Shame

                I’ve spoken about identity before, and pressure and perception, and choices, and change. Who we are, how we see, how we act(which depends on how we see and determines who we are). These things make for the possibility of change- or they do not. On matters of choice and change, I mentioned that change is hard; that oftentimes we as people take the path of least resistance(least pressure), so in order to change, one’s state of existence(again, the amount of pressure) must become more unbearable than the alternative.
                Pressure influences our desire and effort to change, be they pressures of the discomforting  nature explained above, or perhaps the promise of something greater. A reward for good behavior, rather than an ultimatum. Sometimes it is merely a matter of whims or discovery. However, the pressures that encourage change may also dissuade it. Shame, for instance, is a powerful force in influencing the actions of individuals and groups.
                Returning to identity: We are all complex beings, combinations of various details that others often perceive individually, but fail to piece together. A lot of these details we are born with, and some of these we simply cannot change, and as such, we may become firmly rooted in them, because quite literally, they define what we are. Thinking about that in conjunction with connection, a desire that most people have to some extent, sheds some light on how shame can make or break change, connection, and identity.
                Put simply, shame is an attack on identity. Shame is directly harmful to our identity, because it prevents us from exploring and experiencing and enjoying who we are. Instead, we are forced into a mold of who we ‘should be’… but who decides that? As a shaming culture, we have been led to feed on those who appear different, weaker. We are taught to ignore the suffering of others. The truth is, what is ideal to some is not so for others, and situations of enforcing that ‘should be’ means only that the ‘should-self’ destroys the ‘ideal-self’.

                But why shame others?

                It depends. For the sake of connection, protection, belonging, ‘unity’. In regards to connection, I have spoken of the pains taken to belong, betrayals of the self in order to avoid being ostracized(shamed). This may include shaming others. On one hand, an act taken to fit in. On the other, a redirection or reflection away from qualities that would also/instead be shamed by the group. For such reasons, people may feel the need to ridicule others, badger them, insult them, and tear them down for their differences.
                 In truth, such mockery is its own kind of violence, because it is the first step in distancing and othering that allows one to inflict atrocities upon another, or to further ridicule,  simply observe, or turn  away when terrible things to befall a separate entity.  When calamity occurs, the first  person scrutinized is the victim, to see if they have done(or not done) some particular behavior which therefore justifies whatever ill they receive(regardless of the legality).
                Furthermore, shame is harmful because it fosters division, rather than connection. It singles a person out for who they are, or their behavior, and ridicules them. This prevents connection with other groups who might otherwise participate in the shamed behavior, as the person seeking to explore or understand may become self-conscious, and ostracized for their interest. At the same time, the ostracized person cannot really connect with those among their own group either, due to being shamed by them. They are ‘stained’ in the eyes of their community, and shunned, and may even harbor resentment against those who shamed them- a bridge burnt at both ends.

                There are other situations. When dealing with shame, one must ask if the disapproval is directed toward the individual or the incident of behavior; in the case of the well-meaning, there is an objection to the action, rather than the person who performed it- this capacity to separate people from actions, traits from choices, is what allows for connection. Attacking a person for possessing one particular trait does only harm.
                Even then, the behavior must be examined- is it harmful, or just different? Does it pose a threat, or is it simply unfamiliar? What is REALLY at stake if it persists? Definition? Destruction? As I have said, the majority of traits, the things that in their combinations create differences between people and groups—these are neutral things, and should be regarded as points of interest. But what about the truly, undeniably destructive?
                Even assuming such is proven, then there is still the matter of the approach. Honest discussion and instruction will go further than an emotional attack. If one truly seeks to build a stronger, better person by steering them away from harmful practice, then one should actually build, rather than tear down. Fortunately, people are realizing this, and as that happens, behaviors once criticized are beginning to be seen in a more neutral, or positive light. Still, there’s a lot of ground to cover in that regard.