What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

That's a Shame

by Tony M.

There is a big war over shame. Some (many?) think that it’s wrong to shame people. Period.

Others think that shaming constitutes a public service, and will pursue it at every opportunity.

Some say that shaming is not Christian. Other say that good Christians ought to shame others.

What do you say?

As a public service, I hereby promise not to shame those of you who answer wrong. At least not too badly. Well, at least not immediately. Unless you really get me going with something totally outrageous. So feel free to say what you really think. And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest.

Comments (36)

The only two major subjects of passionate outcry over shaming I see on a regular basis are "fat shaming" and "slut shaming." It also seems that there is a degree of overlap between the two. Make of that what you will about the state of society.

Others think that shaming constitutes a public service, and will pursue it at every opportunity.

That's the natural outcome of a society that has worked very hard to shut down legitimate shaming in areas that are no longer approved.

Our society never has been "tolerant" and really doesn't ever have any plan to be "tolerant." Walk into a group of ordinary folks and say something "bigoted." You can expect a ton of shaming and no one to feel guilty about it. Go to a typical church and proudly declare that women can feminism or chivalry, but not both (perform fungibly like a man or get out of man's world). You can expect to be shamed from the back of the sanctuary to the pulpit.

Just a few examples of behavior that only a minority won't think are cause for shaming, but you get the idea. Our society still shames and ostracizes the groups it considers "wrong." It's just that some groups have enough political influence that they are trying to claw their way out of that status.

The only two major subjects of passionate outcry over shaming I see on a regular basis are "fat shaming" and "slut shaming."

Mike, I disagree. At least in the circles I have been in contact with, there is a serious claim that shaming is wrong, or otherwise object to it. Here's two sites with opposite views on the matter:

https://aussiesexoffenders.wordpress.com/

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20151009/NEWS/151009667

What some people mean in practice when they carp at shaming might be more along the lines of "the old styles and targets of shaming were bad, and the new methods and targets are good", but others THINK they are arguing that shaming as such is wrong. The ones trying to make a reasoned argument, then, should not be saddled with the incoherence of the ones who merely emote about how awful old-style shaming was (in generic terms as if that applied to all shaming) and then turn about and do it themselves to their preferred targets.

Let me give (in extremely abbreviated form) two of the arguments against: (1) it's not what Jesus did. He refused to stone the adulterous woman, and instead he forgave her sins. (2) It doesn't actually lead to repentance, it leads to hardening of hearts against the good. So, the people making these types of arguments are trying a pitch against ALL shaming, regardless of the target.

Tony, can you define what you mean by "shaming"? There are so many things that could go by that name. Perhaps you mean to ask about all of them.

Here are a few,

1) Making more widely known a very bad thing that someone has done, in a way that may have negative repercussions on that person's career, friendships, associations, etc.

2) Lecturing someone in private in an angry or hectoring fashion about some fault of character or bad behavior.

3) Lecturing someone in public in an angry or hectoring fashion about some fault of character or bad behavior.

4) Giving someone a strong non-verbal impression, within a community, that some behavior is unacceptable. This could include quiet shunning, not giving a party for an event that under other circumstances would have a party, etc.

5) Deliberate, major ostracism. E.g. Telling a family member such as a grown child that he is no longer welcome at your house.

6) Simply saying that someone did wrong or is doing wrong, about anything at all, even nicely.

7) Asking someone to keep a problem under wraps from the rest of the community because it is a shameful problem. Asking him to "stay in the closet" with the community at large, even while receiving help or talking in confidence with counselors.

With every single one of these, especially 1-5, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to, "Is it good or bad?" #1 would often fall under "detraction," but sometimes it might be legitimate. And so forth. #6 and #7 are very often right, assuming that the activity or fault in question really is wrong and/or shameful. Even there, #6 might sometimes not be your place, or you might criticize at the wrong time.

And so forth. There is a legitimate place for many things that are called "shaming," but there will be extremely wide disagreements about what that place is. A great many of those disagreements will arise from concrete disagreements about the facts of the matter. For example, if one doesn't really believe that x behavior in one person _causes_ y behavior in another person, one would disagree that "victim shaming" is right in that case, because one would question the causal claim. I doubt that there is ever a way fully to disentangle disagreements about facts on the ground, disagreement about causal connections, disagreements about how bad x really is, disagreements about what counts as shaming, and disagreements about whether there is a right place and time for shaming. It will all be radically entangled.

Let me give (in extremely abbreviated form) two of the arguments against: (1) it's not what Jesus did. He refused to stone the adulterous woman, and instead he forgave her sins. (2) It doesn't actually lead to repentance, it leads to hardening of hearts against the good. So, the people making these types of arguments are trying a pitch against ALL shaming, regardless of the target.

The adulterous woman was a trap set for Him, and many Christians read far too much into it in my opinion. If we take that as the presumed first response, then it effectively means that if someone commits adultery we should "just forgive them" in the sense of there being no consequences. However, that is manifestly unjust to the other spouse in most cases. There is just too much that goes wrong with applying that story broadly.

WRT #2, shaming can also lead many people to not go there in the first place. The issue with hardened hearts that they aren't addressing is that what those people really want is no earthly consequences for their choices. People cannot repent until they accept the fact that their choices are limited by the actions they've taken.

Tony, can you define what you mean by "shaming"? There are so many things that could go by that name. Perhaps you mean to ask about all of them.

Lydia, you hit the nail on the head. A large part of the confusion lies in the fact that one person's "shaming" is another person's something else entirely. By all means, let's talk some about definitions. Or at least some distinctions.

Here's an example that I think is a needed clarification: shaming isn't the same thing as punishment due for sin, not in essence. They are distinct in definition because they are distinct in purpose. However, punishments will tend to have the effect of public shame. And it is inevitable that being known as one punished for a crime (or sin) is to be subject to being ashamed before others, for having done wrong is shameful in itself, and being known to others as having done wrong is generally to be thought shameful by others. But the PUNISHMENT levied is not, per se, what is shaming, it is that you are known to have done wrong. If everyone knew you were convicted, before they knew anything about your punishment, their discovering that you had been punished for the conviction would not result in any increase in shame, so properly the shame suffered and the penal evil suffered both derive from the fact of being KNOWN AS a wrongdoer. This means that the punishment not the per se cause of the shame, they share a prior cause.

So, in the example of Christ's forgiving the adulteress, it is a mistake to conflate "he did not demand her punishment" with "he did not shame her". He did nothing at all to deny that her shameful behavior was shameful.

Here's another clarification, attendant on the above clarification about punishment: shaming is something usually done as a community or by members of a community, whereas punishment is done specifically by those who have care of the common good. It would be wrong to argue that shaming is wrong "because it was not approved by the authorities". That's a category mistake. Legal penalties are evils that attend on breaking laws and being convicted by authorities, shaming is a different kind of suffering one is made to suffer, by a different class of agents, by design / definition. If shaming is appropriate, it is supposed to come from those who RIGHTLY see your behavior as detestable and treat you differently because of that, and that's not limited to the authorities.

2) Lecturing someone in private in an angry or hectoring fashion about some fault of character or bad behavior.

3) Lecturing someone in public in an angry or hectoring fashion about some fault of character or bad behavior.

That's significant. Some people think of shaming in the sense of hectoring language, words that carry contempt in them in tone or sense or both. Others are not so picky. I don't think that failing to recognize the distinction is likely to help the debate.

WRT #2, shaming can also lead many people to not go there in the first place. The issue with hardened hearts that they aren't addressing is that what those people really want is no earthly consequences for their choices. People cannot repent until they accept the fact that their choices are limited by the actions they've taken.

Mike, you are giving one of the (fairly good) arguments to defeat the argument that shaming "does no good". I tend to agree with your point, with qualifiers, but I want to point out as a preliminary just that people DO MAKE this argument and as a result think that shaming is a bad idea.

Shaming shamers is bound to end well.

By the way, the question of "outing" someone on something, which is linked to shaming, is delicate precisely because of the "does no good" question. Namely, to whom are we trying to "do good"?

For example, suppose that I learn that a professor at a Christian college is advocating, in blog posts, values diametrically opposed to what he is explicitly required to uphold as a professor at that college--say, advocating gay "marriage" or even extramarital or premarital sex generally. We can either keep it simple by saying that the blog posts are written under his own name and that someone else just shines a spotlight on it or draws the administration's attention to it. Or we can make it a _little_ more complicated by saying that he's using a pseudonym but leaving absolutely blatant clues such as _naming_ the college where he teaches in his "about" notes at the blog, putting up his real photograph, and the like. Or we can make it more complicated still by saying that he's actually tried quite hard to blog anonymously and that someone has to do some clever sleuthing, but still using only publicly available information, to conclude who this is.

I don't know how much the propriety of "outing" the professor varies in these different situations. But suppose that, for any of these, someone starts publicizing what he's said, who he is, and the conflict with his school's statement of Christian principles, which he has had to sign on to for his employment. And suppose that this calls his further employment into question.

It probably doesn't do any good _to him_, but getting him ousted may do good to the college, future students, and parents.

The adulterous woman was a trap set for Him, and many Christians read far too much into it in my opinion....There is just too much that goes wrong with applying that story broadly.

Agreed, Mike. I tend to think also that Christ's comments about the Pharisees is a pretty good comeback: "brood of vipers" and "whited sepulchers" is pretty strong language, and certainly stands as a public rebuke.

By the way, the question of "outing" someone on something, which is linked to shaming, is delicate precisely because of the "does no good" question. Namely, to whom are we trying to "do good"?

I would also add that it's delicate because more often than not, it's actually intended to intimidate people into silence illegitimately. For every example like yours, there are probably several dozen or more people who have been doxed, "outed," etc. to get them to stop advocating a politically incorrect position.

Tony,

Love the topic -- broadly conceived, I'm a big fan of shame, especially as it applies to society and culture. Charles Murray discusses the loss of shame as a problem for the working class in his book Coming Apart. I still like to refer back to the Victorians and their successful use of shame -- here is one author discussing the matter:

"Victorian values" have been much misunderstood, and indeed, quite unfairly calumnized as little more than hypocrisy, cruelty, misery, drudgery, squalor, and ignorance. But, as Gertrude Himmelfarb demonstrates in The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values, Victorian values above all meant a continuous improvement in British society between the 1840s and the 1900s. Crime was high before Victoria came to the throne in 1837, and continued to be a source of concern until the 1850s. But from then it fell year upon year, even though the population increased. "In 1857," writes Himmelfarb, "the rate of indictable offense per 100,000 population was 480; in 1901 it was 250 -- a decline in less than half a century of almost 50 percent. The absolute numbers were even more graphic: with a population of 19 million in 1857, there were 92,000 crimes; with a population of 33 million in 1901, there were 81,000 crimes -- 14 million more people and 11,000 fewer crimes." The reason for this progressive reduction in crime throughout the later half of the 19th century was not more police, or not more "entitlement" programs, a larger safety net, or more security measures, but more morality. The Victorian ethic of improvement, and especially self-improvement, based largely on shaming, brought remarkable social rewards to the vast majority.

The Victorians were willing to put up with shame because they felt that, while shaming could certainly be abused, it also served a higher social good. Recall that the middle class, which so intimidated the poor, the meek, and the female with the shame stick were themselves often cowering before it. Who was more a pillar of Victoriana than William Gladstone, the most eminent statesman of his time? Open one of his innumerable volume of diaries and you will see this kind of sentiment: "He spake no word, he thought no thought/Save by the steadfast rule of Ought." It was not elite culture but middle-class culture that maintained the so-called cult of respectability. They were the ones forever reiterating bromides by the likes of Edmund Burke -- "Manners are more important than laws" -- and needlepointing "Laborare est Orare." They were the market for Bulwer-Lytton novels, didactic illustrations for the parlor, and Palgrave's Treasury.

- from For Shame: The Loss of Common Decency in American Culture by James Twitchell

Shaming language is all around us. "Transphobic," "homophobic," "sexist," "racist," "islamophobic," etc. "Man up!" is one of the few that conservatives are particularly fond of using. The fact that many people don't seem to recognize this just speaks to their failure to examine their own biases. It is everywhere, and there isn't much wrong with that. What is wrong with it is the fact that we have so many people in positions of authority who consider their own values unassailable and unworthy of examination, which permits them to self-righteously unleash shaming language (and take formal action) whenever it suits them, while denouncing others for the very same.

1) Making more widely known a very bad thing that someone has done, in a way that may have negative repercussions on that person's career, friendships, associations, etc.

OK, I am going to suggest another clarification on what "shaming" is, and use Lydia's first category as the spring-board. I don't think that divulging THAT someone has done some action counts as "shaming" properly. I think it is often part of the overall process - that Jeff recounts from the Charles Murray piece on the Victorians - of social pressure toward virtue, but it is distinct from the act of shaming.

Going back to good ol' standard ethics, if someone has done something wrong that you know about but others do not, you have a choice. You can tell people, or you can keep silent. If you tell because you want to get them in trouble, make them lose face, cost them a career, make it so they are uncool and you are cool, to get notice for yourself, or a 1000 other unworthy reasons, that's called "detraction". If you tell people to keep them safe from additional crime, or to make sure the right person is caught and punished, that falls under the virtues of justice. But neither one, on its own, constitutes "shaming". It would require, in addition to merely divulging the FACT of their action, also using some kind of repudiation of their person, or contempt for them, or disgust for their actions, some kind of further commentary on the evil character of the actions (if not of the person).

That is, "shaming" seems to include within it a specific sense of moral judgment about the behavior (at the least). It's not merely "he did X", but "He did X, and that's a vile, degenerate act worthy of contempt."

Moving on to #2:

2) Lecturing someone in private in an angry or hectoring fashion about some fault of character or bad behavior.

This too, I think fails to constitute shaming. It can be well or ill conceived, perhaps, but whether good or bad it isn't the good or bad of shaming, which seems to imply a notion of publicity, and here I make a distinction. The passion "shame" can be felt by a person alone, for he is rightly ashamed of sins by the conviction of his own conscience. Shame is also a goad to confession to a priest, as St. Thomas says:

"Confession is the sinner's sacramental self-accusation through shame for what he has done,

But this is not what we mean by the term "shaming", which seems to be an act of expressing disgust at the wrongdoing of one, to others. So we distinguish the passion in the soul in which a person suffers shame from the public action among at least 2 people other than the wrongdoer that presents the event with respect to which he (likely) will feel that shame.

It is my sense that the Gospel confirms that shaming is part of the Christian way, at least in SOME sense:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [Matt 18:15]

The "take one or two more" means that you have begun the process of divulging this person's wrongdoing. But the end of the passage is "let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector" can be nothing other than "treat him AS an evildoer", because that's exactly how tax collectors were treated. They bore a heavy social stigma for their (also heavy) wallets.

But neither one, on its own, constitutes "shaming". It would require, in addition to merely divulging the FACT of their action, also using some kind of repudiation of their person, or contempt for them, or disgust for their actions, some kind of further commentary on the evil character of the actions (if not of the person).

That is, "shaming" seems to include within it a specific sense of moral judgment about the behavior (at the least). It's not merely "he did X", but "He did X, and that's a vile, degenerate act worthy of contempt."

In the kind of situation I was envisaging, a strongly negative opinion of the act would be clearly implicit in the fact of publicizing. For example, even if you just said, "As Dr. Jones's employer, I thought you would be interested to know that Dr. Jones made the following comments on his blog" (or "on Twitter" or "on Facebook"). Even if you didn't _say_ that his comments were nasty, inappropriate, wrong, or whatever, nobody doubts that this is why you are reporting them to the employer. In a great many cases (say, if you wrote a blog post of your own), it would be explicit: "Dr. Jones's comments are completely inconsistent with his position at a Christian institution," etc., and all the more so if there were any controversy about "outing" him. One would say that one advertised it because what he did was wrong and one thought his employer should know, etc.

In the kind of situation I was envisaging, a strongly negative opinion of the act would be clearly implicit in the fact of publicizing. For example, even if you just said, "As Dr. Jones's employer, I thought you would be interested to know that Dr. Jones made the following comments on his blog" (or "on Twitter" or "on Facebook").

Well OK, that would be slightly different from what I was envisaging. So lets take it the way you put it. Is that really what we mean by shaming?

I vote no. I don't think it is sufficient if the negative opinion is merely implicit. Yes, it is publicising someone's behavior, and yes that can be easily used to shame. But if the negative opinion remains implicit only, I don't think that counts. For, in my estimation, included in the essence of the act of shaming is the OVERT call for others to treat you as a disgrace, an OVERT characterization of the act as wrong, an OVERT statement about your character, or (at the least) and overt expression that you must change your behavior.

Yes, it is true that merely pointing out behavior and not characterizing it can still give people the clear sense that you disapprove, but it gives them neither a sense of how wrong you consider it, nor why you think it wrong. And since we don't shame people for every trivial, minor defect, leaving all that baggage unstated means that your pointing it out is insufficient to carry the sense of disgust, the sense of repudiation, that belongs to shaming.

Which leads me to another distinction: kids and teens make fun of others all the time: the cool kids mock the nerds, the jocks mock the clumsy and slow, the nerds mock the dim-witted. These can all make the target FEEL ashamed, just like what happens in shaming. But there is this major difference: there is nothing the targets have done as sins or crimes worthy of denigrating. Being slow, or too poor to buy the latest fashions, is not a shameful thing. St. Thomas points out

Whether even virtuous men can be ashamed?...

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that a "virtuous man is not shamefaced."

I answer that, As stated above (1 and 2) shamefacedness is fear of some disgrace. Now it may happen in two ways that an evil is not feared: first, because it is not reckoned an evil; secondly because one reckons it impossible with regard to oneself, or as not difficult to avoid.

Accordingly shame may be lacking in a person in two ways. First, because the things that should make him ashamed are not deemed by him to be disgraceful; and in this way those who are steeped in sin are without shame, for instead of disapproving of their sins, they boast of them. Secondly, because they apprehend disgrace as impossible to themselves, or as easy to avoid. On this way the old and the virtuous are not shamefaced. Yet they are so disposed, that if there were anything disgraceful in them they would be ashamed of it. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "shame is in the virtuous hypothetically."

Reply to Objection 1. Lack of shame occurs in the best and in the worst men through different causes, as stated in the Article. On the average men it is found, in so far as they have a certain love of good, and yet are not altogether free from evil....

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (1, ad 1) the virtuous man despises [TM: treats as of no account] ignominy and reproach, as being things he does not deserve, wherefore he is not much ashamed of them. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, shame, like the other passions, may forestall reason.

Though kids are often MADE to feel ashamed of their non-moral shortcomings, these are flaws in their passions and in their living up to reason. And in those who would attempt to shame others for such unintentional defects, theirs is a MISUSE of the methods of shaming, an abuse, and not to be accorded the unqualified definition of shaming.

(Unless you have already denounced such wrong behavior several times in the past), I would characterize the act of pointing at someone's wrongful behavior and then not in any way attempting to name it as wrong it, as a failed shaming, a mis-start to the process. You started out, and then failed at the crux of action, which is to express a moral sense of the matter. It would be (typically, I think) a failure of courage: a failure to stake a real moral position when that is called for, in favor of being mealy-mouthed or a quisling about it, to give yourself an out if the (attempted) shaming should backfire on you. To the extent your silence fails to express a moral sense, just to that extent your pointing at it falls short of shaming.

I think "as long as you don't hurt anyone (psychologically, emotionally, physically)" is the 'new' Golden Rule for modernism. That's vague enough to set the bar low and yet make one feel like there's an actual societal standard. So as long as you aren't sexist, misogynistic, LBGTophic, xenophobic, and racist you're fine.

If you think men and woman are different, both in physical and mental capabilities, then you're a sexist. If you think same-sex attraction is a disorder and do not support same-sex marriage, then you're a bigot. If you don't think slavery reparations are needed, think voter ID laws should be enforced, and if you don't play the "poor black & Latino people" you're a racist. If you think borders should be recognized and immigration laws followed, or be skeptical of a certain group of foreigners, then you're xenophobic.

As long as you satiate your "feels" you're fine. There should be no shame because - remember - as long as you don't hurt anyone you're a "good person."

Darn it, GRA, you've nailed us. We are indeed sexist, misogynist, LBTQTXGKNAophic, xenophobic, and racist! What gave us away?

As long as you satiate your "feels" you're fine. There should be no shame because - remember - as long as you don't hurt anyone you're a "good person."

What about if you hurt yourself, because you are a masochist? Or is this a disorder that the APA has defined out of existence?

I take it as a given that some of the things some people attack others for (such as the above) and use the methods of shaming are the wrong things, the wrong targets of the action. Which leads to the question: is shaming to be understood in the same way as "killing", of which some instances are good (self-defense) and other instances are evil (murder)? Or is the word to be understood in the same way as, say, courage, where only good acts qualify to fit under the umbrella, and anything disordered falls outside of its meaning as an excess or a defect of what it ought to be? Should we call what happened to Brendan Eich (head of Mozilla, for supporting Prop 8) a "wrongful example of shaming", or should we call it rather a "failed effort of shaming" because it was all wrong in its reasons?

Before you answer, I will point out that the question ASSUMES that there can be good acts of shaming. Which takes a stance on the original question I posed. But I think that this is appropriate, because (a) my example of Christ's explicit direction to employ the tactics of shaming, and (b) because it comes from the natural moral law. The second is shown as follows: shame as a passion is part of man's nature, as the inherent response to recognizing you have done wrong. It is the necessary and natural appendage of having a conscience, capable of recognizing right and wrong, and of having free will, i.e. of doing right and wrong. Unless you have deadened your conscience, you are subject to feeling shame.

Man is, also, a social animal, ordered to live with others in society, and ordered to friendship. One of the common goods is knowledge: we come to perceive the truth through the assistance of others. Hence, when we have done evil, the agency of others pointing out the wrong is a socially healthy act. Moreover, when others react to our wrong, our evil acts, as befits that evil (i.e. in moral revulsion), that too is part of the natural law in which we ought to be disgusted by evil, and we ought to publicly judge public behavior to be morally significant. Thus, the behavior of society by which people react to our known evil in such a way as we feel the shamefulness of our shameful acts is all part of the social support structure of the virtues of truth and justice. This is a HEALTHY function in society. (The fact that no society ever operated without the mechanism is, also, a sign that it is part of the natural law.)

Yes, I am pro-shaming. I once read an article where they claimed that shaming was barbaric because one girl commited suicide after shaming, and also it was done in the middle ages.

This despite 1) She pointed out herself that everybody who knew the girl who killed herself told people to back off because they didn't know all the facts 2) One isolated incident doesn't necessarily mean it's an inherently bad punishment, and 3) That it was done in the middle ages is not an argument and means nothing.

Ahh, but the very category name "Middle Ages" was designed to identify a (middle, interregnum) period of societal mal-adjustment between the glorious Roman era and the brilliant Renaissance - i.e. the era in which Catholicism held sway over all Europe. To be bred of the Middle Ages is to be bred of ignorance.

Pay no attention to the fact that the Romans used shaming just fine, thank you. Stripping criminals naked for execution was an instance of shaming. (Though not as strong a case as now in our post-Victorian era). Pay no attention to the myriad forms of shaming done in the times after the Middle Ages. Pay no attention to FACTS, mind you, they are creating a fairy tale and facts get in the way.

Shame is a social technology to leash the vices of man where judicial penalty would be inappropriate. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon, practiced universally in societies throughout history. We still have shame today, its just you must be ashamed to be a white cis-christian.

In my estimation, the notion of shaming stated above as under the natural law (bearing on the natural passion "shame" and the public role of attesting to moral limits in the public sphere) also implies certain limits to shaming as a good thing.

For instance, shaming should not be used for ALL sins a man might commit, but only those that bear on the social good, or at least on others, in a determinate way. To take a specific example, if a man at one meal surpasses any reasonable limit and is a glutton, but (a) he does it in private, not in front of others, and (b) he does it once, it is not a habitual act, and (c) he can well afford the excess food, it is hard to see how the PUBLIC has a role in calling forth what he ought to feel about the act, i.e. shame for exceeding reasonable bounds and acting intemperately. If some other person discovers the act, it is hard to see why he ought to make it known to others so that society can tell the sinner that his behavior was shameful. The virtues related to truth do not demand such a publication of sin.

Another limit to shaming would seem to reflect a time limit: if part of the social role in shaming is to get a man to feel the shame he ought to feel at a bad act, and that public shaming causes him to not only feel that shame correctly, but also (a) repent of the evil, and (b) make amends, then the shaming has completed that purpose and the public opprobrium ought to be either completely ended after that (if the shameful evil was a single act), or at least attenuated (if the shameful evil was a habitual disorder which the offender can only have _begun_ to fix in a definite set of acts). In other words, there must be a way for the shaming to have a sell-by date, after which it is no longer appropriate.

Obviously, there should be a clear relation between the degree of public outcry and the degree of evil in the bad act(s). Reacting to a so-called "micro-aggresson" (even if it really were a real wrong act, that is) as if were a major aggression is disordered. We should reserve major opprobrium for serious evils, not mere inadvertent mistakes. One of the obvious failings of our "politically correct" culture is the disordered way it discards grave evils (pre-marital sex, lying, stealing, murder of the unborn) as if they were nothing significant, and elevating minor things (saying "niggardly" in a room in which there MIGHT be an illiterate black person who doesn't know the word has nothing to do with race) to the status of major crimes.

For shaming to work the person being shamed needs to accept standards & values of the person(s) doing the shaming. If they don't share a common understanding of life and how it ought to be lived or what actions are right & wrong then shaming just wouldn't work (to change behaviours or uphold standards).

In a post-Christian society, especially one that largely believes in some form of moral relativism, shaming is not going to be effective or useful. First you'd need to get people to accept Christian views of morality & life. Otherwise you'll be viewed as out of touch, at best; or bigoted; or bulling and causing psychological harms etc., which would seem to make shaming counterproductive.

For shaming to constitute a public service or to say Christians should try shaming others, I think the public or others can't be non-believers.

In a post-Christian society, especially one that largely believes in some form of moral relativism, shaming is not going to be effective or useful.

Some forms of shaming like slut shaming and fat shaming will continue to work because they are rooted in basic human behavior.

Mike T, I don't think slut shaming works now. There are even slut walks now. Fat Shaming would work, but you'd be viewed as a bully if you actually said or acted to shame fat people because of some kind of Christian view of gluttony as a deadly sin. people usually feel ashamed because we live in a materialistic culture obsessed with good looks/health/sex. But it is probably still true that some things are basic to humans and would be shared across moral/world views.

For shaming to work the person being shamed needs to accept standards & values of the person(s) doing the shaming. If they don't share a common understanding of life and how it ought to be lived or what actions are right & wrong then shaming just wouldn't work (to change behaviours or uphold standards).

I see what you are saying, Nathan, but I don't think that it quite pans out that way in practice. For, so it seems to me anyway, the methods of shaming are pretty good at inducing the FEELINGS of shame even apart from agreement about standards and values.

Empirically, people who don't actually agree with the principles behind political correctness can be moved to abide by the rules of it, out of shaming or fear of it. People whose (traditional) foundational standards are relatively unreflected can be hoodwinked into accepting and going along with PC because they are pressured into it by the tactics of "we'll consider you a bigot if you say/do those things". In practice, it doesn't matter that the person so shamed into it doesn't ACTUALLY agree with PC values at root, all that matters is that he internally respond to catcalls and shouts of "bigot" with the unpleasant turmoil of shame. It works. We are sort of wired that way, just as yelling at a dog will induce a similar response in the dog - it's wired that way.

Speaking more generically, at least a portion of the methods and tactics of shaming work underneath a conscious, rational level. For example, being shouted at will make a person upset regardless of the validity of the perspective of the person shouting. They could be shouting "you're a green martian" and it if they have a harsh, nasty tone of voice it will still bother you. People have an inclination to pay attention to "group opinion", and that inclination will have its effect even when, consciously, you know that the "group think" is fact-free or drivel. Indeed, as I pointed out above, St. Thomas mentions this: in our fallen state, even in the virtuous man at least the first movements of shame can arise without being reasonable:

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (1, ad 1) the virtuous man despises [TM: treats as of no account] ignominy and reproach, as being things he does not deserve, wherefore he is not much ashamed of them. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, shame, like the other passions, may forestall reason.

And when you haven't thought through the emptiness of the basis of the group's shaming, then their opprobrium is all that much more likely to affect your passions because you will be unable to readily oppose them with a clear truth.

For shaming to constitute a public service or to say Christians should try shaming others, I think the public or others can't be non-believers.

What about shaming on the basis of the natural moral law, which applies to everyone? Or, what about applying the standards the you DO hold in common, even if they are not full Christianity? A Christian should be able to shame a Muslim who is lying to and robbing a fellow Muslim.

An interesting question is, should we use the tactics of shaming to induce compliant behavior even in people who don't share the same standards? I think that it is possible, even probable, that to some extent, yes we should. Consider a person who holds for "open-marriage" in his thinking, but he moves into a traditional culture that upholds monogamous fidelity in marriage. It seems right and proper, if he should try to spout his error around impressionable youths, to shame him into silence. The best alternative would be to convince him of the truth, and let that deter him from spouting error, but usually convincing someone to alter a complete world-picture is time consuming, and we don't want him infecting others in the meantime. It seems right and good for him to be made aware that if he tries to sound off on his strongly repudiated, culturally offensive position, he is going to be treated like a pariah.

Mike T, I don't think slut shaming works now. There are even slut walks now.

On the contrary, millennials last I heard average fewer partners than previous generations despite being called the "hookup generation." Shrieking about "slut shaming" is one of the major internet causes of the left today. You should look at slut walks and such as nothing more than the typical "maybe if I am **THIS** obnoxious, you'll finally be forced to accept me" theatrics they often employ.

That's why conservatives shouldn't fear PUAs. Let them openly use the sluts and let us openly reject them. Give them two choices: live a chaste lifestyle or be used by men who think you're nothing. No happy middle ground where they get to have their cake and eat it too.

At its core, the feminist ranting about slut shaming is the realization that good men will never want sluts and the only men who won't ever hold sluttiness over women are men who won't give them any commitment when they start to crave it.

So shame away, for society's sake, where you can.

Tony,

It is probably right that methods of shaming are good at inducing inner turmoil & negative feelings and thereby controlling what people are willing to say or do. But, I don't think those feelings will necessarily be of shame (unworthiness). If that matter?

I may feel ashamed yet not actually be shamed; or conversely I My lack feelings of shame even if I am shamed. Feelings of shame can be distinct from the reality of being shamed. I could be made to feel ashamed yet not really be shamed at all because the values of those doing the shaming are false values or fact-free drivel. Like I could feel guilty of something without being guilty. But, I still don't know that I could be made to feel guilty or ashamed while I reject the reality of my guilt or shame. I'll feel inner turmoil of some kind if people call me names and shun me, but i don't think I'll feel unworthy or deficient (shame) – at lest not for the reasons the shaming was meant to make me recognize. I'd probably just feel spiteful, resentful or annoyed; maybe angry and afraid. Without internalizing standards that say I've done something shameful I don't think I'll feel shamed even if I am in fact shamed. If that makes sense…

Mike T,

It seems to me that this female comedian (and supporters) meant that being a slut is just fine and if you judge her or try and shame her you are sexist. This episode of shaming doesn't seem to have invoked any feelings of shame - just resentment at being judged by sexist standards.

The very fact that a woman of her media stature felt the need to go after a 17 year old like that says quite the opposite.

his episode of shaming doesn't seem to have invoked any feelings of shame

Shaming often doesn't result in that. Resentment is a very common response to shaming. Regardless, it doesn't let them have their peace while they are behaving that way which is ultimately one of the goals of shaming in the first place.

The Internet makes most social pressures less effective, including those that would be called shaming, because it's almost always possible to go to some other venue where your behavior will be approved. This applies on all sides of the political spectrum. If your "thing" is using vile language about women or blacks, there are many web sites and plenty of polite in-person company where you will be stopped from doing so and told that that behavior is unacceptable. But there are also plenty of blogs and forums where no one will stop you, others will do the same, and everyone will compliment each other on their "refusal to bow to political correctness."

If your "thing" is using vile language about women or blacks

How politically correct of you.

Yeah, because only someone in the grip of political correctness would think such a phenomenon even exists./sarc

it's not what Jesus did. He refused to stone the adulterous woman, and instead he forgave her sins

He did forgive her sins, but only after calling her to repentance. Even if you don't consider that shaming (per Lydia's #6, I would), He did in fact, shame the rest of the crowd about their own sins and hypocrisy in seeking to stone the woman. So He did do exactly what this argument claims He did not. In fact, He shamed the Pharisees, the money changers and many others quite frequently.

On the flip side, if you want to call for actually hurting or killing white men, there are plenty of respectable posts in academia and the media.

The point is that all of this is enabled by the hothouse environments available all over the Internet. The Internet has changed our idea of what is "respectable."

For example, I would never have believed when I was much younger that a day would come when actual, physical threats would be so numerous in a particular medium that the police, FBI, etc., would have given up on investigating most of them. Legally, physical threat against a particular person is illegal even if not "credible." But now they just don't have time to follow up on them all.

There is a lot of political bias in how it's handled. For example, when infamous feminist Anita Sarkeesian claimed she was driven from her home by death threats, the FBI got involved. When anti-gamer liberals called in actual bomb threats repeatedly to a GamerGate meeting in DC, no FBI investigation that I can recall.

Personally, I think 90% of the threat issue could be resolved if there were state and federal laws that said that posting a threat of violence and then going to the vicinity of the target intentionally without rescinding the threat of violence constitutes a presumption of intent to harm the target insofar as self-defense laws are concerned. Or put another way, if some troll threatens you and shows up on your door step, you are legally entitled to unload on them without asking what they want.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.