6 ms·

Sure, shame works (otherwise who would care to use it?). But it is a dangerous weapon. When people stop doing something because of shame, it's not that they cha

• leftyted 7y ago
  Shame was how I learned to behave when I was a child, it was my parents' go-to method, and I expect that's true for most parents. The fact that I was shamed into brushing my teeth, washing my hands, not lying, and generally acting like a responsible human being doesn't mean that "I didn't change my mind". Nor does it mean that my parents perpetrated violence against me and squelched my individuality. When you feel shame it's because you accept external judgements. If you didn't accept those judgements then you wouldn't feel shame, you'd just be angry. Accepting external judgements is healthy and necessary because our self-worth is derived from our perception of how other people view us. Like any tool, shame can be misused. But, as the article lays out, it's a necessary tool. It's also highly preferable to violence. > In Not-Violent Communication Marshall Rosenberg considers shame (and guilt) to be one of the violent ways to change people's behavior. Calling shame "violent" is dismissing actual violence.
  • taurath 7y ago
    I was also shamed by my parents - it was their favorite tool. When it comes to things like brushing your teeth, thats one thing. The stakes there are lot lower. When it comes to who you are or how you choose to express your individuality, shame is absolutely a violent thing. The suicide rate for trans people is as high as it is almost ENTIRELY because of shame - shame from others and society that becomes internalized. LGBT people have had to form whole alternate communities because of shame. For many of us our relationship to shame forms large parts of our personality. > Calling shame "violent" is dismissing actual violence. I agree if you're dealing with the idea of "all" shame, but in a lot of contexts is just as or even more harmful. Being punched is less harmful to a person than feeling like they're rejected by the whole of their community.
    • leftyted 7y ago
      > The suicide rate for trans people is as high as it is almost ENTIRELY because of shame It's not clear to me how you can confidently state something like this. The difficulty of coping with gender dysphoria could just as easily explain the high suicide rate among trans people. > LGBT people have had to form whole alternate communities because of shame. For many of us our relationship to shame forms large parts of our personality. Like the article says, shame is amoral. It's a tool, a necessary one, and it's not helpful to label shame as "toxic and destructive". > I agree if you're dealing with the idea of "all" shame, but in a lot of contexts is just as or even more harmful. Being punched is less harmful to a person than feeling like they're rejected by the whole of their community. Punching someone is violent. Disapproving of someone's sexual orientation is not. The fact that the latter is likely more harmful than the former does not make it violent. It's also quite easy to imagine an act that is very harmful but is neither violent nor wrong.
      • taurath 7y ago
        > The difficulty of coping with gender dysphoria could just as easily explain the high suicide rate among trans people. While you're right that dysphoria over physical manifestations of the wrong gender can be traumatic, in my experience its usually the experience of social shame. > It's a tool, a necessary one, and it's not helpful to label shame as "toxic and destructive" I didn't. > The fact that the latter is likely more harmful than the former does not make it violent. There's the 2nd definition in the dictionary: "strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force". Shame is a violent force.
    • loco5niner 7y ago
      > The suicide rate for trans people is as high as it is almost ENTIRELY because of shame citation needed. There are a lot of things happening internally as well.
      • taurath 7y ago
        I definitely overemphasized. I'd hold that it is a primary force though, given many first hand relationships.
  • tengbretson 7y ago
    > Calling shame "violent" is dismissing actual violence. It's worse than that. Calling words violence justifies the use of "defensive", actual violence against someone that has used "violent communication" – whatever the hell that might mean at the moment.
    • taurath 7y ago
      The pen is mightier than the sword.
      • tengbretson 7y ago
        That may be, but I think we can all agree that being loose with our definitions in such a way that it incentivizes "bringing a sword to a pen fight" is a bad thing.
        • MadWombat 7y ago
          Thank you so much for the "bringing a sword to a pen fight" phrase. Now I need to find a good place to use it.
    • MadWombat 7y ago
      > justifies the use of "defensive" Where I grew up this was the norm. There were things that could only be said with full understanding that physical violence is the only possible response. And while I do not condone violence and would not want children to grow up in the same environment, I have to admit that the possibility of things escalating from words to punches did act as a deterrent. I also wonder if the modern zero tolerance attitude to violence is the reason for such wider spread bullying problem.
  • stared 7y ago
    > Shame was how I learned to behave when I was a child, it was my parents' go-to method I've heard quite a few times (especially for older generations) that one learned to behave well because their parent beat them. I was raised in a guilt (rather than shame)-driven culture (Catholic), and well, while this is effective, it takes decades to undo the damage. > It's also highly preferable to violence. And my point is, that shame is a form of violence (not all violence is physical). Yes, it can be justified on occasions. If you dislike the word violence (in this context), then consider intentionally making someone suffer. For using shames, when it hurts beyond proportions, "How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life" (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...) is worth reading.
    • leftyted 7y ago
      > And my point is, that shame is a form of violence (not all violence is physical). Yes, it can be justified on occasions. If you dislike the word violence (in this context), then consider *intentionally making someone suffer". All violence is physical. Metaphorically speaking of shame as violent is an attempt to make shame sound inexcusable when, in reality, shame is necessary. I don't think it's possible to do a good job raising a child without intentionally making them suffer in order to teach them things. The issue is making someone suffer more than is necessary or making them suffer for the wrong reasons. The suffering part isn't the problem.
      • maxduckworth 7y ago
        Definition of violence 1a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE 3a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force the violence of the storm b: vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE 4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
        • 7y ago
• rayiner 7y ago
  > Sure, shame works (otherwise who would care to use it?). But it is a dangerous weapon. When people stop doing something because of shame, it's not that they change their minds. It's because they were (or are afraid of being) humiliated. That's not really true, and the article addresses that point directly: "Fourth, 'The transgressor should be sensitive to the source of shaming.' The shamee must consider themselves subject to the same social norms as the shamer." If you're someone who jaywalks because you think laws a against jaywalking are a product of Big Auto lobbying, you're not going to be shamed into using the crosswalk. Shame works for things where people know its wrong, but do it anyway because they think their transgression won't be publicized. Shaming people for littering, for example, reinforces what everyone already knows is wrong. It doesn't change minds per se, but reinforces a social norm, and that's a very good thing.
  • taurath 7y ago
    I'd just say that while those who litter usually do so only in situation they believe they can get away with it, they frequently litter because they don't identify as being a part of or responsible to or for the community they're dumping in. In much the same way that the jaywalker is against laws against jaywalking, the litterer doesn't see the point in keeping clean an environment that is uncaring and violent towards them. So in this case, its a lot more often that the transgressor isn't sensitive to the source of shaming. Take a look around at who leaves their trays in fast food restaurants around for others to pick up - its disaffected people, small kids, punks, and out of touch old people who are cynical and nasty about society. About the only people who respond to "shaming" about it are the people who do it due to being completely overwhelmed, like a parent wrangling 3 crying kids around and doesn't even have a free hand, and they're the ones least likely to really be able to respond to it.
  • clairity 7y ago
    it's the dying that usually keeps people from jaywalking, not shame or even the law. reasonable folks (people who are neither blind rule-followers or needlessly reckless) have no problems "jaywalking" when an accident is practically impossible (cars are absent or far away). in my experience, littering (and public urination/defecation by non-homeless people) almost seem like acts of aggression or defiance by the transgressors. i've rarely gotten anything but anger in return for speaking up about it. it seems to defy shame intentionally, rather than succumb to scoial norming.
• kerkeslager 7y ago
  I overall agree with what you have to say. However, I strongly object to using "violent" do describe any form of verbal communication. We need a hierarchy of what we as a society agree upon as wrong, and violence needs to be clearly at the top of that list, for good reason. Using the word "violence" to describe ways of speaking has the positive effect of making it clear that those ways of speaking are harmful, but it also has the negative effect of diluting the potency of the word "violence". To call shaming someone "violence" is to place it in the same category as murder, rape, and assault, and shaming someone simply does not belong in that category of actions. Ironically, equating shaming with violence has the effect of shaming people into not shaming each other, by placing their action in the same category of the most horrific actions humans inflict on one another. I suspect this wasn't intended, but it's one of the ways in which attempts to control language, even one's own language, are ineffective. If you really want to shame someone you can find a way to do it, even with the frameworks set forth in Non-violent Communication. I've observed similar problems when experimenting with E Prime[1]: I found when using it that I quickly was able to find ways around expressing identity and predication, which I began to employ subconsciously (against my conscious will: I was honestly trying very hard to conform to the spirit, rather than the letter of the law of E Prime). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
  • dleslie 7y ago
    Further, at what point does honest and valuable criticism become shame? It seems to me that this is predicated upon the subjective response of the individual. If shame is violence, and criticism can induce shame, then any criticism could be violent; no matter how valid, sincere and thoughtful.
    • kerkeslager 7y ago
      Yeah, I avoided my larger complaints about Non-violent Communication in my previous post. I think a lot of Rosenberg's advice is geared toward abdicating the listener's responsibility for managing their own emotions. Kind speech is certainly something to aspire to, but trying to manage the emotions of everyone you speak to is both unrealistic and ill-advised. Careful, well-intentioned honesty is much healthier, in my opinion. Some people won't react positively, but getting positive reactions from everyone wouldn't be a good all-consuming goal even if it weren't unrealistic. I have to temper this opinion by saying: It's hard to say how this plays out with people who are actually proficient with the techniques in the book, however. A lot of my criticism of the book comes from seeing people use the techniques, but perhaps the reason people pick up the book to begin with is to address harmful patterns in their communication, which might bias my experience toward the techniques being used by people with poor communication skills and confounding psychological issues.
• TulliusCicero 7y ago
  In the article, it talks about how we should be focusing on institutions, not individuals: > Wherever possible, we should target shaming at institutions, not individuals. Effective shaming focuses on the powerful, not the weak. It's not about changing random people's behavior, but about large groups, like corporations, or political parties. Shaming such groups is a reputation attack on the group, not a personal attack on the individuals who make them up (usually).