The Problem with Bruce Malina’s Cultural Frameworks

Dr. Melissa C. M. Tan (PhD., University of Aberdeen) wrote her doctoral dissertation on the methodology of Bruce Malina, the scholar who introduced honor-shame, patronage, and related anthropological categories to New Testament studies and even missiology.

Forty-five years have passed since the publication of Bruce Malina’s watershed book The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural-Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981). In collaboration with a group of scholars known as the Context Group, Malina pioneered the use of analytical frameworks from the social sciences for reading the biblical text. This paved the way for interdisciplinary approaches to biblical interpretation today. His works are still being cited and recommended for reading in seminaries and theological training institutions. Malina’s impact still lingers.

However, the field of biblical studies has now moved on from Malina’s frameworks. In part, the sub-discipline of social scientific approaches to biblical interpretation is now more topic-based than methodology-based. But also, there is increasing critical awareness of the issues with Malina’s approach, from oversimplicity and monolithic generalizations, to ethnocentrism and anachronism.

A problematic aspect of Malina’s scholarship lies in his own ethnocentric, individualistic perspective, which tacitly influences the foundation of his cultural frameworks, such as honor-shame, and limited good. This is made clear from Malina’s introduction to his chapter on honor-shame. In his opening paragraph, he paints a generalized, abstract picture of two groups of people who encounter each other in a desert for the first time. Their first action is to draw lines in the sand to define which side belongs to each group. Even when the wind blows to blur the lines, the people act as though the lines were still there. He continues to explain the role of these lines in constructing meaning, and defining individuals and groups from each other, saying “We are all born into systems of lines that mark off nearly all our experience” (NT World, 27). Notably, Malina does not specify which culture this picture is describing, implying it applies to all types of cultures. While the existence of social boundary lines is universal, the nature of these lines—that they are solid lines—and the preoccupation with them are not universal. In fact, they revolve around an individualistic concern for the self and personal agency. Such preoccupations are less of a concern in collectivistic cultures.

In Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, Malina describes collectivistic cultures in a manner influenced by his individualistic perspective. He describes them as “attempting to be self-contained, to win out over its competitors, to defend its gains, and to consolidate its holdings” and with a strong concern about “maintaining social boundaries” (p. 38). He does acknowledge the existence of social groups with porous lines, but because of their porousness, they are susceptible to attack from “informers,” “spies,” or “deviants.” This harsh assessment of social boundary lines reflects individualistic values such as privacy and personal agency, over community care and social harmony.

Malina bases his honor-shame framework on this foundational understanding of the self and group. He says, “Now, in the first-century Mediterranean world, every social interaction that takes place outside one’s family or outside one’s circle of friends is perceived as a challenge to honor, a mutual attempt to acquire honor from one’s social equal” (NT World, 36). Malina’s inclusion of the term every, exposes his individualistic assumption of solid boundary lines in collectivistic cultures. In reality, social interactions in collectivistic cultures are more varied, heavily dependent on the context of the interaction and the people involved.

Malina also applies a strict understanding of social groups to the concept of limited good. According to Malina, within this social system of limited goods in the agrarian context of the Mediterranean, any improvement in a person’s resources or social position would naturally be viewed as a “threat to the entire community” (NT World, 89). In essence, Malina views this vying for limited goods to be a competitive zero-sum game. He assumes any negotiation for resources will be a zero-sum game between two parties. But in collectivistic cultures, the reality is more complicated and nuanced. At first glance, a negotiation may appear to be between just two parties, but in reality, it may be between more than two parties that are interconnected through complex social relationships. This can result in a positive-sum result, with an amicable agreement that benefits all parties, not just one.

In sum, Malina’s tacit individualistic perspective is particularly problematic because it was so invisible to the scholar himself. It influenced his scholarship undetected and unfettered. Unfortunately, even subsequent scholars who built upon Malina’s frameworks still contain traces of this individualistic thought and perspective in their scholarship.

Honor-shame is still a valid, valuable cultural concept in biblical interpretation and missiology. But the issues with Malina’s approach serve as a lesson and reminder for us all. For example, here are a few positive suggestions. One, remember that models and frameworks are like a map for guidance (not the reality itself), so hold them loosely. Two, consider positionality. Self-critical awareness of your own cultural location and values is part of responsible interpretation. Three, draw on richer comparative data. Ethnographic research from living collectivistic cultures in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia can ground our social models in realities that are more textured than abstract constructs formed by Western academics.

As the first to open the door, Malina charged through it boldly, and perhaps a bit recklessly. Now that it has been opened, may we walk through it with greater awareness and insight.

For more by Tan, see “A Close, Critical Reading of the Original Model of Honor-Shame from Bruce Malina,” in Minds, Bodies, and Power: Rethinking Social Scientific Approaches to the Bible, eds., Rosanne Liebermann and Marianne Bjelland Kartzow (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, forthcoming); “How Might Positionality Be Used in Biblical Studies? Philippians 1:27–2:4 as an Example,” Religions 15, no. 6 (2024) 638.