The Onus of Honour

What does “honour” truly mean, and how do we regain it once it’s lost? Stephen Shaw delves into the complexities of honourable resolutions, especially in close-knit communities, where reputation matters deeply. Join this insightful read to discover the challenges faced by wronged parties and the delicate balance between financial settlements and restoring honour in today’s competitive world.

BY STEPHEN SHAW

What exactly is ‘honour’, & once lost, how easily might it be restored? Stephen Shaw discusses the challenges of resolution for a wronged party

British society is shot through with the idea of honour. We talk of ‘doing the honourable thing’. Members of Parliament are referred to as ‘Honourable’, Cabinet Ministers as ‘Right Honourable’. Knights of old would indulge in a duel to the death to uphold their honour. Better to die honourably than live dishonoured.

The law especially places a heavy emphasis on honour. The four Inns of Court are all ‘Honourable Societies’. Circuit judges are addressed as ‘Your Honour’. To be ‘an honourable person’ is the aspiration of all who wish to be respected and upstanding in society.

But what exactly is ‘honour’? If you research the dictionary definitions, synonyms like ‘respect’, ‘admiration’, ‘respectable’, ‘proper’ and ‘right’ tend to crop up. At the Bar, for me, behaving honourably meant, essentially, being honest. You cannot honourably withhold a document that should have been disclosed; you cannot tell your opponent that you will not be taking a particular point, and then take it. You cannot honourably mislead the court.

Winner takes all?

There is a particular dimension of honour which sometimes features during mediations. In close-knit communities, whether cultural, religious or social, news of a bust-up gets around. If businesspeople have fallen out over a deal, especially a valuable one, people tend to know about it. If one landowner, be it in a rural or urban area, has allegedly built over or encroached onto an adjoining owner’s land, it often becomes common knowledge quite quickly. Sometimes, regrettably, one side will deliberately publicise the dispute, in order to garner local support or to gloat at how they have been able to gain the advantage. In the post-Trump world, honourability is tantamount to being a ‘loser.’ ‘Winning’ is everything. People, however unfortunately, might admire the opportunist who has seized the moment or exploited a chance, putting ‘honour’ second and ‘winning’ first.

I think most mediators will recognise this scenario, and know that it presents special challenges, if a resolution of the dispute is to be achieved. For the party who sees him or herself as having been wronged, quite apart from the financial loss (which, one way or another, is generally soluble), there is the overwhelming sense of humiliation or shame—shame in the community, or in the immediate corporate sphere. Worst of all is the self-loathing that comes from having allowed oneself to be so duped or exploited. And maybe there was no real duping or exploitation. Maybe one simply, in hindsight, was careless, or made a bad deal. How can one possibly admit that to oneself? Whatever the position, that party has been made to look like a monkey, or harder still, has allowed that impression to be gained.

Once in that corner, how do you get out? Often, a money payment will not suffice. There is still the ‘dishonour’ to be dealt with. But how? There is a parable of a slanderer, repenting of his evil gossip, who consults a local sage for advice as to how he can make good. The sage advises him to fill a sack with chicken feathers, and climb to the top of a local hill on a windy day. There he should empty out the feathers into the wind. ‘And then?’ says the hopeful penitent. ‘Then,’ says the sage, ‘you should go and collect each feather.’ ‘But you must know, that is impossible!’ says the distraught man. ‘So it is, with evil talk,’ says the sage, ‘impossible to take back that which has been said.’

Feathers in the wind

These cases are not insoluble, but they are hard. They are hard, because the perceived wronged party enters the mediation without any real negotiation strategy at all. What must happen, as they see it, is that there must be a complete return to the ‘status quo ante.’ Nothing less will do. But usually this is no longer possible. The funds have been distributed elsewhere. The building has been built. Third-party interests are now involved.

As with most cases, unless the parties are oligarchs for whom costs and other considerations are irrelevant, these disputes will eventually settle—but it may take two or three cracks at it. The restoration of some degree of honour, however commercial the dispute, is a factor not to be ignored—but challenging in the extreme.

After all, the feathers are blowing in the wind.

This article was first published in the New Law Journal.