8.2 Moral codes
But what is morality? Turner and
Stets (2006) say that from a sociological point of view “morality ultimately
revolves around evaluating cultural codes that specify what is right or wrong,
good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable” (Turner and Stets 2006: 544). Moral
codes vary at the different levels of society where values are important; at
the level of broad institutional domains (family, economy, education, science
and so forth) where ideologies about what is right, proper, and appropriate are
important for individuals; at the level of specific institutions, for example a
worker in a factory or a student at school, have expectations to live up to;
and finally there are face-to-face interactions where norms say something about
respectful conduct and are therefore moral (appendix 2). It seems common in my
opinion for people to feel shame when they violate an expectation in a
face-to-face interaction. The shame felt can have different levels of
intensity, from embarrassment to humiliation, and people may claim to
experience shame without feeling guilt. Some may not have lived up to their own
expectations or the expectations of others in a specific situation, and this
may result in a feeling of shame. This does not necessarily mean that a person
has done something wrong; guilt may be induced all the same. But the less
situational and the more ideological the norm becomes, the more guilt will also
dominate the person involved. People may also feel both shame and guilt when an
institutional norm or societal value is broken.
Shame, like other moral emotions,
connects a person to a social structure and culture through self-awareness.
Turner and Stets (2006) argue that:
An individual’s transsituational self-conception and more situational
identity are both cognitive and emotional constructs. They involve conceptions
of who a person is, how others should respond to self, and valenced emotions
about the characteristics of self in several or particular parts (Turner and Stets 2006: 548).
Our self-conception involves
conceptions of who we are and how others respond to us. This self-awareness
consists of a relation where the self relates itself to itself, or as
Kierkegaard puts it in Sickness unto
Death (1849/1980):
A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But
what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is
the relation’s relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the
infinite and finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity,
in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in
this way, a human being is still not a self. (1849/1980: 13)
These two quotes describe in my opinion
different ways in which the self consists of layers upon layers of constructs,
conceptions and characteristics, which all relate to each other in a very
complex way. The self is both a process and a relation, both in relation to
itself and in relation to others. Because the self is powered by emotions, it
can become a moral self. These emotions can be seen in individuals who give the
impression of having the moral identity of being caring; they say that they
feel both shame and guilt when they feel that they have not helped others in
the way they should or could have. Shame can be especially painful because of
the way it involves the self.
Kaare T. Pettersen
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment