The previous post discussed shame as a tool for division- viewing
neutral behaviors and characteristics in a negative light, and condemning those
who practice such. At the end, the recognition of such behavior coming to
light, and the combatting of such practices. This is a good thing; if we as
people can let go of the desire to criticize others, we can move forward to
acceptance in spite of our differences.
However, in the wake of shaming and those who are disarming such movements, there is another practice that stands in the way of connecting with one another. While there are legitimate situations in which people are unjustly shamed for their behavior, there are those who are simply playing the part. These individuals may take any opposition as evidence of being shamed without respect to the situation as a whole.
Shame as deflection is the ‘disarming’ of critique by claiming such opposition comes with no intent beyond the shaming they perceive. This may be intentional or unconscious, as a means to avoid discussing or taking accountability for one’s behavior, or to maintain one’s sense of comfort. It is harmful for this way that it avoids honest discussion about legitimate issues, because one party claims persecution in a situation where they are not being persecuted. Beyond that, the ‘cry wolf’ nature undermines people and groups who are truly victims. People begin to assume all who protest shaming are of the ‘shame as deflection’ variety, and take no time to reevaluate the circumstances of the wronged party.
In determining the difference between actual shaming and shame as a means of deflection, the question to ask is ‘what’s at stake?’ Real matters of shaming deal with an attack or othering of individuals for a practice or trait of neutral value(or no specific reason at all). Among those who claim to be suffering attacks of shame, there is the matter of investigating what is under attack(a neutral target or a harmful/negative one), and if there is a negative behavior to be remedied, determining how that is being accomplished. As mentioned in the previous post, shame, even well intentioned, is not the answer when one is seeking to remedy a problem. Encouragement and discussion do much more. All that changes is the nature of discussion: When dealing with a person who believes they are being shamed when critiqued, explain the difference(constructive vs destructive criticism)- but also ensure the critique is actually a critique, and together, deconstruct why offense is taken.
However, in the wake of shaming and those who are disarming such movements, there is another practice that stands in the way of connecting with one another. While there are legitimate situations in which people are unjustly shamed for their behavior, there are those who are simply playing the part. These individuals may take any opposition as evidence of being shamed without respect to the situation as a whole.
Shame as deflection is the ‘disarming’ of critique by claiming such opposition comes with no intent beyond the shaming they perceive. This may be intentional or unconscious, as a means to avoid discussing or taking accountability for one’s behavior, or to maintain one’s sense of comfort. It is harmful for this way that it avoids honest discussion about legitimate issues, because one party claims persecution in a situation where they are not being persecuted. Beyond that, the ‘cry wolf’ nature undermines people and groups who are truly victims. People begin to assume all who protest shaming are of the ‘shame as deflection’ variety, and take no time to reevaluate the circumstances of the wronged party.
In determining the difference between actual shaming and shame as a means of deflection, the question to ask is ‘what’s at stake?’ Real matters of shaming deal with an attack or othering of individuals for a practice or trait of neutral value(or no specific reason at all). Among those who claim to be suffering attacks of shame, there is the matter of investigating what is under attack(a neutral target or a harmful/negative one), and if there is a negative behavior to be remedied, determining how that is being accomplished. As mentioned in the previous post, shame, even well intentioned, is not the answer when one is seeking to remedy a problem. Encouragement and discussion do much more. All that changes is the nature of discussion: When dealing with a person who believes they are being shamed when critiqued, explain the difference(constructive vs destructive criticism)- but also ensure the critique is actually a critique, and together, deconstruct why offense is taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment