Yeah, Megan is implicitly connecting shame to responsibility, but it seems pretty clear that we talk about being ashamed of many situations for which we're not responsible. And the posts linked at CT are good.
its proper objects seem to be deficiencies or inabilities of all sorts, whether or not these are under voluntary control.
Is this really so indisputable? My undead lord and master Aristotle claims that shame is felt towards the voluntary.
I mean, towards the voluntary alone.
Is this really so indisputable?
Dude, take a moment and interact with people.
We'd have to know what Aristotle meant by "shame," wouldn't we?
Where's that passage, Ben?
It seems clear that paradigm cases of shame are toward the nonvolitional. Things you might be ashamed of: your clubfoot, your father's treachery, your race. The ubiquity of shame at things like this suggests that people aren't involved in some kind of conceptual error, as when I feel pride at the sunrise or something.
It seems clear that paradigm cases of shame are toward the nonvolitional
Really? I think it's the exact opposite, especially since so much societal shame is about sexual acts and feelings. I mean, masturbation, say, is a pretty natural thing for young kids to do, but it's certainly not nonvolitional.
Isn't Aristotle talking about when it's appropriate to feel shame, ben? If so, he's already connecting it up with ideas of responsibility (i.e., FL's (i) and (ii).)
I think I'd be inclined to argue that (i) is built into shame itself, but that seems dull.
Isn't shame connected with guilt? Sounds pretty volitional to me.
EN book five chapter nine, 1128b26–9: "To be so constituted as to feel disgraced if one does such an action, and for this reason to think oneself good, is absurd; for it is for voluntary ations that shame is felt, and the good man will never voluntarily do bad actions".
Of course ogged's going to jump on "disgraced" in there. [ill-thought-out discussion of propriety of shame to youth excised.]
Dude, take a moment and interact with people.
You're right: everything's disputable.
And the posts linked at CT are good.
Also, the video linked by dsquared in the CT comments is hilarious.
Cala, the discussion of the propriety of shame is, as hinted above, more about age; it's inappropriate for the adult to feel shame because the adult shouldn't be doing shameful things; in children shame acts as a corrective to youthful passion. Shameful things are still volitional!
That doesn't really follow from his definition, though, which is that shame is a kind of fear of disrepute, since one could fear disrepute stemming from one's club foot. (In some cases, though, it's clear that people intent on shaming others do make the supposedly shameful state out to be voluntary even if in fact it wasn't or at least isn't known to be; think of all the talk about fat people pigging out uncontrollably and thereby bringing their state on themselves.)
6: Okay, I'll bite.
Here's a reason it could be a conceptual error (and people make those all the time, we don't do philosophy by consensus): one way I might try to make you feel less ashamed is by saying something like "Your freakish height isn't your fault."
Why would that work to comfort you, if I weren't pointing out a conceptual error? It seems that I am saying: it is appropriate to feel shame if you are responsible for π, but you are not, so you should not feel shame. What am I saying on your model, if volition has nothing to do with it?
I can't get my keyboard to phi easily. So I usually pi it and then do a search and replace later.
It seems clear to me that scorn is properly directed toward non-volitional features, and that scorn is the counterpart of shame, but we'll just disagree about all the same examples.
It's proper to feel scornful towards a club foot? And I thought CT commenters were harsh.
Scorn is just going to confuse the issue. Isn't "I'm so ashamed" a very common reaction to something embarrassing that a parent has done? It might be useful to distinguish between types of shame, but it is indisputable (indisputable, I say!) that we feel shame for non-volitional things.
Cala: one way I might try to make you feel less ashamed is by saying something like "Your freakish height isn't your fault."
I think the best way to read that is giving prudential advice about what to feel, not advice about what sentiment is fitting or appropriate. Another way of reading it that's compatible with my view is as endorsing a view of what makes a person worthwhile.
Honestly, "I'm ashamed of my clubfoot" seems wrong to you in the same way that "I'm proud of that sunrise"? Wrong it might be, but there's a very different sort of mistake there, I think.
19: sure, people manifest contempt toward deformity all the time. The very same thoughts (viz, this affects the person's capabilities in a negative way, and thus the person is less worthy or valuable) are at work in the shame and the scorn.
It seems different, but that's because the sunrise example is just weird. Compare "I'm proud of being a trust-fund baby" with "I'm ashamed of my club foot"; it seems more like the same kind of mistake.
I'd also like if someone would explain how non-volitional shame differs from plain ol' embarassment.
I'm going to ask A. Wo/od about the clubfoot thing.
I'd also like if someone would explain how non-volitional shame differs from plain ol' embarassment.
Embarrassment, over, say, a spelling error, is transitory and doesn't necessarily say anything about your identity.
What about embarrassment over the behavior of a parent, or someone one doesn't even know, say, the people two tables over at a diner who are behaving loathsomely?
27: I really do have to applaud.
But isn't the "say anything about your identity" question-begging? The reason I don't think it's appropriate to feel shame over a clubfoot is that I don't think it's constitutive of the person's identity.
In anthropology and sociology there's an old and not much observed distinction, owing to Ruth Benedict, to the effect that shame results upon a failure to live up to one's duty or position in society, whereas guilt is a more private affair based on one's own personal standards. The key punishment tied to shame is ostracism -- expulsion from society. But it's a hard distinction to sustain. Shame is not essentially public (unlike embarrassment), for instance. But it does have plausibility, because in a shame culture you can be ashamed and dishonored by people's belief that you have done something wrong even if you have done no such thing, whereas in a guilt culture you will protest your innocence and fight the accusation. The standard example is Japan, where most trials involve guilty pleas and confessions. Conversely, if you did the wrong thing you are meant to feel guilt even if no one knows about it, whereas this is not the case in the shame culture.
The reason I don't think it's appropriate to feel shame over a clubfoot is that I don't think it's constitutive of the person's identity.
Doesn't that depend on the person?
But isn't the "say anything about your identity" question-begging?
This is where the Aristotle (and Gonerill's 30, I see) are helpful: we're talking about an essentially social notion of identity, so what is or isn't a part of identity isn't up to the individual. So there's potentially a lot more shame about parents in Japan than here, for example.
26: What? I didn't think that was why he limped.
Some of the people in that thread are just fucking assholes.
Yeah, that's really unbelievable. I found Megan's post to be really moving. It's a feeling I don't have, and I know it's easy for women like me to become complicit with misogyny when we complain that every sonofabitch we go out with accuses us of harboring a desire to get pregnant. But many women do feel a genuine pull, and not just a socially constructed one, toward marriage and family. Megan actually gave me a lot of insight into some of my friends' desire for babies and gave me a way of talking to them about it without it inspiring shame in either one of us. It was beautifully done. So where do all these CT commenters get off? Fuck them, as M would say.
Hang on, folks, where's psychology? Yes, we often feel shame about things we can't control--but isn't that just as (more) explainable by pointing to the ways that adults frequently scold and shame children for doing things that they can't control (e.g., bedwetting, making messes--what with their being children and all--being self-involved) as it is by arguing that because people feel this way obviously it's not a category error?
Basically, the Megan case (and dear god, those men people at CT are assholes) is about shame over feelings and desires: shame at wanting something. Yes, we teach people to be ashamed of wanting things, but this is fucked up and wrong (not just morally, but conceptually). Wanting isn't shameful; what one does or how one expresses it may be.
Of course, you can't just talk people out of feeling shame by pointing out that it's illogical, but that's because psychology exists, not because the argument is mistaken.
The thing is, a lot of men want kids too. Really, I don't see why Megan and Ogged don't just hook up already.
"Wanting isn't shameful; what one does or how one expresses it may be."
This is mostly true, but I think it doesn't give enough credence to the effect our choices have on our subsequent (if not shameful, I dunno, unproductive) thoughts and desires. This doesn't have to do with Megan--whose desires are not shameful, my opinion--or the unkind comments at Crooked Timber.
But I think bad choices can make us bad people in a way that's hard to reverse, in the same way that good choices can make us the type of good, pleasant people who inhabit unfogged, for example.
"The standard example is Japan, where most trials involve guilty pleas and confessions."
Most trials here also involve guilty pleas, if not confessions, having more to do with our fucked-up system than anything else.
38: I don't follow. Specific exxample? I am, you know, awfully suspicious of the rhetoric of free choice....
good choices can make us the type of good, pleasant people who inhabit unfogged, for example.
"Good choices can make us good people" is something I can agree with in principle. But "good choices make us the kind of people we are" seems highly, highly suspect to me.
Wanting isn't shameful; what one does or how one expresses it may be.
We know this to be wrong, via a little someone named JESUS.
The thing is, our reptillian brain takes ownership over all things that are rationally beyond our control. Thus your inner two-year-old does believe that the club foot is a character deficiency, as was your parent's divorce, as is your mom's embarrassing outfit.
So "truly voluntary" isn't a useful litmus test as to what feels shameful. If it feels like it's voluntary in your limbic system, you can feel ashamed.
I'm awfully suspicious of that rhetoric as well. In the same way that our choices are constrained by who we are, who we are is constrained by our choices.
I dunno, ever notice patterns in your thoughts and behavior? I don't think it's a hard sell to say that what you do today directly effects what you desire tomorrow. So to say that the act is purely volitional, deserving of shame, the thought purley involuntary, and not deserving of shame, I think that's misguided. How much any of it could be avoided, I really can't say.
41: that last part was meant to be tongue in cheek. I actually think we're all quite awful.
45 -- ok then, I'm down with that.
Okay, first, "affects." Second, yeah, this is kind of why I'm saying that the rational/philosophical approach to the question is silly only goes so far.
absurdly long comment alert: I'm reminded of the definition of dirt as "matter out of place" which was linked where I read it to the desire of religious fundamentalists to keep women locked up inside because they're "unclean". Seems like shame is essentially the feeling of being "out of place" and "not fitting in" -- being ashamed of having a clubfoot would be linked then to the feeling that disabled people don't belong in public spaces, reinforced by the way those public spaces are designed that make life difficult, as well as simply to visibly appearing different.
So, yeah, shame is a social thing, and if you don't fit in, break social rules somehow, you'll feel shame. And not fitting in is more often nonvolitional.
However, there is something you can do, a kind of personal alchemy, that either transforms potential sources of shame into plus points, or just neutralises them (first example to spring to mind is a guy I know who is saddled with the name Napoleon, and completely carries it off. It appears to be related to boundless self-confidence.)
So Megan's not wrong. Maybe she has this personal alchemy wrt to all her messy and inconvenient emotions, and can't be shamed for them the way most people can be shamed for neediness of any sort.
text is sounding awfully affected today.
italics should have been strikeout in my last. obviously. jesus my brain is so not working lately.
I don't think it follows that the philosophical approach is silly. But I think it follows that saying you can only be ashamed of actions, not thoughts, is silly. Assuming we have control over anything, we have some control over our thoughts as well as over our actions.
52: I think focusing overmuch on control is silly. But the thoughts/actions distinction is a fairly useful one in practice, despite not being perfect. In any case, though sure we can control our thoughts, I think that the impetus to do so is more pragmatic than moral.
I reserve the right to mock philosophers.
The distinction is useful on the outside, for evidentiary purposes, but I don't know that it's useful in determining on an individual basis what we should feel ashamed about and/or try to change. A person with hateful thoughts should be ashamed of them and try to change them, maybe for both pragmatic and moral reasons, especially if the barrier between thoughts and actions is very permeable.
What's this site for if not for mocking philosophers?
What's this site for if not for mocking philosophers?
Mocking ogged.
People who live in English departments should not cast stones.
57: Otherwise somebody's liable to find you there and tell you to go home. Plus, the damage to the historical books collection.
54: Not sure I entirely agree. Let's say you have shameful hateful thoughts about, say, poor people. You know this is assholish; but psychologically, I think, encouraging people to feel ashamed of this kind of thing just makes them defensive and therefore more assholish. Whereas I think that saying, okay, why do you think these things? and pointing out that most of one's offensive hateful thoughts are fairly typical of broader prejudices outside oneself and therefore objectionable but feeling ashamed of them per se is kind of silly and pointless--that kind of approach is one I've found more useful than the other, both personally and in teaching-type situations.
57: Ah, but I don't live in an English department any more. I'm completely free from academia's chains, at least for the time being.
If I recall correctly, paper covers rock -- the books are not at any risk from errant stone-throwers.
"I think, encouraging people to feel ashamed of this kind of thing just makes them defensive and therefore more assholish."
This is where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think assholes tend to get defensive in order not to feel shame, or maybe guilt--since I'm not a philosopher I can get my terms mixed up--and that we'd all be much better people if we allowed ourselves to feel bad about things. But I have nothing to point to on this.
Are there no scissors in the English departments?
Congrats on escaping, B.
Actually, we might not disagree about strategy, only terms. I'd say your recommended course of action is correct, but the desired effect is to get people to admit they've been assholes, and feel bad about it.
I think that shame is a personal response to the perception that you are being negatively judged -- specifically, an acceptance of that judgment. Arguing that X is not really shameful is misleading -- if people actually do respond negatively to X, it's shameful.
It's possible to play your virtues against your shameful defect and get people to ignore it, or to ingratiate yourself with people so they ignore it, or to develop a fuck-you defiant attitude (always at some cost). But pretending that the judgment isn't there, or not noticing that it's there, is self-defeating. These kinds of judgments are objective in effect even if the reasons for them are silly.
43: People accuse the reptilian brain of so much shit that isn't it's fault. In any case a feeling of "ownership" would not be localized in that part of the brain (rather, someplace in the neocortex), nor would the emotion of shame.
The emotions would be regulated by the limbic system, but if you're going to use the triune brain construction (which doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with current neuroscience) blame the neo-mammalian brain or the paleo-mammalian brain. Reptiles are pretty much shameless.
I would just blame Farber.
Wanting isn't shameful; what one does or how one expresses it may be.
Let's talk about how we feel about the novel. No, seriously, desires can't be shameful? That can't be right.
Bastards. They're not allowed to harrass Megan. Only we are allowed to harrass Megan. 'Cause we harrass with love
Megan should be ashamed of the way she's harassed.
Are there no scissors in the English departments?
Never, and it's the biggest pain in the ass.
63: No, I don't care how people feel. The desired effect is to get people not to be assholes.
67: Can /= should.
65 - If reptiles don't feel shame, why are lizards always running and hiding? Riddle me that, genius.
71: They enjoy playing hide-and-seek, clearly. I never said they didn't have a sense of fun.
I read something somewhere on the web contrasting guilt and shame. I wish I remember where or precisely what, but I sort of recall the idea being that shame, much as B theorized above, makes people defensive and try to cover for being assholish and guilt has more to do with accepting responsibility for being assholish. Shame takes root in/creates a weakened self-esteem, leading to the self-protective need to try to escape the shame through projection and so forth. Someone with more stable self-esteem can acknowledge their faults without fearing that doing so will render them worthless.
Someone who feels shame will try to split from the shameful conduct, making excuses, rewriting history, blaming others. "If I acted like an ass, it's because she pushed me to it, but actually I wasn't really acting like an ass." Someone who acknowledges guilt will take responsibility and seek to make amends. "I acted like an ass. It was unacceptable. I'm taking the following actions to repair the damage I caused."
Shame is not a particularly healthy emotion.
playing emotional hide-and-seek. Not confronting thier submotives. The reptillian brain of their reptillian brains, if I may.
There's some interesting research suggesting that people who are more prone to shame rather than guilt in situations that call for either one are more likely to respond in bad ways, e.g. violence; one possible explanation is that shame (directed toward the self) is more painful and harder to process than is guilt (directed toward actions).
There's also some preliminary research suggesting that I'm a complete toolbox who doesn't know what he's talking about. Results pending.
"I'm a complete toolbox who doesn't know what he's talking about. Results pending."
Has the blogosphere fitted you for your club blazer?
70. Right. Do you really think it's possible to transform happily from asshole to saint, without feeling bad in between?
one possible explanation is that shame (directed toward the self) is more painful and harder to process than is guilt (directed toward actions).
Another, I would think, would be that both might incline one to attack those responsible for the feeling, and shame, if the conditions for it are defined by others, results in attack on others.
78 -- definitely not; anyway if we classify death as a "bad feeling", which I think we should.
I dozed off just now and dreamt about Kwame! I don't even know who Kwame! is. You should all feel shame or guilt for this depending on your cultural heritage.
If reptiles don't feel shame, why are lizards always running and hiding?
Um, the cat?
They feel shame. The shame of being out-evolved. Opposable thumbs, bitches.
Heebie's just jealous because they can jettison their asses to get away and grow a new one even better.
71: Only when they have briefs to research and write.
It seems that I am saying: it is appropriate to feel shame if you are responsible for π, but you are not, so you should not feel shame. What am I saying on your model, if volition has nothing to do with it?
I suspect that shame and social conformity are coupled. If you were never exposed to different standards (either through isolation or through perfect conformity) you'd never feel shame. So shame is imposed, and shame is political.
I'm fairly tall: I sometimes have trouble finding trousers that fit properly. Wearing trousers that are too short looks ridiculous. If vendors were obstinate, and if all available trousers were too short, I might start to feel ashamed of my height. Some people might console me by reminding me that my height is non-volitional. Others would suggest that I campaign: for longer trousers, for better attitudes generally.
Re: the wanting babies situation - it looks as though there are a good number of people who feel that open attitudes about wanting babies are unacceptable, or at least undesirable. I think this has to be derived from the culture of easy sexual availability. For that 'scene' (and it's a big scene) to flourish, there has to be a widespread consensus that sex is not about having children.
It is appropriate to feel shame if you are responsible for π, but you are not, so you should not feel shame.
I think that this misses the point of shame. In shame societies you have hierarchies and pariah groups defined entirely by inherited characteristics. the pariah groups are shamed by their birth. Likewise people with deformities, even small blemishes that are thought of as marks of witchery or something. Likewise people who have been somehow associated with horrible events.
Shame is the individual's response to a public judgment which is, for the individual, objective and real, no matter how silly the grounds for it are.
There are versions of it in our society. I think that the kind of shunning high school kids do is a kind of mobilization of shame culture. The Heathers manipulate the group so that one individual is constantly ridiculed. It doesn't make any difference what the reasons are, if the Heathers succeed in making the other an effective pariah. Fortunatley you can leave high school, but in a shame culture that kind of thing lasts forever.
The dating scene is a shame culture too. If you're short (or too tall), inescapably pudgy (or wimpy), with a pasty complexion and a homely face, you're objectively a joke in the dating culture. People can beat that in various ways, but objectively they start out at an enormous disadvantage and only a few ever beat the game.
"It is appropriate to feel shame if you are responsible for π, but if you are not, so you should not feel shame." -- this is really a rejection of the whole idea of shame, or a reinterpretation of shame in terms of notions of personal responsibility derived from the contrasting guilt cultures.
Imagine an otherwise perfect person with a prominent and ugly deformation on their face. They will spend their whole life either dreading meeting new people, or else working on skilful ways of stagemanaging introductions, and even at best, they will find themselves often shunned even by nice people bcause they give them the creeps.
Oh hey wow. I didn't know you guys had my back. Thanks so much.
Oh and #69? Fuck off, Emerson.