The ideas of fighting for honor, to modern human beings, seem like obsolete ideas of the past fit for history books but anachronistic in modern societies where rational considerations for individual and collective interests trump what is often perceived an overtly emotional exercise of avenging wrongdoings for vague moral purposes. And indeed, the last Hollywood blockbuster "47 Ronin," a sci-fi-tinged retelling of a Japanese true story about a group of master-less samurai revenge-killing a rival lord for their dead master, cannot get more medieval in context.
But getting past its rather unsurprisingly story-line, almost complete lack of character development, and wholesome awkwardness of an entire Japanese cast speaking in highly accented English, the movie does make the viewers wonder how it is possible that a concept as abstract and often groundless as "honor" could be the reason for waging of wars, destruction of entire villages, and rapid changes in political heads of states, relative powers among rivals, and shifts in their respective territories. And it is actually REAL "honor," not a byword or euphemism for selfish ambitions of more power-grabs.
It makes the viewer wonder whether modern societies, with their focus on cooperative development at local level, grand strategies at the national level, even checks and balances at the global level, are capable of still being disturbed by few what many would deem as "rogue actors" upsetting the status quo by taking back their "honor." Well it seems inconceivable that "honor" itself may trigger sweeping changes in an international arena dominated by diplomacy of compromises and negotiations, when mixed with conflicts and national interests, the idea of honor can still be a potent political tool.
The recent (and still somewhat ongoing) row between the US and India over the alleged mistreatment by an Indian diplomat of her maid and alleged subsequent mistreatment of the said diplomat by American law enforcement official may provide a clue on how "honor" still stay in the mind of the world's most powerful politicians and their electoral constituencies. As strategic partners cooperating on many sensitive fronts including nuclear technology transfer and intelligence sharing, America and India's rather childish tit-for-tat generates little practical benefit for either country.
Both side are appealing to some form of norms. While America speaks of "you don't come to our country and not follow our laws," India speaks of "you don't ignore diplomatic immunity and rough-up a foreign government's representative like a common criminal." In essence, both countries are alluding to the belief that "major powers ought to be treated as equals, with respectful restraint shown in the matters of conflict." Violation of that "respect for major power," and the modern concept of "honor" seem to become violated as well, triggering a diplomatic row of such sort.
Basically, the concept of "honor" in modern-day international and even sub-national relations, have become little more than a term used to stir up nationalistic or regional jingoism to gain public support, devoid of the moral values of justice and social class-based ethics in a chivalry-like social contract portrayed as in "47 Ronin." Without substance, the concept of "honor" can easily be overused, as politicians who bring up the concept has little reason to fear the social backlash of failing to adhere to its maintenance, much unlike the case of medieval warriors who lived it as their meaning of life.
It is rather inevitable though. In modern consumerist societies valuing materialistic success above all other factors in judging a person's individual dignity, the idea of some moral code guiding a person's life and death seems absolutely preposterous. No person would be stupid enough to take one's own life or that of innocent others in order to defend an abstract thought, the background details of which would not even appeal to the wider masses for knowledge or sympathies. "Honor," in such a world, is bound to be taken off the spiritual, and almost scared, high ground that it used to occupy.
Yet even as the above logic lead to a conclusion that "honor," in the modern context, should not be taken seriously, to rid its emptiness slogan-like presence from public life is still impossible. With or without moral backing, evoking "honor" and its violation still bring people together, sometimes as an ideology to prop up a campaign to expand a group's power at expense of others, and more often, instigate pointless conflicts to divert attention from more pertinent issues. It is the public's disgust with the word's misuse that bring about a collective fascination with its perceived "correct" usage, as portrayed in "47 Ronin."
But getting past its rather unsurprisingly story-line, almost complete lack of character development, and wholesome awkwardness of an entire Japanese cast speaking in highly accented English, the movie does make the viewers wonder how it is possible that a concept as abstract and often groundless as "honor" could be the reason for waging of wars, destruction of entire villages, and rapid changes in political heads of states, relative powers among rivals, and shifts in their respective territories. And it is actually REAL "honor," not a byword or euphemism for selfish ambitions of more power-grabs.
It makes the viewer wonder whether modern societies, with their focus on cooperative development at local level, grand strategies at the national level, even checks and balances at the global level, are capable of still being disturbed by few what many would deem as "rogue actors" upsetting the status quo by taking back their "honor." Well it seems inconceivable that "honor" itself may trigger sweeping changes in an international arena dominated by diplomacy of compromises and negotiations, when mixed with conflicts and national interests, the idea of honor can still be a potent political tool.
The recent (and still somewhat ongoing) row between the US and India over the alleged mistreatment by an Indian diplomat of her maid and alleged subsequent mistreatment of the said diplomat by American law enforcement official may provide a clue on how "honor" still stay in the mind of the world's most powerful politicians and their electoral constituencies. As strategic partners cooperating on many sensitive fronts including nuclear technology transfer and intelligence sharing, America and India's rather childish tit-for-tat generates little practical benefit for either country.
Both side are appealing to some form of norms. While America speaks of "you don't come to our country and not follow our laws," India speaks of "you don't ignore diplomatic immunity and rough-up a foreign government's representative like a common criminal." In essence, both countries are alluding to the belief that "major powers ought to be treated as equals, with respectful restraint shown in the matters of conflict." Violation of that "respect for major power," and the modern concept of "honor" seem to become violated as well, triggering a diplomatic row of such sort.
Basically, the concept of "honor" in modern-day international and even sub-national relations, have become little more than a term used to stir up nationalistic or regional jingoism to gain public support, devoid of the moral values of justice and social class-based ethics in a chivalry-like social contract portrayed as in "47 Ronin." Without substance, the concept of "honor" can easily be overused, as politicians who bring up the concept has little reason to fear the social backlash of failing to adhere to its maintenance, much unlike the case of medieval warriors who lived it as their meaning of life.
It is rather inevitable though. In modern consumerist societies valuing materialistic success above all other factors in judging a person's individual dignity, the idea of some moral code guiding a person's life and death seems absolutely preposterous. No person would be stupid enough to take one's own life or that of innocent others in order to defend an abstract thought, the background details of which would not even appeal to the wider masses for knowledge or sympathies. "Honor," in such a world, is bound to be taken off the spiritual, and almost scared, high ground that it used to occupy.
Yet even as the above logic lead to a conclusion that "honor," in the modern context, should not be taken seriously, to rid its emptiness slogan-like presence from public life is still impossible. With or without moral backing, evoking "honor" and its violation still bring people together, sometimes as an ideology to prop up a campaign to expand a group's power at expense of others, and more often, instigate pointless conflicts to divert attention from more pertinent issues. It is the public's disgust with the word's misuse that bring about a collective fascination with its perceived "correct" usage, as portrayed in "47 Ronin."
Comments
Post a Comment