I think it’s helpful to highlight the function of social shame as you do. But I wonder if there are two kinds of shame. I’ve witnessed both social shame and individual shame (Brown’s kind). There seems to be some difference between them. I think Brown’s shame is a berating personalized shame where the shamer attacks in a one on one relationship. Social shame, being community oriented, is very different even though I think it can cut equally deep.
Perhaps it’s not a matter of seeing the emotions you mention as negative or as positive, but that all of these emotions can be positive (healthy) but also negative (unhealthy) depending on a lot of factors. Thanks for sharing and for listening.
Yes, I agree, Mimi. I wonder if the shame that Brown researches is more closely tied to the toxic/core shame as written about by John Bradshaw and more recently by Curt Thompson. This is the type that is usually created in childhood, not because the child did not adhere to the expected social norms, but because of repeated emotional abandonment and neglect by a mentally ill or narcissistic parent (among other factors, possibly influenced by genetics). Thank you for pointing out the distinction with social shame, and for emphasizing its equally powerful messaging within the individual suffering from it.
Yes, I was thinking of Curt Thompson too. Shame isn’t always bad - we probably want someone to be ashamed of stealing from someone else. But internalized shame, this sense of wrongness just for being who you are, is not the same thing.
It seems like a lot of this is semantics. I don’t know what one may wish to call it, but just as Paul postulates in 2 Cor, there is a “godly sorrow” and a “worldly sorrow”. I admit that I have repeated the “there’s a difference between guilt and shame” mantra, as well as the “I did a bad thing” vs “I am a bad person”. Using “guilt” for one and “shame” for the other is just a convenient way to differentiate. But clearly there is a toxic, poisonous “shame” that is linked with this “worldly sorrow that leads to death”. It’s a shame that begins or reinforces the downward spiral of self perception that leads either to a surrender (“I can’t change”) or a self-defeating defensiveness, then “medication” (addictions) of some sort in an effort to recover but almost always just deepens the spiral. Is not this the “shame” that Jesus came to eradicate? Is this not the “slavery to sin” that is defeated at the cross? Looking forward to reading more.
The separation from Brown's (reductionistic?) definition is focused on the social aspect. Shame does indeed create a buffer or a block to some of our most base desires. While I agree, there's alao the challenge of moving the goal posts of what rises to shameful. With today's events in Washington DC, I think of how little shame has affected our political desires. Or, is shame still there, just powefully repressed? Things unacceptable years ago are easily glossed over for some utilitarian greater good. My hunch is that due to it's socially defined guard rails, shame will always be in flux.
You're right, as a social emotion shame is going to develop along with social norms, good or ill. That social-regulation aspect of shame is what I'm trying to bring back into view. For example, if we say to someone "You should be ashamed of yourself" we're not asking them (following Brown) to think "I am bad." We're asking them to attend to social norms we think need to be attended to. Because if they ignore those norms you get those bad outcomes you're describing, rampant shamelessness in the face of norms. This social function of shame, which is what shame is and has always been, is getting lost in Brown's morphing it into some neurotic hangup you work on in therapy. She's naming real thing, but "shame" isn't what that is.
Yeah, being clear about definitions and getting definitions right is important. Shame can reach a pathological level, as you know, and I think that’s the direction Brown is pointing to.
I’ve thought a lot about the pushback on shame in our culture, and it seems sort of pseudo-therapeutic for exactly the reasons you describe here. For me, the word “shameless” has been a clue. People might say they want to live “shame-free”, but “shameless” still seems to hold a shade of meaning that indicates that when we are completely loosed from shame, we lose a corrective force. Maybe shame as a collectively intuited accountability.
According to the literature on addiction recovery (12 step process) shame resides in the body. It begins as trauma to the body (all forms of abuse). I wonder if social shame that governs societies (NT honor-shame culture, for example) has a bodily manifestation.
I think it’s helpful to highlight the function of social shame as you do. But I wonder if there are two kinds of shame. I’ve witnessed both social shame and individual shame (Brown’s kind). There seems to be some difference between them. I think Brown’s shame is a berating personalized shame where the shamer attacks in a one on one relationship. Social shame, being community oriented, is very different even though I think it can cut equally deep.
Perhaps it’s not a matter of seeing the emotions you mention as negative or as positive, but that all of these emotions can be positive (healthy) but also negative (unhealthy) depending on a lot of factors. Thanks for sharing and for listening.
Yes, I agree, Mimi. I wonder if the shame that Brown researches is more closely tied to the toxic/core shame as written about by John Bradshaw and more recently by Curt Thompson. This is the type that is usually created in childhood, not because the child did not adhere to the expected social norms, but because of repeated emotional abandonment and neglect by a mentally ill or narcissistic parent (among other factors, possibly influenced by genetics). Thank you for pointing out the distinction with social shame, and for emphasizing its equally powerful messaging within the individual suffering from it.
Yes, I was thinking of Curt Thompson too. Shame isn’t always bad - we probably want someone to be ashamed of stealing from someone else. But internalized shame, this sense of wrongness just for being who you are, is not the same thing.
Yes: some psychologists and therapists call this "internalised shame".
It seems like a lot of this is semantics. I don’t know what one may wish to call it, but just as Paul postulates in 2 Cor, there is a “godly sorrow” and a “worldly sorrow”. I admit that I have repeated the “there’s a difference between guilt and shame” mantra, as well as the “I did a bad thing” vs “I am a bad person”. Using “guilt” for one and “shame” for the other is just a convenient way to differentiate. But clearly there is a toxic, poisonous “shame” that is linked with this “worldly sorrow that leads to death”. It’s a shame that begins or reinforces the downward spiral of self perception that leads either to a surrender (“I can’t change”) or a self-defeating defensiveness, then “medication” (addictions) of some sort in an effort to recover but almost always just deepens the spiral. Is not this the “shame” that Jesus came to eradicate? Is this not the “slavery to sin” that is defeated at the cross? Looking forward to reading more.
The separation from Brown's (reductionistic?) definition is focused on the social aspect. Shame does indeed create a buffer or a block to some of our most base desires. While I agree, there's alao the challenge of moving the goal posts of what rises to shameful. With today's events in Washington DC, I think of how little shame has affected our political desires. Or, is shame still there, just powefully repressed? Things unacceptable years ago are easily glossed over for some utilitarian greater good. My hunch is that due to it's socially defined guard rails, shame will always be in flux.
You're right, as a social emotion shame is going to develop along with social norms, good or ill. That social-regulation aspect of shame is what I'm trying to bring back into view. For example, if we say to someone "You should be ashamed of yourself" we're not asking them (following Brown) to think "I am bad." We're asking them to attend to social norms we think need to be attended to. Because if they ignore those norms you get those bad outcomes you're describing, rampant shamelessness in the face of norms. This social function of shame, which is what shame is and has always been, is getting lost in Brown's morphing it into some neurotic hangup you work on in therapy. She's naming real thing, but "shame" isn't what that is.
And to be clear, I'm a huge fan of Brene Brown!
Yeah, being clear about definitions and getting definitions right is important. Shame can reach a pathological level, as you know, and I think that’s the direction Brown is pointing to.
I’ve thought a lot about the pushback on shame in our culture, and it seems sort of pseudo-therapeutic for exactly the reasons you describe here. For me, the word “shameless” has been a clue. People might say they want to live “shame-free”, but “shameless” still seems to hold a shade of meaning that indicates that when we are completely loosed from shame, we lose a corrective force. Maybe shame as a collectively intuited accountability.
According to the literature on addiction recovery (12 step process) shame resides in the body. It begins as trauma to the body (all forms of abuse). I wonder if social shame that governs societies (NT honor-shame culture, for example) has a bodily manifestation.