Skip Navigation
Daystrom Institute @startrek.website Jestersage @startrek.website

Klingon “Honor” itself is a mistranslation (both in universe and meta)

小嘛小兒郎, 背著那書包上學堂 (Little, Little boy, carrying that bag to school)
不怕太陽曬, 也不怕那風雨狂 (fear not of burning sun, nor fear that crazy storm)
只怕先生罵我懶嗎, (but fear the teacher scold me lazy)
沒有學問 – 無臉見爹娘 (Being unlearned – no “lian”/face to face parents)
小嘛小兒郎, 背著那書包上學堂, (Little, Little boy, carrying that bag to school)
不是為做官, 也不是為面子光, (Not to be an official, or for one’s own “mianzi”/face)
只為做人要爭氣呀, (Just that a person must be determined not to fall short)
不受人欺負，也不做牛和羊 (Not to be bullied, nor to work like a draft animal)
(Classical children song “Du Shu Lang”/”Little School Boy”, Paula Tsui version)

富貴不歸故鄉，如衣繡夜行，誰知之者! When one who made his wealth doesn’t return home, he may as well wear glamorous clothing in the middle of the night, who would notice that!
人言楚人沐猴而冠耳，果然 I heard the Lord of Chu is like an anxious monkey wearing a crown, and I was right.
– <Shi’ji, Record of Xiang’yu>

Introduction

One of the common argument and complaint regarding Klingon honor is that, from the perspective of Human concept of honor, they are NOT honorable. Instead, they use cloaking, ambushes, to achieve victory above all. Instead of escape, they will rather suicide; they will do honor killings. They will attack and even murder the defenseless. In politics, Klingon’s politics is dirty to a fault.

Now, many already realized that perhaps we are too human centric. Some believe that Klingon are focus on duty, and that they refuse to accept failures. Another, which I think is approaching my proposal ( https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/gswny9/klingon_honor_is_nothing_of_the_sort_it_is/) , is that it’s likely related to reputation. Others attempt to square the stated that for them, To fail is to forfeit duty, thus dishonor.

However, what if I tell you that some group of humans may still utilize “Honor” that is extremely similar to that of Klingon? On a meta level, most know that Klingon was made into "Samurai in Space", thus also borrow some aspect from the alleged Samurai culture, include the honor suppose to be practice by Samurais. However, if you actually know about it, it is not honor. In fact, it is far closer to the concept known as “faces” in Chinese.

In short, the meta mistranslation of "faces" into "honor" yields the seemingly contradictory nature of Klingon honor

What is Face

「面子」，是我們在談話裡常常聽到的，因為好像一聽就懂，所以細想的人大約不很多。-- 魯迅, 說「面子」, 1934 (“Faces” is something we often hear in conversation; since it seems like something we instantly got when we heard the word, only small amount of people actually think about it in detail – Lu’Xun, About “Faces”, 1934)

Now I am not saying I know Faces – I am a not born in Mainland, and thus is already influenced by some western concept; and some authors seperate lian(臉) and mianzi 面子, which we don’t in where I lived (for both faces and “Faces”); but even at that place, “face” still affect whether a woman in 1970s will cancel a marriage, despite knowing her future spouse is bad. Nor do I say honor/glory doesn’t exist in Chinese – it does, as 榮譽, for example. However, to my understanding, it is always in terms of the Face. And even if I try to translate Face to dignity or reputation, I fear I will fall into pitfall that gave us “face as honor”.

So let’s look at a Chinese dictionary: Specifically, that of Taiwan Ministry of Education (dict.revised.moe.edu.tw), which also shows they treat “Lian” and “Mianzi” the same. Thus, for our discussion, we will only talk about 面子/Faces.

  • 面子. Intepretation: 體面 (身分、體統、格局、規模 - )、名譽 (the name, reputation)、情面（情分與面子。多指私人關係) (feelings and relationships in private matters) Antonym: 實質 (substance of a person)

Okay, that seems simple. But the Revised dictionary also threw in various terms by adding suffix characters and prefix characters. Maybe that tell us more?

  • 賣面子 (sell Faces): 故意予人好處，使人感激自己 (Purposely give others benefit, so others will feel grateful of the giver of benefit)
  • 留面子 (leave faces, but can also mean “protect faces): 顧及情面，不使人難堪 (care about the situation/feelings, not to embarrass others)
  • 夠面子 (have enough face): 夠威風體面。指影響力大，所說的話別人願意聽從 (have a strong face; or more precisely speaking, have huge influence, whatever they say can cause others to follow)
  • 顧面子 (care face): 愛護自己的聲名或榮譽 (Love and care their own reputation). The example usage is “為了顧面子，他不惜犧牲一切。” (In order to “care faces”, he will sacrifice everything). If you read it in Chinese, it has negative connotation.

While some words can be translate as honor and glory, it works just as well as prestige, dignity, reputation. Regardless, it’s based on appearance. Or simply put: Face is related to but is not honor, glory, dignity; to translate it as simply is wrong. Based on my observation, in western concept, there is an implication of those words being related to the substance/character of the person. In Chinese at least, the implication of substance is not as strong, and for the most part can be seen just focus on the appearance; something that can be quantify by points, by money, by profit, by amount of supporters, etc. Prestige and reputation seems better suited, at least with 2020s vocab.

I started this article with a song that is taught to children. Written in 1945, when I first heard it as a kid, the message I got is why it’s important to study. But when I was thinking of how maybe Klingon’s Honor is actually “Faces”, I can’t help but to recall the song – and realize that the parallel message of the song is about the importance of faces – as the fourth line indicate, one who is unlearned has no “face” to face their parents. Then at the second half, while they claim it’s not actually about faces (sixth line), the seventh line explain why one must be learned: there’s the version as stated above, which stated one must be 爭氣. I translate it as “falling short”, but it can just be valid as “ambitious”, “fighting for prestige”, or even “showing weakness”. An earlier record even use “A poor person must turn [their life] around“（只爲窮人要翻身), which has similar meaning in that context. Factor in the last line of not being bullied, I can’t help but to recall another Chinese idiom: 成者為首，不成者為尾， “Those that succeed are those at the top; those that are not successful are at the bottom.” That evolve to 成者為王，敗者為寇 (Those who succeed are kings, those who failed are criminals)

Therefore, it can be seen that being “on top” is synonym to victory, and that’s when one will have “faces”. Or reword it: “Nothing is more than being face-full than being on top and having victory”. And this is my personal understanding of “Face”: “be the winner”.

Perhaps, then Klingon Honor is indeed as Worf stated “Nothing is more honorable than victory” – it only sound contradictory is one translate the Klingon’s concept to “honor”, instead of eastern concept of “faces”

A True Worthy Face

The only problem is that there are ways to think of “Victory” – and thus “Faces” even within Chinese history, and is in fact best examplified by Chu-Han Contention. Now do keep in mind that many of the description of that era is written by official of Han dynasty, so as historical documents they are questionable; but as morality stories they may not be entirely wrong. Xiang’Yu of Chu exemplify the appearance victory, and thus he focused upon an on-the-surface Face. Liu’Bang of Han, meanwhile examplify the true victory and thus Faces. This can be seen during the Feast of Hongmen, which shows Xiang’Yu do a lot of posturing, while Liu’Bang just take it humbly and not part take the various rituals. Yet in the end Liu’Bang became the Han Emperor.

And notice the Taiwanese MoE Dictionary actually treat the “substance of a person” as antonym to Face. In short, the Ministry of Education implies there are no merit to Face. It doesn’t sounds something honorable, because a proper honor helps build up society.

Klingon Honor is very, very close to Faces if not exactly the same.

Knowing what “face” is to the best of our ability, if we look at things that Klingon see as honorable (but dishonorable to us) from the lens of “faces”, then it will make perfect sense.

In Memory Alpha, a sentence used to talk about the ambiguity of Klingon’s Honor has some examples: “Worf indicated that it was necessary to challenge Gowron's leadership (because he was presumably acting in a dishonorable way), while General Martok was convinced that it was dishonorable to challenge the leader of the Klingon Empire in the middle of a war.”

But what if I change it from the PoV of Face when applicable?
“...General Martok was convinced it was face-losing to challenge the leader of the Klingon Empire in the middle of a war.” The “face losing” is not just for Martok; but also for Gowron, and even the entire empire. And it was the fact that there is a fight, and expose the issue of Gowron from implicit to explicit.

The above will make sense even in modern Chinese (and possibly Taiwanese) offices; even if you recognize your superior is making some stupid decision, even if everyone knows, you just don’t bring it up in the open if at all. My understanding is that it is even worse in Korea, which leads to some fatal issues such as Korean Air Flight 801. While officially it was “poor communication”, it is likely that the NTSB knows that the Korean culture (even more Face-concerning) affect why the crew didn’t challenge the captain, but choose not to wade into offending someone’s else culture. Ironically, this is an act that factor into face.

Another example:
When Doctor Antaak worked with Phlox to cure the Augment DNA, Antaak decided to deceive his superior and claim they actually stabilized Augment DNA and create Klingon Augments. He then claim that it will give him an honorable death for the mere fact of saving millions.

And translate it through face… well, Antaak is protecting his own face. In terms of “Face” based culture, he is someone that got a miracle. Only if discovered and failure to twist the words properly would he loses any face.

Lu’Xun, in his “About Faces”, talk of a story/myth of how, During Qing Dynasty, the westerners occasionally goes to the Mandarin’s office to ask for benefits with some threats, and the Mandarins just affirm it – but the Mandarins always sent them away through the side door instead of the main gate, as this will indicate the western does not have face, thus the Mandarin/China have face and thus have is in a superior benefit.

Who actually sees the westerner goes in and threaten the Qing Officials? Maybe they are just come in half-bowed and begged for benefit! It’s all about appearance and twisting of words – hence, even Lu’Xun say it may not be entirely true, and it’s precisely such unknown truth that provided him a good example of illustrating face.

Western Honor Fights Corruption; Faces don’t care or even help Corruption

Eastern Relationships, for the most part, is more toward internal. Between superior and underlings; between husband and wife; between the parents and children (三綱、五倫). Nowhere does it talk about outside of your state, except as the last step – to illuminate (ie: Conquer) everything “tian’xia” – the entire world. “Faces” is developed based on this. So just in that light alone, “Faces” doesn’t matter if you are facing a foreigner, even if they are not outright enemy.

So in that light, if one consider cloaking as an example of Kilingon false honor, It definitely does not make them lose face – it’s against an enemy. Heck, it is definitely face worthy, because they managed to trick the enemy.

Now being a someone not from Mainland that now lives in an English-speaking nation, it’s very difficult for me to even tie cheating to “Faces” in a positive way. The only way I can even square both together is that cheating, tricky, and scheming is only face-losing if caught. If not caught, it showed someone has intelligence, and thus actually increase faces. In Chinese mythology, humanity gets to build houses on Earth instead of living in caves because someone managed to trick a Tai’Shui deity. During the Three Kingdoms era, many generals and leaders, from Cao Cao and Kongming, is known to use schemes and tricks and smoke and mirrors, not just toward their enemy, but toward subjects that think of themselves too much.

A classic Chinese example of how failure to understand Face is the story of Kong Rong - a descendent of Confucius and example of “good kid” in Three Character Classic. He was known as someone who serve justice, and thus always fought against Cao Cao when he is an adult. In the end, Cao Cao place him under various false charges and executed his immediate family. The story was taught to show the importance of ensuring your superior’s faces.

In fact, if you think about it, Protecting “Faces” can even require “dishonorable” actions, and thus, acts that is “face worthy” helps corruption. Cao Cao’s face-loving act likely only left people who schemes just as well, and his descendant ended up losing the Wei throne to Sima Zhao. Sounds like a certain empire, doesn’t it?

And in case people were wondering about the numerous game cheaters from Mainland (for our purpose of discussing face, Klingon Honor, and cloaking): I shrugged.

Eastern Faces/Honor vs Western Honor

I consider the issue regarding the so-called contradictory nature of “Klingon Honor” comes from anchoring it around western concept of “honor”.

In my point of view, western concept of honor ties to not just the substance/character of the person, but also “Justice” (whether that is properly executed is a different manner). However, I dare say that eastern concept of Faces is based upon appearance for the most part. It may related to justice depend on situation, but can be easily seperated from Justice, unless Justice determine whether they are viewed as “correct”… which for the most part, comes from Strength.

Book of Rites, one of the Confucian canons, actually recorded “Pitch Pot”, a game. Analysis indicated that it was more about the ritual of gifter-gifting-gifts while receiver-refuse-gift, doing it back and forth three times, to show that neither the gifter nor the receiver are stingy. That being said, from my own point of view, just feel like falsehood for the sake of performance – yet it is consider good back then.

So if we take the assumption that Klingon’s Honor share way more similarity to Faces than Western Honor, Klingon “Honorable” action – or properly saying, “face saving” “face loving” “face earning” make sense and has no contradictory.

Now recall I mentioned earlier that “Face” is commonly tied with “successful”. Now recall that while Qapla is used as a greeting, its literal meaning is “success” – another aspect tied to the Traditional Chinese Face-focused culture.

In fact, I recall in Star Trek Klingon, when Gowron need to pay for a song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2F1X3Guiv8), the proper action is throw a chair, which allows Gowron pay for the damaged chair (and the song). If we think of it in terms of “faces”, it will actually make sense (the general concept, I mean - I will acertain no Chinese will throw a chair just to pay for something)

The only difference is that Klingon is said to be Samurai in space, but I wonder: while we Chinese definitely focus on “face” more than modern Japanese, I will say, with no evidence, that Traditional Japanese (especially pre Meiji) are just as focused on “faces”. Japanese have the term “Read the Atmosphere” (ie: Kuukiyomi; available as a game!). It’s about how everyone should do properly, in silence, without explicit wording. I can’t help but notice that it is not similar to the aspect of dealing with “Face” in Chinese.

TL;DR:

If you understand Faces/Mianzi, you understand Klingon Honor. In that regard, you will find Klingon’s mindset on “Face” has no ambiguity, no contradiction. But even Lu Xun, a famous early 20th century author, stated simply: “但「面子」究竟是怎麼一回事呢？不想還好，一想可就覺得糊塗。” (But what is “Faces”? It’s best not to think about it; once you think about it, it gets more confusing)

Further reading on faces:

21
21 comments

  • This is similar, albeit much better written, to a theory that I posted on reddit ages ago.

    What's interesting about this is that is seems like Worf is among those who misunderstand what Klingons mean by "honor." When Worf refused to support the invasion of Cardassia, Gowron warned him that he'd lose his standing in society, he'd have nothing. Worf answered, "Except my honor." Whereas that act entailed losing, not saving "face."

    Another interesting scene was in The House of Quark, where Gowron told D'ghor, "...if you can stand here and murder this pathetic little man, then you have no honor, and you have no place in this Hall." If this theory is correct, Gowron was in a sense ceremonially stripping D'ghor of honor with that statement.

    It's possible that the answer is somewhere in-between, however. Klingon honor involves both being trusted and being trustworthy.

  • DIsclosure: Ethnic Chinese, 3rd generation born and raised in Singapore.

    First off, I do agree that “face” is a very interesting way to look at Klingon honor, and certainly from that analysis makes it more understandable. That being said, “face” is a very hard concept to explain to people who haven’t grown up in Chinese culture or experienced all the ways it can be expressed or applied.

    To try and explain it another way for those not familiar with the idea, “face” is literally the facade that one presents to the world. It’s the Insta account, the Facebook photos, the public persona that one has set up and one has earned, the persona that commands respect.

    To “give someone face” is to conduct oneself in a way that will maintain or bolster that respectable front. To “lose face” is to do or experience conduct that will erode that persona personally. To “not give someone face” is to treat that person with disrespect, or not befitting the stature of that persona.

    But it also goes beyond just a choice of giving someone face or not giving them face - sometimes because of that person’s stature it is an obligation to give them face, like if the person is your superior, socially or employment-wise. I like the example of Martok’s reticence to move against Gowron that you raise, because it helps illustrate the multi-layered and competing push and pull of face and the obligation to maintain it.

    To Worf and Martok, Gowron’s mismanagement of the Empire and the war caused the latter to lose face in their eyes, and moving against Gowron was not so much compelled by concepts of reputation but more to prevent the Empire as a whole from decaying further, and thus losing face before the galactic community.

    But if Martok moved against Gowron and did not have the proper support - because Gowron’s conduct could not overcome the sense of obligation to give the ruler of the Empire face - or worse still failed in the attempt, then he would be the one to lose face, probably fatally so given his stature in Klingon society. Martok simply didn’t want to take the risk.

    Worf also decided that Gowron’s conduct was egregious enough and could not go unanswered, but unlike Martok, having less face to lose, decided the risk was worth it for the greater good.

    I’ve never had issues with cloaking as an “honorable” tactic. As Worf said, there’s no greater honor than victory, and even Sun Tzu’s Art of War bluntly states that all warfare is based on deception. Ultimately, it’s the result that counts - if it ends in victory, how you get there matters less.

    Which is not to say that cloaking cannot be seen as a tactic that will cause you to lose face. I’m sure that when it was first used by Klingons there were Klingons who argued that it was cowardly. But once the first victories using cloaks started rolling in, it became increasingly untenable to stick to the old ways and risk annihilation. So cloaking became (grudgingly) accepted as the new way to go, and incorporated into the standard books of tactics. So over time, using cloaks per se was no longer face-losing conduct.

    • Disclaimer: I will just say that I am Ethnic Chinese and leave it at that.

      In a way, I am basically using Lemmy as a semi-rough draft before pushing to Reddit.

      Anyway, want to check: "give [someone] face", you meant "給/賞/俾面"? Because my understanding, which is affirmed by the cantonese dicitonary words.hk, is "to do something for somebody as a gesture of respect, even if one may not be very eager to do so"

      Regarding cloaking: I was probably stretching it to relate it to "Face", but felt I have to do so due to cloaking being used as common argument of stating the contradictory nature of Klingon's Honor. Now in terms of modern war, I don't think anyone will complain about cloak nowadays, so I decided to move the goal post, so to speak, and considering cheating in video games, which every gamers know it's done by mostly Mainlanders. Why they do it and don't feel they are "losing face"... well, it's tough. I am trying to guess, but even then I feel like I am grasping at straws.

      (answering StillPaisleyCat) Regarding understanding concept of Faces: I quoted Lu'Xun to illustrate the ungraspable nature of face, because IMHO, it is. Lu'Xun lived in Qing/Early Republic era, in mainland. I live is a place that is influenced heavily by western culture and modernization. Sicne this is a webpage at the west, most of us are still probably "western" in our day to day that if one actually think of Faces, it became confusing. You can feel it's related but not quite actual honor. The only difference is that we can actually observe the end results of following a Face culture, or if "fortunate" (no it's not) get to work in a Chinese environment where Faces are so important you hate it.

      Trying to find anything about Faces is problematic, because it's mostly just 3rd party observation at best and opinions at worst, regardless of whether they are from westerns who studied Chinese cultures, or those in the Sino sphere that is attempting to explain Faces - may as well stick with someone famous. In my current draft, I decided to conclude it with the last line form Lu'Xun's article on face: 中國人要「面子」，是好的，可惜的是這「面子」是「圓機活法」，善於變化，於是就和「不要臉」混起來了。長谷川如是閒說「盜泉」云：「古之君子，惡其名而不飲，今之君子，改其名而飲之。」(It’s good that Chinese want face, but unfortunately the desired “Faces” is just “Cure based on situation”, and thus mixed with “don’t want faces” – just like in regard to a spring known as “Thief’s Spring”: “Gentleman of Old days refuse to drink from it due to its bad name; Gentleman of today change its name and drink from it”)

      It's something felt, hard to explain, and in terms of how it's being practice commonly, should be chuck in deep sea with a rock.

      • Yes, I mean 给面子 (gěi miàn zi) - that’d be the Mandarin version of it, which is 俾面 (bei meen) in Cantonese. There is an element of reluctance in the definition, but it doesn’t have to be.

        The emphasis is more on the respect - it’s like if you as an XO undermine your Captain by contradicting him in front of the crew, and he takes you said and scolds you, saying, “lei deem gai moi bei wo meen” - 你为什么不要給我面子？(not sure how to write it in Cantonese, but that’s the Mandarin equivalent phrasing) “Why didn’t you want to give me face?” Where giving face can be an obligation but not necessarily reluctant in nature.

        So giving face is just about giving respect or helping maintain someone else’s face. It’s only reluctant in certain contexts.

  • Really interesting analysis, and a great deal of context to think on. You make a compelling case.

    I realized how little I actually understand about Chinese concepts of Faces.

    I’d like to see if I can come up with a few more examples. Some of B’Elanna’s episodes in Voyager, where she comes to see Klingon culture and practices as ‘less hateful’ might provide further opportunities to test your hypothesis.

  • I am not Chinese, but I think that the concept of "Face" seems the same as one of the meanings of "honor" in English. "Honor" can mean glory, but it also means one's reputation and standing/respect within social structure in a way that seems very like "face". People will even say that a person does something "to save face", and it's very entwined with one of the ways the word honor is used. I think the primary difference is that this idea is not as important in say, the USA in the same exact personal formal way it once was in the past. Our culture has become more casual over time, and the vocabulary has changed slightly. In colonial and early America, people would fight duels to the death over a verbal insult to their reputation. In the early 20th century, some families would still hide an out of wedlock pregnancy to "save face" for the entire family. People now only worry about face very much in a professional setting, and not as much in matters of personal life. Instead of having one definition of this that crosses all person and professional relationships, the personal relationships are more individually defined. Even then, this varies with profession, and would be more common in a military profession than something like education. You will still find people who will not accept charity until they are literally starving in order to "save face" and protect their social standing reputation.

21 comments