To start off here, honour and shame will be very hard to understand for someone who isn't already adjacent to, or substantial within it. The usual maladaptive culprits for this will be Westerners, who very often treat people of "collectivistic" cultures very poorly. This explains why, for instance, it is a common phenomenon for a first-time Japanese tourist coming to America to be utterly baffled at the arrogance presented to them by most people around. The sheer directness can be upsetting, sure, but there are several-many other aspects that make the experience so jarring. As a person born and grown up in America, even I still feel this exact experience. Thus, if you are a bad fit for social cohesion here, we're going to know. But as long as you'd like to learn, here are some basics of Honour Culture:
From "How the Three Worldviews Interact", it is stated that these differences in cultural aspects "permeate every aspect of life --- social, spiritual, and career goals." This should be taken as a precedent for all cultural values outlined.
Describing further on the disparity between Western and "Eastern" culture, they say:
"In many societies that see things primarily through an Innocence/Guilt (Western) lens, what is "honourable" is whatever follows the letter and spirit of the law. People from this culture can find it hard to understand the diverse range of things that can fall under honour and shame in other cultures.
Honour/Shame societies can find it difficult to correctly interpret the actions of people from Innocence/Guilt societies, who often display behaviours that bring shame to themselves or to their colleagues without realizing that they have done so."
So, if it was not apparent enough that these two cultures are widely set-apart from one-another and do not often get along well, it's time we focus on what actually makes a culture based on honour/shame principles.
The #1 thing that makes an Honour Culture is social cohesion, that Western societies do not have in... any capacity, I determine. Around most Western types, if you were to ask simple questions like "what should I do", or even "what is my purpose", they will nearly always flounder at any ability to actually give you a certain, or even convincing answer. It's as if they could care less. Because they don't. Common Western answers will include: "Why are you asking me that?", and "Do whatever you want to!".
Despite their rhetorics for sounding inclusive, saying "do whatever you want", making these types of statements accompanied by no other direction is exactly how you take a lost person to start with, and then proceed to leave them lost and alone to figure themself or their life out, afterwards. Ironically, it is doing the exact opposite of getting a person to do "whatever they wish for". Striving for it. This is a major component of how people in strongly Western nations will commonly be affected by the malaise of stunlock. Stunlock is often known as when we feel incapable of doing anything, simply because there are either:
A) Too many options.
B) Too much overpowering stimulus.
I won't be covering B as much here, but it should be clear for anyone to observe how having "literally infinite options" to work with absolutely CONSTRAINS the working brain of the person being told they have so many options! Westerners often like to find and overvalue their own opinions on... literally anything, simply because it is an easy, socially-accepted way to express themself and do anything at all. But again, it's not cohesive.
So what is cohesion? What makes it so powerful, and how do we identify it or its principles?
The level of social cohesiveness I am describing is often entitled "collectivist culture", but I simply loathe the notion that the opposite should be called "individualist culture"... In my book, call it what it is. Individual malaise on a societal level.
Collective culture is often described in a way completely foreign to the Western mindset. If you don't immediately get it, you might need some additional steps of getting there, like reading about other cultural components discussed here, or perhaps by the hands of philosophers who make it clear this "individualism" is not quite "individual". Good examples include Noam Chomsky and Max Stirner, in my humble opinion.
Without any further asides, collective culture surrounds having an internal identity that is more constructed by outer forces than inner ones. Specifically, of course, a group, or collective; tribe, even. In a collectivist culture, having a belonging somewhere is one of the most necessary components for stable life. Thus, Honour Culture will supplementarily value things like family, loyalty, close community, and even mutual respect or hospitality, VERY highly, as all of these components allow for more certain senses of belonging. Here, I value constructed families, and I expect that to be a popular scope by those interested in our community in the first place.
Once a person of Honour Culture has a sense of belonging, this begins to build larger senses of their identity, upper or lower purposes in life, or their social systems they are exposed to, and so they will value this ultimate belonging very seriously. This is what constructs the importance of "honour" (dignity, face, reputation, value, or even prestige), and also "shame" (something that can necessitate complete shunning, exiling of the person, or acts of retribution, in severe cases.) These are evidently, very serious rewards, and very serious punishments, potential for simply the ways you act.
This way, there is an unbreakable dynamic created by a social system or group that doesn't just support these values, but acts with concordance to them. People who are part of honour cultures. Your worth, your sense of meaning, everything you have can be judged by this society.
At the end of the day, being "prosocial" is a lot easier in an honour society, as everyone in a proper group and setting will simply understand one-another, no need for explanation. People click, get along, and get along very well, in fact. You wouldn't get that in a Western society unless if free bribes were on the table for doing so. The only place I've ever partially witnessed it is free seminars. (Maybe because of the intelligence?...)
It is normal to disobey rules to be more noble and honourable in a pressing situation. In fact, one common occurrence in collectivist societies is terribly named "honour battles". Or, in other words, you will be expected to defend your honour if someone happens to attack you. The whole point of Harmony Central is in the name, and so, we hope to avoid this. But it also re-emphasizes our high evaluation of purity, loyalty, and complete cohesion (assimilation). This is not a unique idea to Harmony Central, but we are otherwise one-of-a-kind, of course.
If someone were to offend your cultural purity (if you have it), disrespect your family, or essentially cast shame upon what makes up your social identity and purpose, yes, you are supposed to be outraged. The point, however, is not to win. You cast your outrage in the form of revenge of some sort. Say, shaming the person in return. This does not require insultation at all. Everything in Honour Culture is way more acute to your actions. People will pick up on everything, potentially. And so, you could simply disrespect the person by responding with defending your family, your background, or whatever they have attempted to cast shame unto. You can say how invaluable it is; explaining why they should realize that they are incorrect. These are high-stakes interactions, you know. These kinds of things can even form friendships, somewhat similar to how things tend to work in the hood. In general, people with strong mindsets from those bottom-barrel areas will get a lot of principles of Honour Culture more instinctively, because they tend to apply more in those settings. I'm not sure why. But I sure appreciate the distancing from how the rest of society surrounding me acts. Although, things in Western society will ultimately, usually, always come back to being delimited by "right" and "wrong". Honour Culture does not have these principles, in its purest form. It, instead, has... once again, honour, and shame. Is this opinionated? No. It is actually a far less opinionated system on average, than Western Culture. I can pay respects to things that I don't even believe in, or I think are even very incorrect ways of life. It's usually seen as arrogant if you stand on a hill about everything you believe in. Which is what a strongly influenced Westerner today would do. They will only pay respects to what they personally believe is right; hence importance on "innocence" and "guilt". "Right" and "wrong". They are more judgemental, more intrusive, more uncaring, and more opinionated. That is exactly why they come off so arrogantly to the rest of us. It's very simple when you see both ends of the spectrum, finally, clearly, I believe.
To finish off this long section, "Foreign to Familiar: A Guide to Understanding Hot - And Cold - Climate Cultures" seems to go over the following ascribed traits/mindset beliefs of a person strongly ingrained in collectivist culture. Some of these will be expanded upon more in the section on Amae (understanding the virtues and sweetness of interdependence):
"-Group protects and provides for me.
-Taking initiative within a group can be greatly determined by my role.
-I do not expect to have to stand alone.
-My behaviour reflects on the whole group.
-Team members expect direction from the leader.
-Hospitality is spontaneous, often without an advance invitation.
-It is the context for relationships (even business relationships).
-Host fully takes care of the needs of the guest; and the guest pays for nothing. (I don't personally care as much for this one.)
-A gift is usually expected.
-Food and drink are involved.
-Travelers are always taken in and provided for."
So, in other senses, the first half tend to relate strongly to Amae-based concepts that I will be covering for you in a later section, and the ladder half of the points seem to have to do with the levels of hospitality and respect commonly expected in Honour Cultures. Yes, in fact, it can likely seem overbearing, "unnecessary" (which is callous as hell), or even just as if you're leaving yourself as a doormat to others to abuse (somewhat like 'totally servile'), to a Western audience. In collectivist society, however? This is normal. It is pretty much the definition of sanity. To go without these types of principles of hospitality, respect, generosity, or etcetera, would be simply unthinkable. As I stated, it is callous as hell to not implore and explore in many more lives we could be (and are) affecting. Thus, this completes my explanation of the point of Honour and Shame Culture.