Day 35, Tue., 20 Mar.: Psalm 71.1-14
I remember being told that one of the main differences between Asian countries that are not majority Christian and western cultures that are is that the former are shame-based and the latter are guilt-based. To dig a bit deeper, "in cultural anthropology," says Mr Wikipedia, (who continues for some time here, while incurring no sense either of shame or of guilt in the author of this post!) "a shame society, also called shame culture or honour-shame culture, is a society in which the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining social order is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. A shame society is contrasted with a guilt society, in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the afterlife) for certain condemned behaviors, and with a fear society, in which control is kept by the fear of retribution."
Shame is a painful, social emotion that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...", but which may equally stem from comparison of the self's state of being with the ideal social context's standard. Thus, shame may stem from volitional action or simply (negative) self-regard; no action by the shamed being is required: simply existing is enough (to incur shame). Both the comparison and standards are enabled by socialization. Though usually considered an emotion, shame may also variously be considered an affect, cognition, state, or condition.
Guilt, on the other hand, is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person believes or realizes—accurately or not—that he or she has compromised his or her own standards of conduct or has violated a universal moral standard and bears significant responsibility for that violation. Guilt is closely related to the concept of remorse. Except that I (the author, not mr Wikipedia anymore) would add that in the legal sense guilt is something objective. It is incurred by breaking or failing the objective standard of the law. And being objective, it can be atoned or paid for. From this objective concept flows the possibility of several restorative qualities: repentance, atonement, forgiveness. Given the power of memory I'm not sure that one can ever get rid of shame except to, as Psalm 71.1 puts it to take refuge in the Lord.
It's so ironic that for all the times in the Bible god is called our "hiding place", the one we flee to in times of trouble, we expect this God to be a mean Judge. Many times people have expressed to me their sense of guilt at something for which guilt was not appropriate. But if one feels guilty over something for which no objective guilt is attached I wonder whether what they have called guilt was in fact a sense of shame. And so many times we ourselves insist on being our own judge, jury and executioner!
Nevertheless, even in Israel's culture, so different from those of her pagan neighbours, shame and honour were prominent. Shame seemed to be the response to failure and defeat (and perhaps at being found out!) rather than being a response to wrongdoing
Psalm 71 begins and ends with shame:
"In you, O Lord, I take refuge;
let me never be put to shame
..................................................
Let my accusers be put to shame and consumed;
let those who seek to hurt me
be covered with scorn and disgrace.
14 But I will hope continually,
and will praise you yet more and more."
Shame is a painful, social emotion that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards...", but which may equally stem from comparison of the self's state of being with the ideal social context's standard. Thus, shame may stem from volitional action or simply (negative) self-regard; no action by the shamed being is required: simply existing is enough (to incur shame). Both the comparison and standards are enabled by socialization. Though usually considered an emotion, shame may also variously be considered an affect, cognition, state, or condition.
Guilt, on the other hand, is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person believes or realizes—accurately or not—that he or she has compromised his or her own standards of conduct or has violated a universal moral standard and bears significant responsibility for that violation. Guilt is closely related to the concept of remorse. Except that I (the author, not mr Wikipedia anymore) would add that in the legal sense guilt is something objective. It is incurred by breaking or failing the objective standard of the law. And being objective, it can be atoned or paid for. From this objective concept flows the possibility of several restorative qualities: repentance, atonement, forgiveness. Given the power of memory I'm not sure that one can ever get rid of shame except to, as Psalm 71.1 puts it to take refuge in the Lord.
It's so ironic that for all the times in the Bible god is called our "hiding place", the one we flee to in times of trouble, we expect this God to be a mean Judge. Many times people have expressed to me their sense of guilt at something for which guilt was not appropriate. But if one feels guilty over something for which no objective guilt is attached I wonder whether what they have called guilt was in fact a sense of shame. And so many times we ourselves insist on being our own judge, jury and executioner!
Nevertheless, even in Israel's culture, so different from those of her pagan neighbours, shame and honour were prominent. Shame seemed to be the response to failure and defeat (and perhaps at being found out!) rather than being a response to wrongdoing
Psalm 71 begins and ends with shame:
"In you, O Lord, I take refuge;
let me never be put to shame
..................................................
Let my accusers be put to shame and consumed;
let those who seek to hurt me
be covered with scorn and disgrace.
14 But I will hope continually,
and will praise you yet more and more."
Comments
Post a Comment