, sherrifs, constables and magistrates became a government monopoly [something noted by Sir Walter Raleigh] and the struggle between crown and nobility became outmoded and unacceptable by the time of Elizabeth. Devereaux's revolt against Elizabeth was the last gasp of the older shame-honour system - he wanted to turn back time; it was unacceptable a constable could arrest a member of nobility; it was no longer the role of the nobility to brake the overweening regent but that of the parliament, especially the commons. The peasants and merchants had already generally moved beyond the old system. It's not so much England became a guilt-based society [although it did] as it became unnecessary to undertake the very dangerous (to self and family) and wasteful (of wealth and lives) personal reclamation of honour. Personal recourse to violence became irresponsible behaviour - the law ran the length and breadth of the country and applied to all. Everybody's honour was enforced. [This is all too general and idealized - Elizabethan England was violent and there was the effect of the Reformation - but you get the drift]