8.4 Guilt and shame
Hunt (2006) argues that Nussbaum
describes guilt as being concerned with the course of action while shame aims
at changing the sort of person one is. Guilt can be understood as a species of
self-directed anger, and like anger, is a response to harm or damage. Guilt
aims at constructing results, such as restoring relations which the wronged
person makes amends. Guilt, unlike shame, is linked to an acknowledgement of
the rights of others. Nussbaum (2004) argues that guilt is so much better than
shame, because it can be atoned for. However, says Nussbaum, if what you feel
is shame, the avenue of escape is to become a different sort of person. But she
argues that since shame is a diminished sense of oneself, it can easily
undermine ones capacity to accomplish anything at all, let alone “the daunting
task of becoming another sort of person” (Nussbaum 2004: 216). Shame has a
certain tendency to be self-defeating.
Both shame and guilt appear when
people recognize that a cultural code has been broken or that someone has
failed to live up to such a code.
Despite the similarities between shame and guilt, there are some
differences between them that are substantial. Lewis (1971) argues that shame
includes the whole self. Shame makes people feel small and worthless, both in
terms of self-evaluation and in looking at themselves through the eyes of
others. They try desperately to hide, escape, or to strike back. Shame damages
the self and is so painful that defence mechanisms try to protect the self from
it. This often leads to anger and violence directed toward others, giving a
sense of control (Lewis 1971; Retzinger 1991; Scheff and Retzinger 1991).
Kaare T. Pettersen
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment