The Dual Nature of Shame: Understanding Its Role in Moral Behavior

Shame is undergoing a resurgence in interest, contrasting sharply with previous years when guilt was often considered the more constructive emotion. Historically, guilt has taken precedence due to its focus on the individual’s actions, while shame was often seen as a remnant of more collectivist cultures. The distinctions between these two emotions are still debated; generally speaking, guilt is perceived as stemming from internal reflections, while shame arises from external judgments of others, often labeling the individual rather than their actions.

Moral Emotions: The Role of Shame and Guilt

Both shame and guilt are classified as “moral emotions,” which refer to feelings that impact our moral judgments and evaluations. Within this classification, these emotions are categorized as “self-conscious” moral emotions, which are introspective as opposed to emotions like gratitude, compassion, or disgust that are directed towards others. This distinction is significant; while disgust relates to the feelings of the person judging, shame focuses on the emotional experience of the person being judged.

June Tangney and her colleagues propose that moral emotions act as a type of “moral barometer,” alerting individuals to their social and moral standing. This feedback can be immediate following a moral breach or can arise preemptively, influencing behavior before any wrongdoing has occurred.

Two Facets of Shame: Stigmatizing vs. Reintegrative

The work of criminologist John Braithwaite has played a pivotal role in re-evaluating the function of shame within society. His analysis determined that societies which incorporate shame effectively tend to experience better social outcomes, particularly regarding lower crime rates.

Importantly, Braithwaite differentiates between two types of shame:

• Stigmatizing Shame: This is characterized by disrespectful shaming where individuals are condemned as ‘bad people’. This approach is unyielding, resulting in a lasting stigma that can exacerbate future transgressions.
• Reintegrative Shame: In contrast, this form of shame expresses disapproval but maintains respect for the individual. It acknowledges that the person is good but has committed a wrongful act. This type facilitates rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, positively influencing behavior.

While certain extreme cases may warrant stigmatizing shame, the everyday application of shame should favor reintegrative practices. Jennifer Jacquet’s book, Is Shame Necessary?, offers compelling insights into the constructive uses of shame in society.

Conclusion: Embracing Adaptive Shame

To harness the potential of shame effectively, it is essential to transform feelings of harmful and debilitating stigmatization into more constructive, reintegrative shame. When addressing someone’s misconduct, it is crucial to frame the discussion in a way that emphasizes recovery and paths to rectification. This encourages a shift away from negative self-reflection towards meaningful moral reassessment and reconciliation.