Mores (/ˈmɔːreɪz/, sometimes/ˈmɔːriːz/;[1] from Latin mōrēs[ˈmoːreːs], plural form of singularmōs, meaning "manner, custom, usage, or habit") aresocial norms that are widely observed within a particular society or culture.[2] Mores determine what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable within any given culture. Afolkway is what is created through interaction and that process is what organizes interactions through routine, repetition, habit and consistency.[3]
William Graham Sumner (1840–1910), an earlyU.S.sociologist, introduced both the terms "mores" (1898)[4]and "folkways" (1906) into modern sociology.[5][6]
Mores are strict in the sense that they determine the difference between right and wrong in a given society, and people may be punished for their immorality which is common place in many societies in the world, at times with disapproval or ostracizing. Examples of mores include traditional prohibitions onlying,cheating,causing harm,alcohol use,drug use,marriage beliefs,gossip,slander,jealousy, disgracing or disrespectingparents, refusal to attend afuneral,politically incorrect humor, sports cheating,vandalism,leaving trash,plagiarism,bribery,corruption,saving face, respecting your elders,religious prescriptions andfiduciary responsibility.[7]
Folkways are ways of thinking, acting and behaving in social groups which are agreed upon by the masses and are useful for the ordering of society. Folkways are spread through imitation, oral means or observation, and are meant to encompass the material, spiritual and verbal aspects of culture.[8] Folkways meet the problems of social life; we feel security and order from their acceptance and application.[9] Examples of folkways include:acceptable dress,manners,social etiquette,body language, posture,level of privacy,working hours and five day work week, acceptability ofsocial drinking—abstaining or not from drinking during certain working hours, actions and behaviours inpublic places,school,university,business andreligious institution,ceremonial situations,ritual, customary services and keepingpersonal space.[10]
The English wordmorality comes from the same Latin root "mōrēs", as does the English nounmoral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality. Rather, morality can be seen as a subset of mores, held to be of central importance in view of their content, and often formalized into some kind ofmoral code or even intocustomary law. Etymological derivations includeMore danico,More judaico,More veneto,Coitus more ferarum, andO tempora, o mores!.
The Greek terms equivalent to Latinmores areethos (ἔθος, ἦθος, 'character') ornomos (νόμος, 'law'). As with the relation ofmores tomorality,ethos is the basis of the termethics, whilenomos gives the suffix-onomy, as inastronomy.
The meaning of all these terms extend to all customs of proper behavior in a given society, both religious and profane, from more trivialconventional aspects ofcustom,etiquette orpoliteness—"folkways" enforced by gentlesocial pressure, but going beyond mere "folkways" or conventions in includingmoral codes and notions ofjustice—down to stricttaboos, behavior that is unthinkable within the society in question, very commonly includingincest andmurder, but also the commitment of outrages specific to the individual society such asblasphemy. Such religious or sacral customs may vary. Some examples includefunerary services,matrimonial services;circumcision andcovering of the hair in Judaism, ChristianTen Commandments,New Commandment and thesacraments or for examplebaptism, andProtestant work ethic,Shahada,prayer,alms,the fast andthe pilgrimage as well asmodesty in Islam, andreligious diet.
Whilecultural universals are by definition part of themores of every society (hence also called "empty universals"), the customary norms specific to a given society are a defining aspect of thecultural identity of anethnicity or anation. Coping with the differences between two sets of cultural conventions is a question ofintercultural competence.
Differences in themores of various nations are at the root ofethnic stereotype, or in the case of reflection upon one's ownmores, autostereotypes.
The customary norms in a given society may includeindigenous land rights[dubious –discuss],honour,filial piety,customary law and thecustomary international law that affects countries who may not have codified their customary norms. Land rights of indigenous peoples is under customary land tenure, its a system of arrangement in-line with customs and norms.[citation needed] This is the case in colonies. An example of a norm is a culture of honor exists in some societies, where thefamily is viewed as the main source of honor and the conduct of family members reflects upon theirfamily honor. For instance some writers say in Rome to have an honorable stance, to be equals with someone, existed for those who are most similar to one another (family and friends) this could be due to the competing for public recognition and therefore for personal and public honor, over rhetoric, sport, war, wealth and virtue.[11] To protrude, stand out, be recognized and demonstrate this "A Roman could win such a "competition" by pointing to past evidences of their honor" and "Or, a critic might be refuted by one's performance in a fresh showdown in which one's bona fides could be plainly demonstrated."[12] Honor culture only can exist if the society has for males the shared code, a standard to uphold, guidelines and rules to follow, do not want to break those rules and how to interact successfully and to engage, this exists within a "closed" community of equals.[13]
Filial piety is ethics towards one's family, as Fung Yu-lan states "the ideological basis for traditional [Chinese] society" and according to Confucious repay a burden debt back to ones parents or caregiver but its also traditional in another sense so as to fulfill an obligation to ones own ancestors, also to modern scholars it suggests extends an attitude of respect to superiors also, who are deserving to have that respect.[14][15][16]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)Rome was thus not only an honor culture, but a contest culture... Romans competed both with the living and the dead. They strove to not only live up to the good name of their ancestors, but to surpass them in glory. And while we moderns think it gauche to compete with one's family and friends, the Romans thought these peers made the best fellow competitors, for they were equals with whom one shared the most in common... Romans competed over who was most skilled and excellent in rhetoric, in sports, in war, in wealth, and in virtue — particularly the defining quality of manhood: courage... The Roman legionary strove not only for personal honor, but for public recognition; ancient Rome offered many different awards and commendations, and soldiers competed strenuously for them all.
A Roman could win such a "competition" by pointing to past evidences of their honor; this was a culture in which politicians shamed political opponents or bolstered the credibility of their own arguments by tearing open their tunic to reveal scars earned in defense of the republic. Or, a critic might be refuted by one's performance in a fresh showdown in which one's bona fides could be plainly demonstrated.
An honor culture can only function in a society in which there is a shared code - clear rules, standards and expectations for interaction and engagement - and within a closed community of equals.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
