Using Honor to End Honor Killings
Kwame Anthony Appiah is a philosopher, novelist, and professor of philosophy at Princeton University. Appiah was born in London but moved as an infant to Ghana, where he grew up. His father, Joseph Emmanuel Appiah, a lawyer and politician, was also, at various times, a Member of Parliament, an Ambassador, and a President of the Ghana Bar Association. His mother, Peggy Appiah, whose family was English, was a novelist, children’s writer, and social activist. In 1970, Appiah's great-uncle, Otumfuo Sir Osei Agyeman Prempeh II, was succeeded by his uncle, Otumfuo Nana Poku Ware II, as king of Ashanti.
Appiah was educated abroad in England, ultimately graduating from Clare College, Cambridge University, in England, where he took both B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in the philosophy department. Since Cambridge, he has taught at Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke, and Harvard universities and lectured at many other institutions in the United States, Germany, Ghana and South Africa, as well as at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris.
Appiah is the author of several books including "The Ethics of Identity," "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers," "Experiment in Ethics," and "The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen." He has also written three novels and reviews regularly for the New York Review of Books.
He currently serves as President of the PEN American Center. He has homes in New York city and near Pennington, in New Jersey, which he shares with his partner, Henry Finder, Editorial Director of the New Yorker magazine.
Question: How might your research be leveraged to end the practice of honor killing?
Kwame Anthony Appiah: Well, there’s a case, which I discuss in the book – a very important and I think an interesting case of an honor killing in Pakistan. And it’s important because it draws attention to the fact that this is not a practice only engaged in by kind of rural peasants. The woman in the case I discuss who was killed by her family, by somebody for her family, was a law student, her mother was a gynecologist, her father was the most... was the head of the Better Business Bureau, as it were in his hometown. Her husband, from whom she was trying... to divorce, which is why she was killed, was an M.D. They were successful modern, highly educated Pakistanis.
She was killed in the office of her lawyer because her mother came with this man and he took out a gun and shot her in front of the lawyer. Now, that makes it clear that in that context... and this you know, was a decade ago. It makes it clear that in that context, these people, these respectable people just didn’t think it was dishonorable to murder your daughter in front of your lawyer, or rather, in front of her lawyer.
The practice that she was, that the lawyer was in was a very distinguished practice in Pakistan. It was headed by two sister, women, lawyers, one of whom was the head of the national human rights organization and she said immediately upon this exactly the right thing. Her name is [...]. She said, “What kind of honor is it to kill an unarmed woman?” Right? She didn’t say, “Who cares about honor?” She got the point, which I don’t think would work. I don’t think in a society that’s full of people who care about honor or “hirate” as they call it, that we could hope for any significant change by just attacking honor head on.
What she said was... and that’s a good question. I mean, how is it that a man who organizes the murder of his own daughter gets to be entitled to respect? Well, there’s a complicated thing about the way things work in that particular honor system. An honor system, but the way, that was quite common around the world. You could find it in Italy a hundred years ago; there was very much the same thing. That honor system needs shifting. If you’re going to shift it, you have first to insist on the wrongness of what it requires, but that’s not hard to do; murder is already illegal. The Koran prohibits it already and Pakistan is a Muslim state, and so there are lots of reasons you can give why you shouldn’t do it. But you also have to shift the honor system. And that’s what they are doing by banging on the point, the correct point, that it just doesn’t make sense to think of it as honorable for a man to kill an unarmed woman.
And there’s a Web site organized by some... It’s called Arabs and Muslims Against Honor Killing, and at that Web site their slogan is: “No honor in honor killing.” And I think that’s absolutely right. So what’s going on already is a shift. There are already people who see this, already people who say: "Honor requires us not to murder these women." And I think as the dialogue goes on and provided it’s conducted respectfully across societies and within that society where there are many people who agree with you and me about the wrongness of honor killing—as that dialogue goes on there will be a shift. And as more and more people come to identify this activity, not with honor, but dishonor—as in China with foot binding—there’ll be a moment, a kind of tipping point when it goes from being something you do in order to defend your honor to something which, if you do it, brings you shame.
And that’s, you know, I’m famously in all my work more optimistic than many people. I’m a bit of a Pollyanna, but I think that’s what’s happening already. I think there’s a shift going on. I think they’re making the right arguments that it’s wrong, it’s illegal, it’s un-Muslim, and that it’s dishonorable.
Recorded September 13, 2010
Interviewed by Max Miller
Honor killings will end only once a majority of people identifies them with dishonor rather than honor. The proper response to an honor killing should therefore be not "Who cares about honor?" but "What kind of honor is it to kill an unarmed woman?"
Does God exist? The answer rests outside the "normal" boundaries of science.
- Science is about natural law, while religion is about ethics. As long as you keep these two separate, Kaku says, there's no problem at all. Problems arise, however, when the natural sciences begin to "pontificate upon ethics" and when religious people begin to pontificate about natural law.
- Albert Einstein believed in the "god of Spinoza" — not a personal god, but one who has set order and harmony in the fabric of the universe. "You can put the laws of physics as we know them on a simple sheet of paper — amazing! It didn't have to be that way," says Kaku.
- The existence of God is not testable because such a review is not reproducible or falsifiable, as most scientific investigations are. In this sense, Kaku says the question and answer whether God exists rests outside the "normal" boundaries of science.
Scientists discover the inner workings of an effect that will lead to a new generation of devices.
- Researchers discover a method of extracting previously unavailable information from superconductors.
- The study builds on a 19th-century discovery by physicist Edward Hall.
- The research promises to lead to a new generation of semiconductor materials and devices.
A new immunotherapy treatment is showing positive signs in early-stage clinical trials.
- Clinical trials of an immunotherapy treatment for breast cancer showed positive signs, and the researchers hope to move to larger trials in coming years.
- Immunotherapies train the body's immune system to find and kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells.
- Recent trials of immunotherapies for other cancers have also showed positive signs.