Desire to control others is so strong that we're willing to justify using shaming as a device to get there. You can't shame the shameless and all you can do is that one who is feeling shame will use it constructively to reflect on their behaviour and makes changes that align with their moral principles (if they violated them). Helping someone tap into their shame without judgement can be a potent facilitator of change vs using the suite of narcissistic behaviours (shaming is one) that attempt to control the other.
You make a compelling argument about the futility of shaming, especially of children.
Excellent comment. Thank you for making a distinction between shaming and tapping into what is referred to as healthy modesty as well as aligning oneself to their principles.
You are right. I was fat in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up and shaming, definitely made it worse.
Yes, it was my mother. She fed us really fattening stuff and I was 145 pounds when I was 10. I looked like a grown woman. And I was starving all the time because I was so used to eating all the food she made.
And then I found out that women who don’t eat enough during pregnancy have kids that are extra hungry and usually end up getting diabetes. My mother lost weight during her pregnancy with me so it’s no surprise. I was starving all the time.
I ended up having to get the gastric bypass and I still was not skinny until I ended up having cancer. Yes, I really don’t think it’s fair to and blame every fat person because they don’t know the situation.
Nowadays, though there are a lot of things to help But people have to want to do it and some people are just not ready to give up food.
Thanks for your added context. Yes, people aren’t ready to make meaningful change because they are not ready to abandoned their shame-based self-image. Shaming only makes things worse for them. I wish the shamers could see the damage they do.
Did Jesus shame the Pharisees and the money lenders? I think it was an expression of thymos and a confrontation. He didn’t humiliate them. He didn’t turn to his followers to ridicule them. If anything, shaming was what Jesus had to endure.
Shaming sociopaths is not the same as shaming someone for their personal actions.
In fact, shaming should be punching up, not punching down. The court jester did this in monarchies.
If someone is in charge of millions of people or billions of dollars and they are thieves and liars, public shame is one of the few things that the working class can do.
The legal, political, and economic systems are false justice as they are deeply controlled by sociopathic individuals.
I am for amnesty if those criminals confess and are further excluded from any position of power over others.
Interesting point mentioning the court jester. Is satire shaming? I don’t know. I was considering this today as i was assessing my boxing coach’s approach of “making fun” of me when I make a mistake. It’s a well-intended jab (no pun intended) to make the negative feedback fun, and thus more likely to be applied. This isn’t shaming, I believe. It’s a friendly jab, or tease, or “making fun” of each other in a well-intended way. Thanks for bringing this up.
The logic of this piece appears to be water-tight. But, I'm not sure it addresses what's going on actually. It seems to make too much of some current reactions "Bring back shaming" to what they experience as an inescapable onslaught of "degeneracy" or "shamelessness" or "anything goes".
Just to make sure that I am clear - I don't see any issue with feeling shame as such. That I can - either live or on later reflection and admit to feeling ashamed of how I may have behaved - I'd consider to be a good marker of mental health and adjustment to others. Ditto for guilt.
No Q that wilful shamelessness is a trauma-borne response to being shamed when vulnerable. But then if you've got to direct that shamelessness, do so at those that shamed you thus. If others "trigger" it in you - get therapy and work on the trauma. Whether traumatized or not, nobody is entitled to special consideration or leeway from (assumedly) healthier others, for such behaviors.
And it's a fool's errand to try and "convince" someone like that of something 'better'. So reasoning doesn't work. As you've shown, shaming them doesn't either. Your suggestion seems to be - to be indifferent to them. Essentially "invisibilize" them. But then, as I am sure you understand, that's social death for them. It is possible to argue that overt demonstrations of 'shamelessness' or 'degeneracy' are largely motivated by an impulse to 'not be ignored'. It's a willful assertion of "I exist and will be counted" and that "I have impact" (however negative).
What happens when this scales up? Such kinds don't really feel "seen" and therefore do not feel they "exist" as sundry others not like them. That they don't matter.
There are a number of thoughts that came up as I read your piece and I realize that it's a lot more intractable than how you may have situated the problem as.
Certain behaviors are stigmatized and some of those stigmas make sense. You have to care about others and your effect on others just as much (if not more) as their effect on you. Sure there's frequent conflict between personal need for freedom or expression vs such a social contract. But an essential requirement of maturing and mental health is to understand this and negotiate acceptance/tolerance and/or restrictions/constraints aka boundaries.
I'd think your piece is a basis frame to explore the function of shame or guilt without casting it as a decided evil. And where and how it becomes toxic and generative of what it intends to prohibit.
Thank you for your comment. In the article, I make a clear distinction between shame used as a manipulation tactic (psychological violence) and healthy innocent modesty. Yes, "anything goes" between consenting adults in the privacy of their own spaces, and shaming them for that is what promotes such behaviours. What is acceptable in public areas is already regulated by private and public initiatives. Shaming is not only unnecessary, but it is also what causes the psychopathy of shame-based degenerate behaviour. Your comment does not offer any argument I haven't already debunked in my article. You word these arguments differently, but if you read again, you'll find thatI've already addressed them.
I don't think you've steelmanned the common refrains, these days, that you have taken issue with.
There are many different ways, some articulate and some not so, which are asking for a return of a sense of shame ar at least the healthy ability to feel it and act on it, in consideration of others. Whether it be for privilege and when it comes into conflict with if and how it is used in service of others or education when it conflicts with the need for omissions or commissions as lies or when it is used as a proxy for authority via credentialism. There are a number of such contexts in which people are calling for shaming. This is degeneracy alright, but not necessarily caused by trauma. There are also a sizeable proportion of people that act shameless, but are not devoid of the abiliity to feel it or need a sharp pointer to reflect on what they're capable of.
If you could explore this kind of nuance and review what you consider calls for return of shaming (at least in the public space), you may find consideration for the utility of something that has served a purpose and evolved over time vs solely as a form of coercion or abuse. And it may help better understand what people's concerns actually are, ebfore one takes a moral high ground over what is not quite sensible at that altitude.
You simply reworded the arguments I addressed in my article and parade as if you’ve presented valid counter arguments. You either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend what I wrote, or you’re being intentionally disingenuous. You’re an academic. That’s all you people do: sly bamboozling to impress the impressionable, no value offered to society.
Desire to control others is so strong that we're willing to justify using shaming as a device to get there. You can't shame the shameless and all you can do is that one who is feeling shame will use it constructively to reflect on their behaviour and makes changes that align with their moral principles (if they violated them). Helping someone tap into their shame without judgement can be a potent facilitator of change vs using the suite of narcissistic behaviours (shaming is one) that attempt to control the other.
You make a compelling argument about the futility of shaming, especially of children.
Excellent comment. Thank you for making a distinction between shaming and tapping into what is referred to as healthy modesty as well as aligning oneself to their principles.
You are right. I was fat in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up and shaming, definitely made it worse.
Yes, it was my mother. She fed us really fattening stuff and I was 145 pounds when I was 10. I looked like a grown woman. And I was starving all the time because I was so used to eating all the food she made.
And then I found out that women who don’t eat enough during pregnancy have kids that are extra hungry and usually end up getting diabetes. My mother lost weight during her pregnancy with me so it’s no surprise. I was starving all the time.
I ended up having to get the gastric bypass and I still was not skinny until I ended up having cancer. Yes, I really don’t think it’s fair to and blame every fat person because they don’t know the situation.
Nowadays, though there are a lot of things to help But people have to want to do it and some people are just not ready to give up food.
Thanks for your added context. Yes, people aren’t ready to make meaningful change because they are not ready to abandoned their shame-based self-image. Shaming only makes things worse for them. I wish the shamers could see the damage they do.
Thank you for writing this piece!
Thank you for your time reading it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions ,your writing is very very good your making big ripples in the pond .Be Well
Jesus shamed the Pharisees on multiple occasions. Also the money lenders in the temple and Judas once. Which I guess proved to be enough.
The people who were about to stone the adulterous woman? He shamed them.
And I don't recall an account of what He said to the people he hung out with in the barrooms, so I guess you are imagining He didn't shame them?
You have to take His entire story into account to get it. Otherwise it's pretty much the same as what self-righteous "Christians" do.
All I'm saying is shame can be useful in the right hands and as you pointed out damaging if misused. Like anger or anything else.
Did Jesus shame the Pharisees and the money lenders? I think it was an expression of thymos and a confrontation. He didn’t humiliate them. He didn’t turn to his followers to ridicule them. If anything, shaming was what Jesus had to endure.
Good points!
Shaming sociopaths is not the same as shaming someone for their personal actions.
In fact, shaming should be punching up, not punching down. The court jester did this in monarchies.
If someone is in charge of millions of people or billions of dollars and they are thieves and liars, public shame is one of the few things that the working class can do.
The legal, political, and economic systems are false justice as they are deeply controlled by sociopathic individuals.
I am for amnesty if those criminals confess and are further excluded from any position of power over others.
Interesting point mentioning the court jester. Is satire shaming? I don’t know. I was considering this today as i was assessing my boxing coach’s approach of “making fun” of me when I make a mistake. It’s a well-intended jab (no pun intended) to make the negative feedback fun, and thus more likely to be applied. This isn’t shaming, I believe. It’s a friendly jab, or tease, or “making fun” of each other in a well-intended way. Thanks for bringing this up.
The logic of this piece appears to be water-tight. But, I'm not sure it addresses what's going on actually. It seems to make too much of some current reactions "Bring back shaming" to what they experience as an inescapable onslaught of "degeneracy" or "shamelessness" or "anything goes".
Just to make sure that I am clear - I don't see any issue with feeling shame as such. That I can - either live or on later reflection and admit to feeling ashamed of how I may have behaved - I'd consider to be a good marker of mental health and adjustment to others. Ditto for guilt.
No Q that wilful shamelessness is a trauma-borne response to being shamed when vulnerable. But then if you've got to direct that shamelessness, do so at those that shamed you thus. If others "trigger" it in you - get therapy and work on the trauma. Whether traumatized or not, nobody is entitled to special consideration or leeway from (assumedly) healthier others, for such behaviors.
And it's a fool's errand to try and "convince" someone like that of something 'better'. So reasoning doesn't work. As you've shown, shaming them doesn't either. Your suggestion seems to be - to be indifferent to them. Essentially "invisibilize" them. But then, as I am sure you understand, that's social death for them. It is possible to argue that overt demonstrations of 'shamelessness' or 'degeneracy' are largely motivated by an impulse to 'not be ignored'. It's a willful assertion of "I exist and will be counted" and that "I have impact" (however negative).
What happens when this scales up? Such kinds don't really feel "seen" and therefore do not feel they "exist" as sundry others not like them. That they don't matter.
There are a number of thoughts that came up as I read your piece and I realize that it's a lot more intractable than how you may have situated the problem as.
Certain behaviors are stigmatized and some of those stigmas make sense. You have to care about others and your effect on others just as much (if not more) as their effect on you. Sure there's frequent conflict between personal need for freedom or expression vs such a social contract. But an essential requirement of maturing and mental health is to understand this and negotiate acceptance/tolerance and/or restrictions/constraints aka boundaries.
I'd think your piece is a basis frame to explore the function of shame or guilt without casting it as a decided evil. And where and how it becomes toxic and generative of what it intends to prohibit.
Thank you for your comment. In the article, I make a clear distinction between shame used as a manipulation tactic (psychological violence) and healthy innocent modesty. Yes, "anything goes" between consenting adults in the privacy of their own spaces, and shaming them for that is what promotes such behaviours. What is acceptable in public areas is already regulated by private and public initiatives. Shaming is not only unnecessary, but it is also what causes the psychopathy of shame-based degenerate behaviour. Your comment does not offer any argument I haven't already debunked in my article. You word these arguments differently, but if you read again, you'll find thatI've already addressed them.
I don't think you've steelmanned the common refrains, these days, that you have taken issue with.
There are many different ways, some articulate and some not so, which are asking for a return of a sense of shame ar at least the healthy ability to feel it and act on it, in consideration of others. Whether it be for privilege and when it comes into conflict with if and how it is used in service of others or education when it conflicts with the need for omissions or commissions as lies or when it is used as a proxy for authority via credentialism. There are a number of such contexts in which people are calling for shaming. This is degeneracy alright, but not necessarily caused by trauma. There are also a sizeable proportion of people that act shameless, but are not devoid of the abiliity to feel it or need a sharp pointer to reflect on what they're capable of.
If you could explore this kind of nuance and review what you consider calls for return of shaming (at least in the public space), you may find consideration for the utility of something that has served a purpose and evolved over time vs solely as a form of coercion or abuse. And it may help better understand what people's concerns actually are, ebfore one takes a moral high ground over what is not quite sensible at that altitude.
You simply reworded the arguments I addressed in my article and parade as if you’ve presented valid counter arguments. You either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend what I wrote, or you’re being intentionally disingenuous. You’re an academic. That’s all you people do: sly bamboozling to impress the impressionable, no value offered to society.