Shame killing

The definition contains an argument about naming and a full mechanism. Honour killing is named as a euphemism, and Marsh's reason is structural rather than delicate, since honour is hierarchical approval awarded from the endo-ideal and what is actually being acted on is shame arriving from above. The chain is precise. A transcendental endo-ideal or endogroup assigns shame to a lower one, that lower endo-ideal or endogroup is sublated and holds shame it cannot discharge upward, and the shame is eradicated by killing the negative image within it. So the killing is a disposal performed by somebody who has themselves been shamed, which is why the definition specifies a sublated endo-ideal rather than a powerful one. The energy account runs alongside. Shame killings are a form of anima extraction just as ritual killings are, with the same goal of transferring power to the killers in order to remedy a depletion or meet an increased requirement, and like other shunning they restore standing at somebody else's cost. Marsh describes what the accusation typically consists of, since the statement of guilt alludes to no act the person committed but to shame that has arrived and which they, as the guilt holder, must be punished for, and the statement functions as an incantation effecting the transfer rather than as a description.

Honour killing is the standard term in law, journalism and much of the research literature, and criminology situates it within honour cultures where family reputation depends on the conduct of women. The euphemism has been widely criticized by activists and by some scholars, with shame killing and femicide both proposed as replacements, so Marsh's terminological objection is shared. Where her account differs is in the direction of the mechanism, since the standard reading has a family defending its standing in a community, and hers has a shamed party disposing of shame received from above, which predicts that the practice intensifies where the killing group is itself subordinated.