Nature of Shame

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I don't know whether you're right or not; surely one's reaction would be disappointment at not upholding the standard, and shame is but an emotional response developed in contemplation. I doubt whether shame has much to do with societal values, I think it has more to do with the development of the self as a stronger being having learned from errors - that it is entirely instinctive and prevalent among all creatures as part of survival.

Very interesting twist. As if its basis (what I'm calling socially installed) has a deeper, more primordial basis? Though, in my example, its manifestation is social, its impact comes from something more basic?

I'm struggling on your interpretation but would like to understand more fully where you're coming from.

[Arjen]

Kethil, I have been pondering the question wether or not 'shame' exists or is created. I am standing by my initial statement of thought-objects.

The reason for my standfastness is this:

Thought-objects do not have to correlate with physical actuality. They can be 'not-true' and still have an effect on the actions of individuals. In that sense it is entirely possible that feelings of affection, such as love, can be completely false, while being present in a person. The answer lies in what 'emotions' are. 'Emotions' are in fact the thought-object that certain thought-objects should have a physical manifestation to be judged as 'real'. So certain people celebrate when their favorite sports club has won, while at a later time they would shrug at it because other, more pressing matters, take up their attention.

'Shame' in that sense is merely the thought-object about 'good' or 'bad' combined with the thought object that a certain physical manifestation should be made to proove it is not merely a thought-object.

Emotions themselves are so much accepted that the not showing of emotions is considered no-human. There have been many examples through history of people who held that emotions did not exist or were not relevant, like the stoïcs, Spinoza, or logical positivism.

Especially Spinoza makes a great model of what emotions are and how they are derived in his Ethics. I am planning to write a report on that, but that will take time. Perhaps you would like to read the work itself. It is, in my opinion, a masterpiece.

[Khethil]

Arjen,

Good perspective to keep in mind (on the thought-object) And yes; I've read that one and VERY much enjoyed it.

Thank you

[Doobah47]

I think fundamentally that shame is but a facet of language not properly grounded in psychological fact. In my view the notion of shame actually encompasses a number of differing emotions, yet there is some kind of conglomeration that one might term 'shame'.

Surely the reaction of a gazelle who stumbles whilst running from a cheetah is one of shame? It looses face in front of it's fellows and the lion, displays weakness, as it dies is it not shame that overcomes it?

In this quote I omit the pain and suffering of the gazelle while it is eaten and instead concentrate on the immediate emotion it feels upon being caught. Shame would surely manifest itself in the context of society (as we know), but is it not possible that shame finds a place in our instinctive, primitive, "primordial" consciousness; (I feel able to answer with examples and perhaps not theory) maybe if an early human - a hunter gatherer - happened to pass a richly fruitful tree on a search, surely if the human had already searched this area he would feel some kind of emotion as a response to the mistake of not noticing the tree: I suppose this emotion could be termed shame. An emotion that arises when one realizes a mistake - surely primordial, primitive and instinctive; simply an emotion connected to learning/mistake.

I think it is entirely possible that shame is an instinctive reaction to events, though I would not stake any kind of definite answer to the question. Perhaps shame has been harnessed in the subjugation of peoples, or has evolved to fit the environment (mainly social) that humans have come to exist within.

[paulhanke]

Does shame depend on culture? Quoting V.F. Cordova:

"One often encounters a description of Native American cultures as being based on 'shame' rather than 'guilt.' Actually both shame and guilt are part of the internalization of rules of conduct. One experiences shame in the face of those who knew that the course of action would bring about specific consequences. One experiences guilt when one confronts oneself. Shame and guilt, in a Western system of conduct, are emotions that are to be overcome. In a Native American society they are what call us to action."

In this past millennium, there was a transformation in Western culture away from the group as the basic unit of human culture and toward the individual as the basic unit of human culture. Such a transformation never occurred in the Americas. What V.F. Cordova describes as the Western tendency to try and overcome shame and guilt can be seen as an attempt to overcome vestigial elements of a way of being that Western culture has evolved away from. A sad commentary?