Posts
Normally, I would not comment on Brené Brown’s blog post on
public shaming.
Were I to tell you how bad it really is I would risk
looking disrespectful and uncharitable.
Yet, Brown, whose name I first heard a couple of days ago is
a star on the TED circuit and claims to be speaking for the latest in psycho
research on shame. This makes it more difficult to remain silent.
The truth is, if Brown’s essay had been written by a college
sophomore it would be barely acceptable. Written by a college professor it is
barely excusable.
Brown was especially agitated over the recent New York City
subway campaign that has tried to stigmatize teen pregnancy. Our mayor recently put up a number of posters that try to discourage unmarried teenage girls from
having babies. It has not threatened girls, but has asked them
to take a cold hard look at the reality of teenage pregnancy.
Many people applauded the effort, myself included. Richard Reeves wrote an excellent column in the New York Times explaining how shame can be used to sanction bad behavior and to encourage good behavior.
Brown objected to what Reeves said, because, in her mind
shame is bad. It is all bad all of the
time. It makes people feel bad; it makes them do bad things; it causes every kind of bad behavior.
Brown may call it science, but she is trafficking in
mindless moral absolutes.
If she were consistent she would be promoting
shamelessness, but that would require more thought than she has apparently put
into the issue.
Of the two great emotional sanctions, shame and guilt, Brown
clearly prefers guilt. She even believes that people change behavior because
they feel guilty.
In her words:
The
majority of shame researchers agree that the difference between shame and guilt
is best understood as the difference between “I am bad” and “I did something
bad.” Shame is about who we are, and guilt is about our behaviors.
When we
apologize for something we’ve done, make amends to others, or change a behavior
that we don’t feel good about, guilt is most often the motivator. Of course,
you can shame someone into saying, “I’m sorry,” but it’s rarely authentic.
Guilt is as powerful as shame; it just doesn’t have the paralyzing and
debilitating impact that prevents shame from being an effective agent of meaningful
change.
Clearly, the majority of shame researchers should be looking
for another line of work.
I apologize to those of you who have read this before, but
apparently one needs to repeat oneself.
Guilt differs from shame because guilt involves breaking a
law. True enough, guilt comes from bad behavior, but no one feels guilty about
bad manners.
Guilt is a form of anxiety. It is the anticipation of
physical punishment. When criminals are pronounced guilty and punished the
punishment attenuates the guilt feelings. The punishment for crime is most often physical, as in incarceration.
Someone who wishes to palliate guilt might practice self-flagellation,
or its moral equivalent: self-criticism.
You pay the debt of your guilt by being punished. Palliating
your guilt does not involve changing your behavior.
It is fair to remark, because the point confuses everyone,
that when a criminal is brought to trial he suffers both guilt and shame.
For his malefactions he is tried and incarcerated.
But, since a trial is a public spectacle, he will also
experience shame.
Shame might attach to criminal behavior, but only in the
sense that an embezzler, for example, has not only committed a crime; he has
failed to fulfill a basic fiduciary responsibility.
If guilt is about committing crimes, shame is about failing to do one’s duty.
When a commanding general fails, he will feel shame, not
guilt.
Moral individuals have a sense of shame. They know when they
have done something wrong and set out to correct it. They apologize and resign and pledge to improve their character.
When Japanese businessmen fail they offer shamefaced
apologies. They are not apologizing for having broken a law. They are not going
to be indicted, tried or incarcerated… unless their failure involves criminal
behavior.
When someone apologizes he expresses regret for his actions,
takes sole responsibility for his failure and vows to behave differently in the future.
Since apology covers failure, not criminal activity, it
requires an individual to adopt new and more constructive behaviors.
Embarrassment is a milder form of shame. You will feel
embarrassed if discover that you have bad table manners. The embarrassment will
cause you to rectify your table manners. You do so because you want to
participate in a social ritual and promote dinner table harmony.
It is not a crime to slurp your soup or to use the wrong
fork. You would not expect to be punished for doing so.
Take the example of a young woman who binge eats. Which
would be more likely to induce her to change the behavior: her punishing
herself for binging or her watching a video that shows what she looks like when
she isr binging?
Actually, girls who binge do feel guilty and do punish themselves: they induce
vomiting. The result: they can binge again.
The shame that a girl will feel while watching herself binge is
a far better deterrent than the self-punishment she will feel while vomiting.
Brown offers an example to illustrate what she means when
she says that shaming people is very, very bad.
In her words:
A man
shakes a bottle of pills in his wife’s face, “Look around you! Your
pill-popping is destroying our family. Our son is failing out of school and our
daughter is literally starving herself for attention. What's wrong with you?”
An exasperated husband is trying to get through to a wife
who is out of control. He is saying, reasonably enough, that she needs to see
what her habit has being to those who are near and dear to her.
Keep in mind, this man is trying to reach his wife through a
drug-induced haze.
To Brown the man is in the wrong. Somehow, her addled
moral sense has blinded her to the fact that the pill-taking wife is in the wrong and is destroying her family.
Brown is thus scrupulously non-judgmental, except when it
comes to blaming the husband for his wife’s bad behavior.
She does not want to sanction the wife with bad feelings;
she wants to sanction the husband for showing insufficient empathy. He does not
feel her pain.
Do you think that the wife should feel ashamed of herself?
Brown does not. Do you think that the husband is responsible for his wife’s
pill popping because he is showing her insufficient empathy? Brown does.
I think it far more likely that the drug addict wife has
been receiving too much empathy and understanding.
If you don’t think that you are doing anything wrong, the
chances are good that you will never think about changing what you are doing.
If you are getting positive reinforcement via empathy you are likely to believe
that you are not doing anything wrong.
Also, we live in a culture that prescribes pills for just
about everything. How is this husband to counteract the message that the
culture is sending if he does not, perhaps, raise his voice?
Will the wife in question try to numb her shame by
taking more pills? Perhaps. But there is nothing about shaming that forces her
to take pills.
The sad truth is that when psychologists tell people that the
only way they can deal with shame is with pathological behavior it is leading
them down precisely the wrong road.
You know and I know, and perhaps Brown knows, that the way
to overcome shame is to improve your behavior. If a man feels embarrassed by
his bad table manners he has a good alternative: good table manners.
If people mention that he is making a fool of himself they
are doing him a favor.
But, if he follows what appears to be the latest psycho
research he will double down on boorishness and denounce everyone for being
judgmental.
Under normal circumstances guilt does not incite you to
change your behavior: it can be dealt with by accepting your punishment. Also, note well that shame involves your public face while guilt aims at the state of
your rather private soul.
If you have committed a sin you can confess
and do penance in private. This allows you, strangely enough, to go forth and
sin again.
At its best, guilt might inhibit your impulse to commit
crimes or sins, but it does not, in itself, induce you to adopt new, positive
constructive behaviors.
Take an example. From the time of Moses adultery has been forbidden.
The Seventh Commandment is unambiguous.
And yet, throughout the course of Western Civilization
people have happily committed adultery. In some cases adultery has been
institutionalized in official mistresses, courtesans, concubines, favorites and
courtly lovers.
Since most of this behavior took place with the context of
Christian Europe we have good reason to suspect that adulterers were confessing
their sins and receiving forgiveness.
Placing adultery with a guilt/penance system did nothing to
deter adultery. It seems to have helped sustain the practice. After all, many people are attracted to something that is forbidden.
When some Western cultures wanted to lower the incidence of
adultery they decided to stigmatize it. The practice is now identified by the
infamous “scarlet letter.”
If, as is reasonable to believe, the guilt based approach
produced more, better adultery and the shame-based approach reduced the amount of adultery, which was the more effective deterrent?
One needs to understand that when you destigmatize a
behavior you get more of it. Destigmatize unmarried teenage motherhood, as we have been
doing, and you get more unmarried teenage mothers. Destigmatize out-of-wedlock
childbearing and you get more of it. Destigmatize divorce and you get more of
it. Destigmatize teenage sexting and you get more of it. Destigmatize drug
abuse and you get more of it.
America is awash in unwed teenage mothers and unwed millennial mothers
because we followed the advice of psychologists and destigmatized the behavior. One appreciate Brown's interest in not shaming teenage mothers. She does not want them to feel bad, because, after all, nothing is worse than feeling bad.
Yet, the ads are not directed to unmarried teenage mothers; they are directed at potential teenage mothers. I suspect that the current crop of unmarried teenage mothers is receive far too much empathy and understanding. Could that be the reason that they are doing it more than once? Could that be the reason that now in America, in a country where we no longer judge anyone's behavior, an obscenely large number of children are being born out of wedlock, to women who are not teenagers.
38 comments:
Is not teenage mothers, it is unmarried teenage mothers
"She does not want them to feel bad, because, after all, nothing is worse than feeling bad."
Of course, being a pregnant teen or teen mother, you are likely to feel very bad about a number of things. The distinction for Brown probably is that she is not responsible for those bad feelings. That's life as a teen mother and we need to throw another government program at it after the fact.
On the other hand, shaming teens as a preventative measure? Well, now you have directly caused some suffering, so you are a bad person.
Thanks Sam and Nick... I have corrected the text and added the "unmarried" qualifier where needed.
The distinction between Shame and Guilt was a primary theme of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, a 1946 study of Japanese society by anthropologist Ruth Benedict. Her usage of the terms was that a Shame society is one in which people are motivated by fear of social disapproval, whereas a Guilt society is one in which people are driven by their own internalized values.
The book (whose writing was US-government funded) was of course influenced by the fact that the U.S. was at war with Japan while it was being written; among other things, in-person interviews in Japan were obviously impossible.
David,
Shame is cultural, while guilt is individual. The West has decided that multiculturalism is the way to go. Since all cultues (or lack of culture) are equally valid, shame is inappropriate always. Shame is what kept Gays in the closet. Shame is why Japanese men who fail kill themslves. I'm sure anyone can think of many examples of shameing that is personally disagreeable. Eric Holder believes gun owners should be shamed in the same way we shame smokers. I personally don't want to live in a Shame Society.
I wrote about Ruth Benedict in my book Saving Face, which contains a more extensive discussion of the difference between shame and guilt and between shame cultures and guilt cultures.
I may write more on this later. I agree with your distinction about guilt and shame, Stuart, and I think it's important. I also think that people who want to eliminate shame are silly because it is a distinctive form of human behavior. It's like wanting to eliminate laughter. When someone like Brene Brown becomes absolutist on this point, she becomes, well... absolutist. And that doesn't work very well, does it?
At the same time, I do want to say something about Brene Brown. She came onto the TED scene after her talk on "The Power of Vulnerability." If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to. I believe it is excellent. Yet it seems like Brown's success may have produced some hubris in the form of absolutism here. Her professional career has gained steam, and her perspective has evolved. It seems it has evolved in an unfortunate way on this point. But I still content that her "Vulnerability" talk was excellent, and I recommend it to my clients as a way to access breakthrough levels of courage and relationship.
But this absolutist take on shame is odd.
Tip
I hope you're right about her talk on Vulnerability, and it makes sense that her success would have gone to her head. Unfortunately, she claims that her opinions are those of her profession.
I first watch Brown on TED. it
was an nspiring talk by itself. Went on and watch videos interviews of Brown on Oprah's " super soul Sunday" and found myself wondering: is that the same person I listened to on TED. Made me question her credibility. Stumbled upon this blog which I find is the other voice needed iin the discussion.
The organization called Witness puts video cameras in people's hands to give them the opportunity to record human righst abuse around the world with the aim of bringing shame onto government that violate those rights. What's wrong with that?
Shame has been used with religious zeal for too long and probably cause more damage than none. I believe that this is what brown and some people are retaliating against but the fact of the matter is that shame can be put to good use in some circumstances.
I am in the process of reading all of Brene Brown's books, and agree her ted Talk is amazingly good.
She has done extensive research, and speaks to the heart of the shame issue, deep unworthiness.
Let me suggest a different poster for NYC campaign. An unmarried father, with the shadow of his baby's mother behind him. Shouldn't he be making better choices too? Why is the mother, who has her badge of shame right in front of her, the only one responsible?
This article is ripe with logical fallacies. You make an abundance of assumptions about how people would feel in situations you yourself have never been in. I also feel you changed a lot of the definitions of guilt and shame and interchanged them throughout your article, and you seemed to miss the whole point of her research. The point is that shame (believing you are inherently bad) may be a normal reaction but is ineffective in creating change. Believing you are inherently good and that you made a mistake is more empowering because it eliminates the hopelessness that one feels when they believe they are a bad person and nothing can change that. I found this article incredibly irresponsible.
Guilt is feeling bad for something that you have done because of your morals.
Shame is feeling bad because it is socially inappropriate and you are judged by others.
Morals depends on the individuals while societal norms depend on the society
I've just watched Brown's TED talk and I had never heard of her. I hated it, and Stuart's text apply very well to it. People don't simply decide to be resilient towards vulnerability, people are conditioned to that or to the opposite; there are loads of literature on how you make or break that kind of psychological fortitude; she abuses the word "research" as to make it seem her feel good words have scientific backing. It sounds like anything but.
I find nothing in Brown's Ted talk that would motivate me to recommend it. She seems to be functioning as an entertainer, an inspirational speaker, whatever her credentials may be. No one would disagree with the assertion that a course of action ought not be avoided solely on the grounds of the difficulties it might present. That's far from a "willingness to fail." Setbacks are acceptable as part of a process- but then that's adversity we're talking about and not some imaginary willingness to fail. It's a cost/benefit analysis. (I'm guessing Bill Gates might be willing to risk losing millions of dollars but not willing to risk losing everything he's got- or his life- unlike Mr. Jobs. One doesn't risk what one can't afford to lose. Would Mr. Jobs defend his choices now?) Also I think we can agree that we all have both strengths and weaknesses- no one is "perfect" in the sense of having only strengths and no weaknesses. That's not much comfort though to those whose distance from perfection is clearly greater than those to whom they compare themselves. I disagree with her rejection of shame as a valid response to certain circumstances also: Sometimes shame is entirely appropriate, depending on what's causing it. As for vulnerability: It is weakness. That's what it means, a susceptibility to harm resulting from a lack of strength in a given area. Again, we need to be willing to expose ourselves to some level of difficulty in our lives, be willing to struggle and even be willing to be unable to complete a task- but that's not the same thing as embracing some re-defined vulnerability (or willingness to fail.) One can struggle and one can even fail while remaining unharmed: "Invulnerable" in the sense of not experiencing difficulty or even defeat as debilitating or painful, rather as part of a process, part of life. It's always been a good idea to be alert and responsive to incoming data- but that doesn't require re-defining vulnerability as an asset. That's just paying attention. Finally, we all need to emphasize those things in our lives that are positive and let go of the things that are negative. Don't feel shame or otherwise suffer because you aren't as beautiful or as wealthy as those you admire. Instead be happy because you have good friends, hobbies you enjoy, access to a variety of high quality foods that you like cooking and eating. Be grateful for and delight in your strengths, don't dwell on your weaknesses. I see no reason at this time to accept Ms. Brown's definitions of shame, vulnerability or failure. She doesn't appear to be saying anything new. Thank you.
I have read several of Brown's books and watched her speak. I have never once felt that she has or is trying to make any "wrong" behavior "okay". She is just explaining that OWNING our actions can help us heal. That is what counseling is about, isn't it. Rooting out, facing, obviously "not doing it again" and finding peace.
This is so subjective that to think anyone has the definitive answer is arrogant. I have never felt that she is say she is 100%.
I think too many are taking what she is saying and making it too black and white.
I see in this blog and from some of the comments here, there are some pretty perfect people in our world that I was unaware of.
I guess I hang out with the wrong crowd.
The ad campaign has targeted in half of the teenage pregnancy puzzle. Not once did you mention an ad campaign stigmatizing unwed teenage fathers. It takes two to make a child, yet one party is targeted with a stigma ray?
Regardless what your opinion is of Brene Brown, if you support lowering teenage pregnancy and births then the focus should have been the many factors that play into why teenagers have sex: lack of education, lack of focus for self-future, pleasure, biology, acceptance, etc. If we target the root of why teenagers chose to have sex and unprotected sex then I can say that would have a more lasting impact on lowering numbers.
Aside from the negative approach, how about ads focusing on teenagers actualizing their potential? How about ads saying you're worthy of a bright future? How about ads promoting selfish academic/career ambition as opposed to feel peer pressured into having sex?
It's not so much the topic of shame/guilt that I have an issue with, its more so the way you endorse bullying just one party into changing their behavior.
The ad campaign has targeted in half of the teenage pregnancy puzzle. Not once did you mention an ad campaign stigmatizing unwed teenage fathers. It takes two to make a child, yet one party is targeted with a stigma ray?
Regardless what your opinion is of Brene Brown, if you support lowering teenage pregnancy and births then the focus should have been the many factors that play into why teenagers have sex: lack of education, lack of focus for self-future, pleasure, biology, acceptance, etc. If we target the root of why teenagers chose to have sex and unprotected sex then I can say that would have a more lasting impact on lowering numbers.
Aside from the negative approach, how about ads focusing on teenagers actualizing their potential? How about ads saying you're worthy of a bright future? How about ads promoting selfish academic/career ambition as opposed to feel peer pressured into having sex?
It's not so much the topic of shame/guilt that I have an issue with, its more so the way you endorse bullying just one party into changing their behavior.
The ad campaign has targeted in half of the teenage pregnancy puzzle. Not once did you mention an ad campaign stigmatizing unwed teenage fathers. It takes two to make a child, yet one party is targeted with a stigma ray?
Regardless what your opinion is of Brene Brown, if you support lowering teenage pregnancy and births then the focus should have been the many factors that play into why teenagers have sex: lack of education, lack of focus for self-future, pleasure, biology, acceptance, etc. If we target the root of why teenagers chose to have sex and unprotected sex then I can say that would have a more lasting impact on lowering numbers.
Aside from the negative approach, how about ads focusing on teenagers actualizing their potential? How about ads saying you're worthy of a bright future? How about ads promoting selfish academic/career ambition as opposed to feel peer pressured into having sex?
It's not so much the topic of shame/guilt that I have an issue with, its more so the way you endorse bullying just one party into changing their behavior.
I am so glad someone is not just drinking the kool-aid. I am a psychologist and never really got into Brene Brown, but my ex-husband, a psychiatrist, was all about it. I suspect he used the concept to justify his sexual perpetration of his/our clients (a fact I was unaware of for years). Shame is not always a bad thing.
This was a very interesting criticism of Brene Brown, and I enjoyed reading it. However, one of the last sentences runs into a problem with reality: "America is awash in unwed teenage mothers and unwed millennial mothers because we followed the advice of psychologists and destigmatized the behavior."
Teen pregnancy rates in America have declined by half in the past two decades -- between 1990 and 2010, the pregnancy rate dropped from 116.9 to 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls. It would seem that whatever we've been doing has been working alright.
Thank you... I appreciate the correction. Of course, there are still far too many of both, to say nothing of there still being far too many divorces... even though the percentage has been declining.
There is tons of personal interpretation and bias,including American bias in this criticism...and also tons of unfounded arrogance. She has done research and at least had something to substantiate her findings, controlled for culture, race, religion etc. This is bunch of skewed view arguments.
I feel very sorry for you Stuart. I wish you well and hope you can find the courage to take a more open and curious approach to gain a better understanding of the concepts Brown offers and how they apply to building and supporting better communities.
Yes all shame is bad because shame is so negative that it only serves to perpetuates the problem. That's all it does. You don't want someone feeling shame. Regret? ok. Remorse? fine. But shame?! Hell no, not unless you secretly enjoy making someone feel bad and aren't really interested in fixing, solving or helping anyone or anything, ever.
You clearly don't understand the context of how shame is being used in our culture or how Brene Brown is speaking about it. Shaming people means that you are telling them they are unworthy based upon a bad choice and will never be worthy because they made a bad decision at some point in their lives. If that is true, then every single person on this planet is "unworthy" and I do not agree with that!
You are also completely overlooking the fact that the reason teenage girls are getting pregnant in the first place is because they are making poor choices that are stemming from a shame based sense of self. In their minds, they think they need to have sex with a guy to be loved because they don't love themselves enough to begin with. Furthermore, where is the responsibility of the young men in these ridiculous subway ads?
If you want young people to make better choices, including not engaging in risky behaviors like unprotected sex, then we need to teach them that they "are enough" or are "worthy enough" that they do not need to engage in high risk behaviors to seek approval or love from others! Attempting to shame young women to prevent pregnancy is both inappropriate and ineffective. It does not to get to the root of the problem which is SHAME BASED!
^^Amen^^^ We as a society simply need to move away from a punishment-based system to a corrective-based system. Aggressively and intentionally punishing unwanted behavior creates more of the same because it disproportionately damages that person further to the point that they are willing to do anything as long as it provides relief or even distraction. We mustn't forget that ones' bad decisions naturally create their own negative consequences. The teaching moment has already happened. Yet we choose to pour fire on the situation and then wonder, "why won't they learn" or "what is the world coming to?" As we are learning the oh, so hard way. when you punish a person for drug addiction, the ONLY outcome is more drug addiction. Isn't it obvious that someone who is addicted to drugs is already experiencing a huge amount of pain? This "take your beating, don't do it again and pull yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of thinking doesn't work anymore - not to mention that now we are punishing people so severely that we make it impossible to climb back up. Ever met anyone who had served his time, come to a new place in life and was a changed person only to realize we've made it so a good job is not longer possible, a nice to live? forget it. college? maybe but no one will hire you. What's he supposed to do go live in the woods? NO, he's gotta eat, support his family and he WILL do whatever he needs to do to make that happen. That's just how we are as humans. No if we long for a better society, it will require praise, not shame.
I don't find shame to be helpful to individuals. It can make the shamer feel righteous and like they've made a difference - but have they? Maybe in some cases. In most it makes people dig in deeper and want to run and hide and work hard to create an impression of an identity that is anything but what they have been labeled as - what Ms. Brown calls "hustling for worthiness". But I'm not totally sold on Brene Brown. I agree with others here that she seems to have changed since becoming famous. A righteousness has crept into her style. Shame is a very complex thing (if it is a "thing"). It fuses a lot of feelings together. Some people seem more resilient to it than others which may be cultural, familial or individual. Most likely all three and more. I think we always need to try to be aware of who specifically we are talking with rather than seeing and speaking to "types". What I particularly like about Brene Brown is her willingness to be "in the arena and get her ass kicked" (as she says) and keep going.
Some interesting points made in this blog. I do think it's a bit too black and white. But I also think Brene is not the last word on shame, courage and vulnerability. It is an ongoing discussion that is needed.
"Guilt involves breaking a law" ?? So many young single teenage girls do the best they can at parenting and still fail. They feel guilty AND ashamed. What "law" did they break?
Did you even take the time to read the peer reviewed articles and research on shame? Your opinion does not appear to be based on the research done regarding shame. Being a psychotherapist, I see shame get in the way of people living a healthy life daily. If people do not feel good enough and deserving of a healthy life they often do not progress in therapy.
Do you (author) live in your head?
Have you tried using shaming as a method to improve your interpersonal relationships or human behavior long term?
Using shame may work in the professional world, but not when it really counts and not for long. Fear is not a permanent solution, nor is it a good leadership strategy.
Good leadership makes people feel safe, challenged and encouraged to be creative and to take initiative, and also empowered to grow and become a healthier, more wholly balanced human being.
Shame is a method that ultimately mixes a great deal of potential harm with a temporarily manipulated behavioral modification: remove the source of fear or shame, and the negative behavior will return.
It's not the best solution for this reason.
Rather, when people feel support and affirmation and GENUINE care and concern for their well being, their actions tend to change from the inside out—because what they believe about their situation or (more importantly) themselves has changed.
Please don't tell me you're a therapist.
I think what this tells me—more than anything—is that there are two types of people reacting to Brené Brown: those who actually give a shit about humanity, and those who just want the behavior of others to change because it causes them discomfort.
And if this is the case of the latter group, I suspect that people with these perspectives are actually enduring their own shame complexes themselves, which is tragic to consider.
Don't be a cynic. As a person who has suffered all sorts of people's shaming tactics my whole life, I can tell you from experience that living in the shame and projected fears of others does not amount to much of a life.
And truthfully, I'd like to hear what YOU (the author) have personally done to address teenage pregnancy, since this is obviously an issue that so deeply concerns you, right?
Money and resources are never our ultimate problem. Our problem is: we don't take care of others because we haven't been taught adequate care or empathy in our own lives.
Thank God for the people who've been there for me, or quite frankly, the loads of shame and fear I have endured would most certainly have led me to end my own life.
Thank God there are people out there who do not have your perspective.
Peace out; peace in.
Wow. What a shame fuelled article! Brene Brown, from the research she has undertaken, identified shame as: I am wrong; the belief that there is something so so wrong wrong with me, something so wrong it means that I am unworthy of love and belonging. Do you know that feeling? Maybe you lack to awareness to recognise it? Guilt; I did something wrong, I made a mistake. Shame is put there in early childhood by others, by the media, by our caregivers, it is not real however fuels all kinds of destructive behaviour which ultimately interrupts our ability to be vulnerable and authentic, making it impossible to connect and love openly. Perhaps your opinion on this matter has changed over time? I would be happy to open a dialogue with you on this subject.
Here’s why I’m not drawn to Brown’s materials. She uses far too many personal anecdotes. It’s very distracting. I guess she’s trying to demonstrate what vulnerability looks like but she fails to consider her notoriety. To us, her anecdotes are not “a vulnerable person just like me,” they are “the success stories of someone famous and successful.” Doesn’t ring true. I am not famous and I don’t feel that my vulnerabilities overlap with hers.
Another thing is her “invitation to join her in the arena.” And what if we don’t? What do we feel if we fail to enter the arena? Shame. She draws a line in the sand and tells people to join her or stay on the undesirable end of the line. It’s rigid, black-and-white, and unhelpful.
I also don’t like her devotion to one demographic: white, married with kids, women of privilege. That’s fine if she wants to focus only there, but package it accordingly. This is one very large problem with modern feminism: its inattention to socioeconomic privilege and lack thereof.
So people who don’t respond to Brown don’t care about humanity? Ok :(
That’s very rigid and judgmental. Judgmentalism vs acceptance is the single biggest factor I’ve personally experienced in effective counseling.
I agree that intentionally shaming someone or some organisation can (possibly, ie with risks) produce a change which leads to a positive or improved outcome. However, I challenge you whether it is ever clearly the best option?
I believe not. I believe that living by the values that we wish to create (ie emulating or being the change you desire to see in the world) is almost strictly the best path to take, and in comparison, intentionally evoking shame requires a hate motive - even just in part.
Can you give an example where someone intentionally “shames” someone else without having at least in part a hate-motivation?
You are acting like a child!
She, the pregnant teen, has exclusive rights to life growing inside her, presumably placed there consentually, all the way up to and even after delivery. Why wouldn't she be held as the focus of responsibility, primarily? I suggest two posters, to get to your valid point.
I’ve tried really hard to get onto the Brené Brown train, but I just can’t. I appreciated her work as a hipster teen of the early 2010s, when I thought the world was against me despite coming from a very privileged background, but as I grew older, it made less and less sense. So many people grab onto her work and say they oughtn’t feel shame for anything they do, and then label the resulting assholery as “vulnerability.”
Now I’m a therapist and I’m surrounded by colleagues who believe the root cause of all suffering is shame. And yet they have no problem going online to decry the alt-right movement…according to Brené’s philosophy, should neo-Nazis feel shame or not? Rather than saying shame is bad altogether, I work with my clients to identify their relationship with that shame. Is it controlling them, or can they use it as a tool to foster personal growth?
Shame, at its core, is a disgust with behaviors not matching our values. If you feel shame, either change your values or change your behavior. There are people out there who will accept you for whenever values you endorse, but if you want to stand firm in whatever those values are, then change your behavior. If you refuse to change either of those things, then that is what ought to be examined in therapy, not the symptom of shame.
Post a Comment