Talk:Shame/Archive 1

Reading the definition of guilt & shame, they seem very similar -- is the principal difference that in guilt one feels regret? -- Tarquin

Do we really need an article that it seems appreciate that wikitionary covers? If there is shame, then why not regret, not disgrace, not embarrassment, not dishonor, etc, etc... -- Taku 21:05 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

I added this article because I believed it was necessary to explain some of the motivation behind Japanese culture -- as I understood it. I'm not wedded to the existence of this article (unlike some people I've crossed swords here in Wikipedia), but if I'm advocating an incorrect viewpoint, then I'd like an explanation why I'm incorrect.

Shame refers to one's internalized discomfort from doing something incorrect, & being seen by others. In US culture, there is much shame surrounding public nudity & sexual practices. A dishonored public figure (say, Trent Lott -- although you could probably pick Bill Clinton if you think I'm being unfairly partisan) doesn't show shame in US culture, although he/she might demonstrate guilt. (It's been known to happen.)

Guilt is a far more private emotion. As I feel it (& have heard it described), guilt does not depend on the opinions of other people: it is a tension between one's own sense of right & the act that causes guilt. Guilt has more of an effect in the non-sexual side of US affairs, & seems to be mostly used by parents on their children.

I'm unaware that anthropology has discredited this viewpoint, but my cultural anthropology classes were back in the late 1970's, & I may have remembered this distinction from an even older text. -- llywrch 01:04 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

shame <- ethics, guilt <- morals lysdexia 12:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The definition of shame is said to be a form of social control. While this may be true in some cases, the way it is said in the description indicates that shame is a social construction. This is not true in most cases. One can say that social frames are based on how shame may naturally arise, or that cultures may intentionally create an artificial feeling of shame for a behavior which it deems obscene. To call it a form of social control is really putting a "The Guys at the Top use Shame to Manipulate the Sheep" flavor to the general definition of shame.

---

Why was 'shaming' redirected to this page? The term 'shaming' has been used to denote the cultural phenomena which deserves its own article. If someone can recommend a different title since 'shaming' might be defined as 'the act of inducing shame upon other individuals', that would be fine.

Fred Bauder posted it just fine on August 10th.

"Shaming is the act of disgracing an individual who has had altogether too much to drink and consequently passes out first on a given evening. Upon that person's fall from grace, his or her comrades proceed to perform all manner of mischevious deeds on their comatose body. The predominant purposes of shaming are for the amusement of the shamers, and for the humiliation of the recipient of the shaming, often as a punishment for not being able to hold his or her alcohol. Common shamings include the scarification of the person's face with permanent markers, dousing the sap with bags of flour, applying toothpaste to his or her person, or using powerful adhesives to bond both skin and inanimate object on the person's body. More complex shamings involve building structures on or around the unconscious person, moving the person to different and often humorous locales, and binding the person to whatever they have unwittingly selected as the site for their downfall." --Redconfetti 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Supporting Data.

The introductory paragraph concludes with "Intense shame may lead to depression or suicide." Can anyone please provide valid, scientific data to support this statement?

Can you provide valid, scientific data that Shame exists? All we have is the account of a few million human beings - all of whom could be lying, for all we know. Not very scientific at all!