2004/08/01 by Sandra Gayol · 1 voice · 1 citation
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Anthropological Studies and Insights #Historical Economic and Social Studies #Weber, Simmel, Sociological Theory
paper · doi:10.1215/00182168-84-3-475
openalex publication_date 2004/08/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/04/05
Recent years have produced a steady stream of conference papers, congresses, books, and academic reviews on the subject of honor. This outpouring indicates a rebirth of interest in the topic and, at the same time, bears witness to the reconsideration of certain theoretical precepts.1 In Argentine historiography, however, honor has rarely been the direct object of systematic consideration; rather, it emerges as an unexpected by-product in studies dealing with the family, especially those focused on the late colonial period.2 This “invisibility” of honor, and the silence of postcolonial historiography on the subject, derives from the association of honor with colonial criollo culture (honor de los criollos).3 Since the nineteenth century, massive immigration, demographic growth, family transformations, and urbanization (all distinctive of “modern” Argentina) have allegedly delivered “the coup de grace to the tyranny of honor” in the Río de la Plata.4 Most Argentine historians apparently agree with Norbert Elias that the rise of a “bureaucratic ethos” during the nineteenth century supplanted the ethics of honor. This commercial bourgeois ethos, they argue, diminished the importance of honor among the upper classes.5Similarly, Peter Stearns notes that in the new bourgeois society of the American West, honor became an archaic remnant.6 Applying this assertion to Argentina, however, would amount to denying the historical reality of accused murderer Bonifacio Albornoz, a 27-year-old Spanish shop assistant who, in 1908, concludes his deposition by declaring, “I would like to call on every sensible and honorable husband and ask them to step into my ignominious shoes and answer frankly: What would they do! I am sure they would reply: Honor above all! Justice shall be done.”7The sexual dimension of honor evidenced in Bonifacio’s declaration coexisted with dimensions that referenced courage and sangfroid, physical strength, honesty in the business world, and respect for personal pledges.8 This multiplicity of meanings pervades lower-class discourses on male honor, which are remarkably similar to those circulating among journalists, military officers, lawyers, and scholars. Honor was defended by challenging someone to combat by “throwing down the gauntlet” and arranging a duel by means of the parties’ seconds.9 In Argentina, dueling between legislative representatives and municipal officers was deemed an obligation—an imperative—as a means to settle political rivalries and appointments to public offices.10 For either private or public reasons, individuals from a variety of social, geographical, and professional backgrounds resorted to honor in order to pass judgements on an array of different issues.Honor continued to hold significance into the late nineteenth century, and its shifting meanings and class associations prompted spirited public debate. The discourse of public intellectuals (especially “men versed in law”—lawyers, judges, jurists, and law students) offers one window of analysis onto the reasons, terms, and implications of this debate. Although this focus does not exhaust the possible sources, it reflects discussions that took place concerning the place and role of honor in modern Argentina. My material is drawn from statements made by political and intellectual elites—the driving forces of modernity—who disseminated new ideas such as positivism. Therefore, they are representative examples from a larger field of discourse. The heterogeneous meanings and uses of honor created a problem for intellectuals and policy makers who sought to reinstate hierarchies and social codes within a context of dramatic social change. As traditional criteria for social classification were challenged and as novel sources of social status emerged, honor gained salience both as a social practice and as an issue. It is at the forefront of public discussion concerning the definition of virtuous behavior, the basis of social status, and the values and attitudes that constitute merit. Thus, honor is a window onto the values and social hierarchies of Porteño society.Intellectuals acknowledged honor as more than a remnant inherited from traditional society that was incompatible with modern Argentina. Instead, it was held up as a respected and respectable value, something to be kept in full force and effect. Nevertheless, its multiple meanings were problematic for those who endeavored to define, naturalize, and legitimate its role in a modern society. In their revamped formulation, honor would rest on conscience rather than reputation and would reflect a single moral order that would guide everyone’s behavior—elite and plebeian alike. Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century honor was widely equated with a universal and natural moral order. However, some definitions continued to attach certain qualifications to “honorable standing” that only the traditional elites possessed. Older concepts of honor could be volatile, flexible, or negotiable, but this “honor moderno” was a duty whose values were stable and unaffected by the course of time.11 It was a community asset that, once lost, could not be regained—but it was also a trait that only a few could claim in disputes over hierarchy and social primacy.In late-nineteenth-century discourses and practices, honor was not a value restricted to the elites; at least a priori, men and women from any social standing could claim or possess it. Inherent to human nature, as a “basic need of the civilized and learned man” and a value that conveyed dignity, self-esteem, and personal respect, honor was an expected and desirable trait in a multilayered society.12 This contrasts with the colonial period, when elites denied the lower classes the possibility of feeling, claiming, and expecting honor.13 Similarly, Porfirian elites in late nineteenth-century Mexico adhered to a class-delimited concept of honor. In contrast, Porteño elites neither disputed the popular classes’ aspirations to honor nor questioned the concept of honor more generally.14 In fact, criticism gave way to the need to redefine its meaning and to prioritize and impose a particular concept of honor.Some authors rejected the possibility of defining honor, since “it is an indifferent thing, an idol, a chimera, . . . impossible to determine, just like the ideas of taste and beauty.”15 Most Argentine intellectuals, however, felt an urgent need to determine its meaning in order to eradicate “wrong ideas about honor.”16 Where did they feel these errors lay?The first fault that Argentine “men of law” found in popular understandings of honor concerned the customary methods used to defend it. The defense of honor was too intimate an affair to be entrusted to a third party. Therefore, it was usually regained through personal confrontation; not involving the authorities in matters of disputed honor was, precisely, “a matter of honor.” Ultimately decided in hand-to-hand combat that tested physical strength and mastery of weapons, the ritualized defense of honor seemed to sway between “the rites of violence and the kingdom of tragedy.”17 Combat turned to deadly force only after certain preliminaries; drawing the knife or the gun was not the first step. Individuals “had a history”: they had met, argued, and avoided each other. Occasionally they met again to have another argument, to come to blows (irse de manos), to choose an “appropriate isolated location,” to retort, to share “matched” weapons and, to and were only used to defend honor after the had these both the and the to these disputes as of for the of was made of the by who were as by of their in with an of This of popular violence was by the of the as as a that and elites to from this of the of the nineteenth century, public the of violence that was In public this was by the of and the social that was the in the the and and The defense of honor to this of a by defense of for and deemed with material and of the of in the was a more widely used than the it was as a of by and felt the defense of honor an and the of of in his natural by which It was with the lower classes in that intellectuals their to violence and to it. they some of those who in the ritualized defense of honor as However, the of the could and be in the were those who the of to intellectuals, was a by which had been and within the of the Argentine It was also as the of personal courage in order to with the and used to and lost, honor a social of with and a of and intellectuals the of would an end to the of did not the of courage but rather the role of the in its and The grace of colonial is and into and into knife of who the value of honor and its or had to be by However, among those who could and be to the the of when his honor is Thus, the of and in order to the of honor” that from this and of traditional values and and in order to his policy makers and public intellectuals and the of and on its to the and of However, and it did not the to This was to be by and of had the duty to honor in their that they defend their and that of the In a for that “the honor the of force and violence are and they not In an to a of in a the that honor its military and that a could only defend it through like honor was both an acknowledged of and a by the honor were in the the of and with from one to years of The of the over the defense of honor and denied individuals the to defend it It is to resorted to to of of the found in and were the of the the arranging the private defense of honor. The in and the in matters of honor that had not been the parties’ first its the its on the of to honor and and as to defended his honor and was by the was subject to a for the of or with those to honor.” For judges, honor” became with and male The defense of honor by means of the with or became an the public and in the of honor, which the challenged the of the among as a class the popular duel for to the of the public and challenging the same that dueling was however, the systematic practice of the among in The by the lower classes was the of the of a that the need for As the it is impossible to eradicate the it be with the by that, to a certain legitimate the of a and it is a these than into as among certain class of for these of had to reflect class The the duel as a and it more than or The was to rather than the practice of dueling among For the of and the and of public was and For between however, the was the could be by since honor is as it is dueling shall be a and the in this would be since “the of the law a in the same with who to or for the honorable more that intellectuals in popular concepts of honor to the hand-to-hand the meaning of about the of the that “men are they their honor This with to honor was questioned by the who that is single who does not have his particular of It is this multiplicity of definitions by social that on the and the to be as the of both a of honor” and the men on the The and of honor was by intellectuals and men versed in law as it and of them it was to and redefine honor. and that the of as the not be as one with that not in the least the of or the status of violence of one that in the in this an of and at a one of the the to an end by one of his witness that was and was on his way The accused to but the was to that the accused with his in its the and as as the attitudes of both the and the the of their the over the of a and the of to male dignity, that more than a of was at in the The gained a social and more and was to over the of the was the of the the and the over This be in a larger social context of social status, and The that the had been an of the to to the not to the were that did not the or of the as by of the social respect and standing could not be by his or by The matters to be in were the values and the attitudes that a public respect, and social and their on social and honesty were as a and with honor. This an moral his and gained public they from an a This to another of the period, made to the of personal the of business and respect for family Although these values with honor, however, their did not such as and this Although the these as or practice did not to their of in the context of or that were and to about also usually that of or to the of or were also when was of any to were Nevertheless, to determine the the subject, and the a to the sway of honor and to the defense of honor such made in a and by the of any to were they of the and these the of and to “the of honor” that, with not of honor, but of that honor was of In a of such as social historical honor to values and that over a and of social that was not In a of and the of and of public were into of and this and conveyed social of of physical strength, and public of and were to social standing and to to such or to to be as a of honor or a of the to defend and to honor, which were for the and were both in discourse and As is a and that the the the representatives deemed the of honor for social Thus, not only did they the multiple meanings of honor in the but also its as a of As a of social status, honor as one “the object of class each its in that and to on it a new definition in with the it The concerning courage on certain such as the in or the of the late nineteenth a of over the meanings and uses of honor. In its courage was through the which was in to The of of was a that individuals when the in and that they this in the of in a duel this to an would not have to and as in its is an It is that through which a to courage was on the his courage to be a and on the of “it and does not legitimate any of discussion In with the of the rejected the of courage as a means of social than courage in as an of physical and strength of the of the on its as a means of social In this courage had on social it was to on both personal and honor and or its was it was by some intellectuals, such in his novel In that the between and in a way that to the which is of with a and for of his to had as who was in this by the as a for his Thus, the was to the with which honor his into sought by lower-class men and those who to to were by the to public third in popular of honor was that it was in public honor and as it of social to public in order to legitimate their to honor. In and or in public was to both and “the social sought the for challenging the of order to to . . . honesty and individuals to “the of in order to with and social the a of public that had to be over in the for elites the of public and them for political The of a public in a for between society and the and an for political by of the Porteño Nevertheless, the concept of the public was restricted to learned who had the and the to the rest of is the had to to the discourse of the had to subject his to the criteria of that of indifferent whose any the of or have the of public is the of of of and a and What shall be the between the and the What shall be the of and who constitute the of public that In who has the to and or defend the reputation of a who has the to the between conscience and of the discourses honor be by the public of who their of As by declaration reflects with the of the and the universal to or to the in defense of honor. also the those who have the but those who have the The status, and of by honor not be entrusted to the of the at a when dramatic social had disputes over and the of certain criteria for social public of the and as it was, was not to on a honor. The intellectuals in and men versed in law in to and they made up the of public and the values and that In order to be and honor in conscience and be by an over the course of private and in this honor was a public since the and social of a on it. It was not a matter of an to but of a new between and honor and who had the to this honor is the of moral this through public and however, was not the of and public were deemed only by individuals social to this it was not to to an in the nor to to a or an in a who to a of and courage not need or to to those who . . . of the with his held and with is the by a in the that of an of was certain of and honesty that the was and by when the to his and with and in the of his to the and of at the his to be The his have come from and who such a means to for their and the of and come from another of from his his from those who share his with the of an honor on the on the was their In fact, few were the who had learned about such and these few were not only for their but also for their moral not over such Thus, in the century, by the of the into only the of a was a for social and dealing with the that was for between and like is and not the way these were not at the lower but at the and who had to and to the and who were for social had to be since through their their of and as felt these be for to the would be and to they would the would only be over time, since “the a of to of the to the first a when were and traditional criteria of social classification were in the felt a need to between and the new It is not by or that, within a context of dramatic social these elites would their into of their and to with those who in the of In the of to “it was to have to an of the honor of these of the and also of honor.” This family honor with an political since it an of concept of honor on social and coexisted with a of honor that was by This definition to the meaning of honor and those who could to to the certain that only a could who political held social and continued to to Argentine in order to and to these that was the in a by of of the de la at a held at the de to his for his that the have been by as a public and . . . feel a respect for honorable an who in his the that his and which shall be for the of the of a and from the of a social an was in public The historical of a of with the of whose in the of seemed with the is What is his What has to the and with the has in political elites could to who “the that not only on but also on the of the public to the in his of the and the by that were of their of or that physical a to a However, the meaning of honor on of by the end of the nineteenth century, the and social it in the century or the it by the political during the and to the to their public the same used by those who sought on to the the same time, whose or did not in the of or the could claim an in the of to public their in and and their in more of as the or the of the the of the culture of honor was not a inherited from traditional it was a in human that was to the civilized the of honor the of from those who a that men of any of priori, was to and honor. was acknowledged and by the through its into the However, it was not just a it a moral that was used to social standing and to over the of It is this of honor that the and the in the of honor it with the concept in was its and respect by a and natural in this definition the importance of public and It also a and its meaning is and as it was in the same way it be the among Argentine intellectuals, a definition of honor that to the aspirations the it not it neither on nor place nor it not or it has its in the just and in the of his of honor, to and and it had to be and It from the from the conscience of the who had to to and the of honor. be and expected in For women it was during and in for men it was the to defend and to family and honesty in business and respect for with these universal is to to was “the honor every has to his Thus, in an that had been in the of are expected to are expected to judges, to to and to professional with the professional and by of a honor of its personal and were more as a duty than as a Honor was of its to social Honor was not just a but also an It had to with of to honor had to with The of honor by in his moderno” is on and on the of that and his social to the “honor of by the and to in the was on conscience and not on by and with and The of these would not just the of honor, but its What were the of this of of its meaning at least in the could be and the to honor could be an the of honor on values and attitudes with and definitions on physical and of of which had a on understandings of honor in the The popular definitions of honor that adhered to were Since this of honor was with strength, physical respect for the and honesty in business could to have it and it. of honor, in contrast, denied men the to and for the social of honor. is to honor was denied any role in the social social particular to this who the of to a of the colonial to the concept of honor in order to it into a to social are of the of to and the for social The and of social be in but one would that social was a possibility in the society of late and Argentina. The of that with a of its to in the for of to social was by in the concept of honor that were by the meaning became more to and male and its defense by means of the became more for Individuals were from the private defense of honor by the of the and and of the force at the of the the same time, to the in order to personal or family honor became public respect and for to and to a and dealing with honor it with the period, was a to direct personal courage and the defense of the the of honor also In the and discourse was by the of the political In their the value of the honor. The was to an end in the with the of men and women as of the This honor, which the of individuals in society and a social class by way of a that for was the de grace to the tyranny of honor.”