Guilt vs. Shame - is one 'superior' ?

[Roxanne Appleby]

In a Robert Tannenbaum novel there was a very interesting discussion about the difference between the eastern concept of 'shame' vs. the west's 'guilt.' If you wrong another person, feeling guilty does nothing to make him whole - guilt is internal and self referential. Shame exists in the context of one as part of a group, and perhaps is more productive in generating behavior change in the future, and perhaps an apology to the other person in the present. Guilt is a stain that can't be removed - you did it, you shouldn't have, it's on your 'permanent record.' But shame is somehow different? If you apologize and don't do it again you are no longer ashamed. I'm winging it in all this, because I forget the details of the discussion in the book.

What made me think of this was someone (who is slim and fit) feeling 'guilty' for having engaged in an isolated episode of gastronomic overindulgence. It's possible to feel guilty about an act that involves no other human being, because guilt is purely self-referential. Could one be "ashamed" to have engaged in an isolated gastromic overindulgence - would that make sense semantically? This example may shed light on the distinction.

I'm not speaking in any theological sense here - purely psychological and social. Any thoughts?

 

[impressive]

Hmm. One never hears the expression: "Guilt on you!"

*ponders*

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hmm. One never hears the expression: "Guilt on you!"

*ponders*

In my family we have adopted a verb, "guilting," shorthand for making someone feel guilty about something they did (or didn't do) in the past. It is considered a bad thing to do, a characteristic of toxic relationships in extreme cases.

 

[elsol]

If you wrong another person, feeling guilty does nothing to make him whole - guilt is internal and self referential. Shame exists in the context of one as part of a group, and perhaps is more productive in generating behavior change in the future, and perhaps an apology to the other person in the present.

Feeling shame does nothing if you wrong another person either. Feeling guilty and feeling shame can both lead to an apology... which could make the other person 'feel' better.

You can't make me feel guilt because it is a measurement of internal value consistency... when you 'guilt' me into something, you're altering internal values, temporarily or permanently to fit your view of the action or you're 'reminding' me that my action is inconsistent with internal value.

Shame while being group driven still operates the same way. I MUST agree with your value system or you can't shame me.

I would say that shame could be more productive because even though the driver is still internal, the value system is an agreement between the group and the individual. If the individual wants to be a part of the group and identifies themselves as part of the group, that psychology can be brought to bear against them whether on not the internal value system and the group value system are in agreement.

 

[impressive]

In my family we have adopted a verb, "guilting," shorthand for making someone feel guilty about something they did (or didn't do) in the past. It is considered a bad thing to do, a characteristic of toxic relationships in extreme cases.

a/k/a "passive aggression" or "emotional manipulation"

Both are things I avoid like the plague.

 

[Dar~]

I think self-recrimination in regards purely to one's own self in a moderate sense is a good thing. I think feeling guilt for one's actions can be a good preparer for future adjustment to behavior and thus the world's improvement as a social being.
I think feeling shame for overindulging is a preparation for a much deeper problem though. Kicking oneself for enjoying food when one is healthy is a skewed commentary on their own self image.
Feeling guilt means that a person feels they have truly wronged someone (including themself as someone.) It is a pure feeling involving only the person themself. Shame is an external, public version of guilt. it encounters and involves others thereby affecting their lives in potentially profound ways.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

a/k/a "passive aggression" or "emotional manipulation"

Both are things I avoid like the plague.

Roger that - on both points.


Elsol - thank you for adding some useful elucidation. Very useful indeed.

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

I posted my thoughts here

 

[elsol]

a/k/a "passive aggression" or "emotional manipulation"

Both are things I avoid like the plague.

I find them amusing.

I absolutely LUV! LUV! LUV! passive aggressives... these are hands down the most fun people to fuck with on the planet.

My favorite thing to do them is to swap reactions on them from action to action...

Go passive-passive on them for some things.
Aggressive-aggressive on others...

etc... sometimes it's awesome to switch up on them from complaint of the exact same thing.

The best of course is just to completely ignore the passive-aggressive behavior... god, these people hate it when you're oblivious to their little thing.

*sigh*

 

[3113]

Could one be "ashamed" to have engaged in an isolated gastromic overindulgence - would that make sense semantically? This example may shed light on the distinction.

Yes, one could feel ashamed. One could say, "I pigged out and I'm ashamed of myself"--even if no one else was watching. The two are very similar--but I think status is one difference.

Shame has to do with your pride in yourself. Your status in another's eyes. If someone in your family does something wrong, then they "shame" the family. You all feel as if your pride has been wounded, your status lessened. If you promise to keep to your diet and don't, then you feel ashamed because you failed, you didn't maintain your promise and so lessened yourself.

It is, if you will, a notching down. And it requires certain scruples. A code of behavior that you hold to. I'll give you a fictional example: Hannibal Lecter feels no guilt at all at murdering people, but he feels ashamed when the guy in the next cell acts rudely to his visitor. There is a code of conduct here and it must be followed. His pride is on the line.

Guilt, however, has nothing to do with status or pride. This is the flip side of Hannibal Lecter. The humble nun, lacking all pride, who nevertheless confesses tiny sins that fill her with guilt. Guilt is about an internal morality.

But they are awful close and difficult to tell apart. A person can feel guity because they lived and others died (survivor guilt), and they can feel ashamed that they did not die with the rest--as in battle. A family can feel guilt by association for what one of their members did, or they can feel shamed by what one of their members did. And the most problematic thing is that a person, a good moral person, usually experiences both. Guilt and shame.

It's only in extreme cases that you begin to feel a difference. A family that says: "You married that low-born person, get out, you've shamed us!" (pride, what will other people think! the breaking of a social/cultural code), verses, "How could I have done that to her! I feel so guilty!" (breaking a personal, moral code).

 

[S-Des]

No, neither are superior. Both can be useful, but are dangerous if used excessively. I tend to guilt for myself because I'm less worried about what others think. I have my set of values and feel guilt when I can't live up to them. If someone tries to shame me, it doesn't do much besides make me lash out. In some cases, shame is important because people don't have the fortitude to live by their convictions (so we hope that anti-social behavior can be tempered by shaming the person).

Then again, as 3113 said, they're closely tied. How can someone shame you if you don't feel guilt?

 

[shereads]

Which is superior? It depends on the context. For sexual inspiration, you can't beat shame. Everything's so much nastier and more wicked with a dose of shame!

For other purposes, shame is fairly useless. Unlike guilt, shame can't get you thrown in jail.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think the two words are pretty much interchangeable homonyms. For instance, I can think of "Shame" as being internal and "guilt" being assumptive, but I can just as easily turn those two concepts around.
We feel shame, we feel guilt.
Other poeple can say "Shame on you!" or the law can lay a judgment of guilt on a defendent.

What's the difference?

 

[Quiet_Cool]

In a Robert Tannenbaum novel there was a very interesting discussion about the difference between the eastern concept of 'shame' vs. the west's 'guilt.' If you wrong another person, feeling guilty does nothing to make him whole - guilt is internal and self referential. Shame exists in the context of one as part of a group, and perhaps is more productive in generating behavior change in the future, and perhaps an apology to the other person in the present. Guilt is a stain that can't be removed - you did it, you shouldn't have, it's on your 'permanent record.' But shame is somehow different? If you apologize and don't do it again you are no longer ashamed. I'm winging it in all this, because I forget the details of the discussion in the book.


I'm not speaking in any theological sense here - purely psychological and social. Any thoughts?

I think the difference is pretty close to what you posted, and I don't feel there are many similarities. They may seem similar in ways, but mostly, in their nature, I don't believe them to be anything alike. Your last sentence I think hit the nail on the head.

Guilt is psychological; shame is social. As pretty much everybody knows, guilt is experienced by the individual, where as shame is more or less impressed upon you socially. Others decide whether or not you should feel shame, and we know this by the difference in shameful behavior from culture to culture. A good example: Many seem to feel Ralph Fiennes she be ashamed of this whole BJ on the plane business on another thread. Whether or not he feels guilty is in his own mind.

Guilt, from my judgment, should be the 'superior' of the two, but it seems to be unproductive in many cases. A lot of people either don't feel guilty in cases where guilt, to many of the rest of us, would come naturally, or they feel guilty and don't allow this feeling to motivate them to change.

Q_C

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I first raised this in the blurt thread, and copy here a post from there:

Shame as inforced in collectivist cultures suggests that someone of authority- usually an elder would decide that repentence is called for. Guilt on the other hand is a personal 'state' that can't directly affect those wronged.

Does that make sense?

I think guilt needs to come with something- a concious act of gorgiveness seeking, or repayment in punishment. Whereas with shame it's almost automatic. I think where shame is concerned however, there is more to it- to be one who has been shamed because of something undertaken by oneself, you are outcast to a degree, tarnished and made an example of- something that may be forgiven when repentence is sought, but less so forgotten.

However, i think it really depends upon the degree to which offence/ hurt has occured.

Which I now see Grace has already linked to elsewhere on this thread, but it's worth repeating.

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

I first raised this in the blurt thread, and copy here a post from there:



Which I now see Grace has already linked to elsewhere on this thread, but it's worth repeating.

well...while you were at it you could have corrected my typos! *sigh* just cant find good help these days...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

well...while you were at it you could have corrected my typos! *sigh* just cant find good help these days...

But I like the idea of seeking gorgiveness.

(Sadly, the beloved Colly had departed this life before you arrived in these precincts. One of her endearing quirks was humorous typos. That is why you see people offering each other *husg* from time to time.)

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

But I like the idea of seeking gorgiveness.

(Sadly, the beloved Colly had departed this life before you arrived in these precincts. One of her endearing quirks was humorous typos. That is why you see people offering each other *husg* from time to time.)

yes, you ARE weird

I figured *husg* was a vella-ism, i have heard a lot about Colly though.

Is *keese* a vella-ism?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

yes, you ARE weird

I figured *husg* was a vella-ism, i have heard a lot about Colly though.

Is *keese* a vella-ism?

That would be my guess, but notwithstanding 5,000+ posts ( ) I a bit of a newbie myself (18 months), so I can't say for sure.

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

That would be my guess, but notwithstanding 5,000+ posts ( ) I a bit of a newbie myself (18 months), so I can't say for sure.

You NOOB! im catching up quick sweetie

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think the difference is pretty close to what you posted, and I don't feel there are many similarities. They may seem similar in ways, but mostly, in their nature, I don't believe them to be anything alike. Your last sentence I think hit the nail on the head.

Guilt is psychological; shame is social. As pretty much everybody knows, guilt is experienced by the individual, where as shame is more or less impressed upon you socially. Others decide whether or not you should feel shame, and we know this by the difference in shameful behavior from culture to culture. A good example: Many seem to feel Ralph Fiennes she be ashamed of this whole BJ on the plane business on another thread. Whether or not he feels guilty is in his own mind.

Guilt, from my judgment, should be the 'superior' of the two, but it seems to be unproductive in many cases. A lot of people either don't feel guilty in cases where guilt, to many of the rest of us, would come naturally, or they feel guilty and don't allow this feeling to motivate them to change.

Q_C

See, I see them as the opposite- society will judge him guilty- and expect him to feel shame. Whether or not he does will be up to him.

 

[Dar~]

See, I see them as the opposite- society will judge him guilty- and expect him to feel shame. Whether or not he does will be up to him.

I agree. Guilt as a judgement is external, set on a person from an outside source. Shame is an internal modifier. If a person truly feels shame than he/she will adjust their actions.
I think guilt internalizes as remorse.