Embarrassing is an ancient form of social control. In the olden days it was the privilege of kings, lords and priests. Although more democratic in our time, it remains hierarchical in nature; We feel morally or intellectually superior to those we shame.
Politicians these days often confuse “fighting for voters” with sound like Internet trolls. Shaming created mobocracy social networkswhere shamers try to be morally or intellectually superior. In my long clinical experience, I have found that those who routinely embarrass others often suffer to some extent imposter syndrome.
Shame is a persistent form of social control because it attacks a person’s desire to belong and be respected. It can be directed at individuals (“coward”, “racist”, “disgusting”, “shameful”) or entire categories of people (“lowborn”, “untouchable”, “unworthy”).
In both cases it imposes moral judgment on the person rather than on the conduct; it defines people not by what they do, but by who the shamers perceive them to be. It narrows personviolates moral understanding and perpetuates injustice or replaces one form of injustice with another.
In terms of psychological function, shame is less a reaction than a prejudgment. The brain’s tendency to make silent and hasty judgments is how shame is generalized from individuals to groups. Since shamed people tend to react negatively, shame is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.
Shame means permanence – once a coward, always a coward. When we shame someone, we fail to recognize that human beings are complex, capable of both failure and growth. Even if it is caused by intrinsically immoral behavior, as opposed to punishing those who disagree with us, shaming reduces people to their worst moment, while denying them the possibility of redemption and moral development.
Class labels such as ‘peasant’, ‘untouchable’ or ‘unworthy’ do not fit the actions at all; they define inferiority by class. Unlike personal shame, which can at least be attributed to specific behavior, class-based shame is detached from personal responsibility. It defines entire groups as inherently inferior.
Often the goal of shaming is to silence dissent or force compliance with the shamer’s will. This is usually only successful with young children, and even then, it risks making them sneaky. (Every liar I’ve dealt with in the last forty years has been shamed like a young child.)
On the other hand, teenagers and adults usually respond to shy behavior with reciprocity. Can you think of a time when you embarrassed someone and weren’t embarrassed in return? Shame in relationships hardens divisions, destroys empathy, and undermines the modern framework. ethics– the principle of human dignity.
Shame in families can make you get more of what you don’t want. For example, many partners try to improve communication by shaming their partner:
“Why don’t you talk to me? You’re selfish, careless, careless, careless.”
Shame begets silence or anger; rarely improves communication.
Why not confuse shame with responsibility
The irony of shaming people to hold them accountable is that the shamers are not responsible for the harm they cause. Criticism can be harsh without dehumanizing it. It can focus on what has been done, why it matters, and most importantly, how it can be changed.
Cultures that often rely on shame become harsh, punitive, intolerant, hypocritical, unfair, and factionalized with compassion and commitment to truth. It remains unaccounted for.
Rather, tempering moral judgment with humility and compassion fosters true moral responsibility. It can hold people accountable without devaluing them and challenge inequality without exacerbating it.
To move toward a more humane moral order, we must be willing to examine how and why we shame others. We should try to maintain values in a way that does not undermine others and undermine human values.
