Honour-Shame and Orality Article

Africa is not only an honour-shame emphasis culture but also a continent which is traditionally and currently greatly dominated by oral communication above written communication.

The question I asked myself was one of how does this orality factor impact how the dynamics of honour and shame function? 

My Article about this issue has recently been published in the Orality Journal under the title of "Orality and Honour/Shame Interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for Discipleship"

I truly believe the interplay of Orality emphasis with an honour-shame emphasis is significant.  As we understand it more, we can also be better at recognising the issues that need to be addressed in a person's life and in the life of the church in the course of discipleship.

Honour/Shame and Oral Learning - Part 2

Continuing on from Part 1 in the previous blogpost  about how honour/shame interstects with issues associated with Oral learning......

Maybe we could say there are three 'levels' of orality: -

1. Those who are comfortable with printed literature as a primary source of education and ongoing learning and would see oral learning as secondary (essentially most of the Western World), 
2. Those who have a significant mix of both (Westerners who find reading difficult or don't like reading and gain significant knowledge through audio/video media and personal interactions, and those in the Two Thirds World who have school and even tertiary education and have access to ample printed media and who like to read) and
3. Those who are totally or almost totally oral learners (Westerners who can't read or don't like reading, and those in the TTW who have had little or no schooling and either can't or don't read and have essentially no access to printed matter).

- those in the middle category, though they may be able to read, many still prefer oral learning methods.

As we have read and discussed with others in the Education field within the honour/shame contexts of Africa that there are other ramifications of the orality and honour/shame mix, which are not immediately recognisable, but which do have a very real ripple effect.  

You see, as we look at life around us, the oral learning dynamic combined with the honor/shame dynamic seems to mean that knowledge is not seen as a life-long discovery of knowledge that is infinite (ie for us as Christians especially, knowledge has attached to it the concept of always growing in knowledge - reflecting that God is infinite and knowing Him is an ongoing never exhausted process - even in our 'secular' world more books keep being written, more discoveries made and there is always more to learn).  

It is instead seen as certain limited information that is contained in what is passed down from generation to generation and that is really all one 'needs' to know (like a cultural 'kit')- and it really is all there is to know. 

In African society in general in the 21st Century this means less innovation and creativity and seeking after knowledge in the understanding one is a continual learner.

In the church this can mean that folk are keen to 'learn' (ie copy, repeat, memorise) what they 'need' to know in order to be part of the ones accepted in the group who know the Christian 'language', with little realisation that the Bible is not there just to memorise the particular bits of 'knowledge' required to be looked on with honor in the group, but it is a wealth of life giving truth in written form, that God has revealed to be continually mined for more to enable us to grow in Christ from one degree of glory to another.....that knowledge isn't just something to attain but to continually 'grow' in. 

We see also a perspective that knowledge is not in the context of information/reality/facts already in our world and in the Scriptures because of an orderly way God created it and has revealed Himself and ready for us to learn.  Rather a cultural concept is brought into the church that the cultural elders (and in the church the Pastor), are the ones who have access to any 'extra' information needed at particular times - such as times of distress or difficulty where the cultural knowledge 'kit' seems to lack an answer.  

This extra information is also an 'after the fact' type of information...ie a person has no sense that a person may have been given 'ALL there is that pertains to life and godliness'  and it just has to be seen/understood/read, because culturally one is never privy to ALL - ie the 'kit' of knowledge is all that is given, and any other things that 'come up' along the way will be the privilege of the ancestors at their whim along the way only discernible by the witchdoctor.  

This also relates to how God has revealed to us 'ahead of time' what pleases Him so that we can 'know' that if we are prepared to study His word to know what He wants us to know.- as opposed to the cultural way in which apart from the very limited orally learnt 'kit' of knowledge, a person has no way of knowing ahead of time, all that the ancestors are going to require to be pleased.  

And to make matters worse, to ask questions about what one does not yet know is considered a massive dishonouring of the elders (who of course don't have the answers and do not want to be shown to not know) and thus dishonoring the ancestors and the cultural/tribal ways - a most shameful/sinful thing to do.  

Of course this also flows into life in the church where a person doesn't tend to 'ask' about what they don't yet know...they will only copy/repeat what the elders or Pastor of the church are saying.

It's another side-track of this same issue but Kenosi, our co-worker said how confused he was when he went to Seminary and the professor said he was going to teach them 'how' to think!  Kenosi thought that was strange as culturally you don't find out 'how' to think, but 'what' to think!  

This whole knowledge acquisition perspective of oral learners then has a flow-on of how they perceive the concept of biblical discernment and 'searching the Scriptures' to see if what they hear is true.  African churches are full of Pastors teaching their congregations 'what' to think, not 'how' to think - let alone biblically!  

And I would also add that another factor in the overlap of a mis-placed honor/shame dynamic and oral learning contexts we have noticed is that it is the witchdoctor and chief who are the ones with the most knowledge but it is kept a great secret.  Knowledge is not readily shared.  The same is true in relation to the community elders - in the 'lifetime kit' of knowledge one is supposed to 'learn', the elders must always be the ones with slightly more of the 'kit' than anyone younger.  A younger person must never have more knowledge than an older person or a person of higher status. 

The relevance of Paul instructing Timothy to not let anyone despise him (shame him) for his youth is not insignificant.  For mis-placed honor/shame culture youth, there is a freedom in Christ to not be ashamed to know something that someone older doesn't and to instruct an older person. 

Although they will still be 'shamed' by the cultural elders, the church should be a place where God's standards are paramount and everyone can learn from each other - young or old....but again if this issue is not clearly addressed, the cultural way finds itself also functioning in the church and we find church 'elders' are appointed based on their age and their secular type qualifications - Dr or Prof etc.  

There is still so much 'work' to do in relation to more careful discipleship in the honor/shame context of Africa so that the church might be demonstrating Christ.

Honour/Shame and Oral Learning

The issue of Orality and how it intersects with the dynamics of honour and shame is one of significance.

A variety of articles have come across my desk in relation to the topic and this year's Orality Conference organised by the International Orality Network chose its theme as Honour and Shame.

Honour/Shame based cultures tend to also be cultures where a significant proportion of cultural learning occurs orally.

We have recently released our "Pocket Preacher" solar audio player discipleship tool with 2 years worth of daily bible teaching, for the very purpose of reaching people who either don't have access to books, or are illiterate, or just prefer to still learn orally.  This is not to say that some cultures are not oral learners at all. We all are born with two ears and a mouth and to some degree or another, learn orally. But many people on this earth don't just learn orally alongside learning through written material, they learn best and predominantly and preferably through oral means.

This has not lessened of course with the impact of television and the internet (via computer, ipad, smart phones) across our globe, from the Kalahari Desert to New York City.

This has impact on how we teach biblical truth to those in such situations if we are going to take into account how oral learners, learn best.

Apart from a few of my own comments below, let me just first paste some links to significant articles and mention a couple of quotes from them....

The first are excepted from an article by Hannes Wiher who was a missionary in West Africa for many years and did his PhD thesis on "Shame and Guilt - A key to Cross-Cultural Ministry" but who also wrote a paper for the 2013 Orality Conference.

on Oral Preference Learning/teaching....

While shame-oriented students tend to think in a synthetic and analogical manner, guilt-oriented students present analytic thinking. While the first group will learn by copying and learning by heart, the second group will have an inductive learning and discovery approach. The former will function better in groups, while the latter prefer to learn individually. Teaching according to conscience orientation is a challenge for teachers from the other orientation. Obliging a student to function in a school system of the other conscience orientation can represent a major drawback in school performance. A main warning for teaching in shame-oriented contexts is to avoid making a student lose face. .......

on Oral Preference Leadership p10...

Shame-oriented societies tend to have hierarchical systems. In the Bible, we find the judges, prophets, priests, and kings. In Africa, the traditional chief system prevails. In India, we find the caste system. In the church within a shame-oriented context, the hierarchical system corresponds to the episcopal system. Even when there are democratic structures like committees, the whole decisional power is with the president or director. The members of the committee are the counselors, elders, or wise men in the traditional system. Before a decision, the chief can consult, but it is not compulsory for him to do so. If the elders do not agree with the chief, they are limited in the expression of critique by the norms of the shame-oriented culture. If the chief does not spontaneously consult them, they have no direct means to influence him. 

On the other hand, shame-oriented subordinates will not express their opinion when they are not consulted, even if they are heavily dissatisfied with the leader. This goes on until open rebellion creates chaos. It is therefore advisable for a leader to consult with a group of counselors before making decisions. 

Wiher 2003:295ff). 

Because shame-oriented people are sensitive to issues of power and honor, it is of importance to them who is sitting in a committee. A pastor who has become a carrier of mana through ordination ceremony will have more weight than a layperson who has little mana.2 In the animist's view, a person bestowed with a lot of mana has direct access to God's power of blessing and life. Consequently, the word or a prayer of an ordained pastor has greater importance than that of a layperson. In this example, it becomes also evident that animism is a shame-oriented system (cf.2 In the animist perspective, the concept of mana can stand for power, charisma, authority, good fortune and luck. It can be acquired through sacrificial rituals. The term has Polynesian origins and was introduced into the field of cultural anthropology by the missionary Robert Codrington in 1891. 

Criticism of subordinates should only be communicated privately. If the leader loses control, he is dishonored and shamed and conduct is equated with sin. Control of emotions is therefore a precondition for leaders. As the working community is perceived as an extended family, the leader also has the functions of a head of the family. This means showing consideration and care in critical situations. It also means showing generosity with subordinates in material and social matters. 

On the other hand, respect of the leader and his orders is the first obligation for shame-oriented subordinates. If they do not agree with an order, they are supposed to execute it and only express their opinion after that, in private. A discussion engaged directly after the order, before its execution, is seen as refusal and shames the leader. 

Guilt-oriented societies will tend to an egalitarian system with a low-key hierarchy or no hierarchy at all. The leader will be measured at correctness, punctuality, competences and efficiency. Criticism of leadership will be current and open. A pastor cannot hide behind his special access to God through ordination. He will rather have to prove his capacities in preaching, management, and counseling. 

Consequently, cross-cultural leadership has to take into account culture and personality differences according to conscience orientation. 

(for those reading this blog who are interested to read further on the issue of Cross-Cultural Leadership, I recommend also "Leading Across Cultures" by Dr James Plueddemann published by IVP)

The next ones both come from the latest issue of the Orality Journal

In the excellent Editorial, Samuel Chiang talks about the influence of technology on our lives and makes the comment: 

Previously our worldview was determined by our parents, with a sense

of guilt-innocence (rule-centric), which flowed from the authority of the

Word of God, and is reinforced by the social network that was formed in

activities with the local parish.

Now our worldview is determined by our various family units, with

different worldviews that is digitally mediated through social networks; we

are driven less by a sense of guilt-innocence, but more so by a worldview

of shame-honor.iv Where previously we were raised by two parents, now

we are raised by a community (digital and those who are "present"). Our

code of conduct is different.

Jackson Wu asks some questions relating to how one's worldview affects what stories to tell and how, in his article

He says:

We desperately need humility to acknowledge how denominational and organizational subcultures can mislead us into "theological syncretism," whereby we confuse the gospel with our theological tradition.......

Oral cultures tend to share certain characteristics. For instance, many oral learners have an "honor-shame" worldview. By contrast, western missionaries are likely to emphasize themes like law and guilt. 

Even if the latter have good doctrine ("what" should we believe?) and strong communication skills ("how" to tell a story), a more basic problem remains. They do not speak the same "worldview language."

Therefore, missionaries may not answer the key "why" questions that matter most to oral learners.

In this paper, I will briefly answer two important "why" questions.

First, why do oral learners think the way they do? Second, why are honor and shame important for gospel ministry......

We get ahead of ourselves when we focus on good doctrine ("what?") and storying ("how?) yet neglect to consider how worldview influences the story we tell.

....I'd encourage you to read the whole article - its superb!