Printable View
Is shame and guilt the same thing? My initiate thought was 'yes, of course', but after thinking I cannot pin- point the difference.
Are these innate feelings, or do they come with socialization, or both?
Are they any use? I mean, can we behave reasonably without them, or are they neccesary for keeping us on the right track?
Or are they barren and useless, or get in the way of functioning well?
Wiki is a wonderful first stop sometimes:
According to cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, shame is a violation of cultural or social values while guilt feelings arise from violations of one's internal values. Thus, it is possible to feel ashamed of thought or behavior that no one knows about and to feel guilty about actions that gain the approval of others.
Psychoanalyst Helen B. Lewis argued that "The experience of shame is directly about the self, which is the focus of evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object of negative evaluation, but rather the thing done is the focus." Similarly, Fossum and Mason say in their book Facing Shame that "While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one's actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person." Following this line of reasoning, Psychiatrist Judith Lewis Herman concludes that "Shame is an acutely self-conscious state in which the self is 'split,' imagining the self in the eyes of the other; by contrast, in guilt the self is unified."
Clinical psychologist Gershen Kaufman's view of shame is derived from that of Affect Theory, namely that shame is one of a set of instinctual, short-duration physiological reactions to stimulation. In this view, guilt is considered to be a learned behavior consisting essentially of self-directed blame or contempt, with shame occurring consequent to such behaviors making up a part of the overall experience of guilt. Here, self-blame and self-contempt mean the application, towards (a part of) one's self, of exactly the same dynamic that blaming of, and contempt for, others represents when it is applied interpersonally. Kaufman saw that mechanisms such as blame or contempt may be used as a defending strategy against the experience of shame and that someone who has a pattern of applying them to himself may well attempt to defend against a shame experience by applying self-blame or self-contempt. This, however, can lead to an internalized, self-reinforcing sequence of shame events for which Kaufman coined the term "shame spiral".
One view of difference between shame and embarrassment says that shame does not necessarily involve public humiliation while embarrassment does, that is, one can feel shame for an act known only to oneself but in order to be embarrassed one's actions must be revealed to others. In the field of ethics (moral psychology, in particular), however, there is debate as to whether or not shame is a heteronomous emotion, i.e. whether or not shame does involve recognition on the part of the ashamed that they have been judged negatively by others. Immanuel Kant and his followers held that shame is heteronomous; Bernard Williams and others have argued that shame can be autonomous. Shame may carry the connotation of a response to something that is morally wrong whereas embarrassment is the response to something that is morally neutral but socially unacceptable. Another view of shame and embarrassment says that the two emotions lie on a continuum and only differ in intensity.
Is shame and guilt the same thing? My initiate thought was 'yes, of course', but after thinking I cannot pin- point the difference.
Shame and guilt share many similarities, they are both secondary emotions and they are both concepts. Being such they are subjective and personally defined by social rules taught (conditioned) during upbringing. There are several competing models for how thoughts and emotions work in the human mind, and a psychologists' description of such is going to rely heavily on which school they are focused on (psychoanalytical, functionalism, behaviorism, humanistic, etc.) So good luck getting a hard and fast answer on this one. However, if one were to use the "window of emotions" theory, which states that emotions can be mapped/charted using two factors: pleasant/unpleasant and mild/intense, then shame and guilt would fall into different spaces. With both being in the unpleasant quadrants but shame being more intense. IMHO
Are these innate feelings, or do they come with socialization, or both?
This is a bit easier, they are both completely socialized.
Are they any use? I mean, can we behave reasonably without them, or are they necessary for keeping us on the right track?
I think they are definitely of use. One could look at shame and guilt as the first line of societal defense. If a person buys into the theory that as humans we have two basic hard wired drives: sex and aggression (one of a few Freudian principles still standing in Psychology today) then shame and guilt are effective in keeping the hedonistic desires of the Id in check. As infants humans are almost all Id, as we develop we move through several phases of conditioning based upon they rules of whatever society we live in, this is where the Superego begins to form and replace the Id.
Or are they barren and useless, or get in the way of functioning well?
I think they can seriously get in the way also. Inferiority complexes are an example of such occurrences.
Interesting topic, thanks for posting it.
~Respectfully,
Tantric
I think that they they are both inheirent and nessesary to the function of the mind and a part not only of "phycology" but also of our brains structural design.
Even animals as primative in comparrison to us as dogs are capable of showing examples of the behavior.
What about Pavlovian conditioning? It seems likely to me that dogs, or any animal, displaying examples of shame and guilt would be caused by interactions with humans and resulting domestication / conditioning. If that behavior is observed in undomesticated animals in their natural environment that might better support the innate/hard-wired theory. However, naturalistic observation is subjective, so how to be sure that the emotions and concepts of shame and guilt aren't being projected by the observer onto the behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Yes, and I can see that tantric is right that there are many ideas on this topic!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
But - the question arises whether there really is a difference between cutural or social values, and one's internal ones?? At the very least, there must be some overlap, in that they all come from our surroundings.Quote:
According to cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, shame is a violation of cultural or social values while guilt feelings arise from violations of one's internal values. Thus, it is possible to feel ashamed of thought or behavior that no one knows about and to feel guilty about actions that gain the approval of others.
I think there may be something about this, though it needs more thinking about..Quote:
Psychoanalyst Helen B. Lewis argued that "The experience of shame is directly about the self, which is the focus of evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object of negative evaluation, but rather the thing done is the focus."
I think shame may be a real bad thing in most cases, while guilt may be a sort of compass to regulate our behaviour - according to ideas of what is ok or not.
I cannot buy the idea that shame is instinctual. I have come to believe that both shame and guilt must come from the outside, since we are not born with a knowledge or right or wrong, good or evil.Quote:
Clinical psychologist Gershen Kaufman's view of shame is derived from that of Affect Theory, namely that shame is one of a set of instinctual, short-duration physiological reactions to stimulation. In this view, guilt is considered to be a learned behavior consisting essentially of self-directed blame or contempt, with shame occurring consequent to such behaviors making up a part of the overall experience of guilt.
Meaning the primary are fear, anger, joy and so on?Quote:
Shame and guilt share many similarities, they are both secondary emotions and they are both concepts. Being such they are subjective and personally defined by social rules taught (conditioned) during upbringing.
Yes, I think you are right here. They are learned.
I belive that would depend on the situation. Say you accidently ran over a child and it died, I imagine the gult would be as intense and any shame could be.Quote:
if one were to use the "window of emotions" theory, which states that emotions can be mapped/charted using two factors: pleasant/unpleasant and mild/intense, then shame and guilt would fall into different spaces. With both being in the unpleasant quadrants but shame being more intense. IMHO
I myself do not buy into it. If those drives were all we had, we would never have developed into humans, which demanded co-operation in getting food, and compassion towards for instance children. I personally think it is time to let go of this myth.Quote:
I think they (guilt and shame) are definitely of use. One could look at shame and guilt as the first line of societal defense. If a person buys into the theory that as humans we have two basic hard wired drives: sex and aggression (one of a few Freudian principles still standing in Psychology today) then shame and guilt are effective in keeping the hedonistic desires of the Id in check.
But of course sex and agression do exist. Yet I do not see the problem - most functional people do not wish to couple with someone screaming and crying and kicking. Not because of shame, but as a function of other instints, that you do not attack your own kind, normally, and not someone who is not a threat. As for aggression, I think it the same thing: most people are simply not aggressive except for a very good reason, even then they normally know when to stop as all the other animals high up in the food chain.
I think the problems today comes from havng gone from a flock way of living to a too indidual way of living, in which some of the normal instinctual behaviour does not come into play. But they are there, we see them for example in cases of catastrophies, where people actually mostly do help each other. The flock is back, as it were, and the instincts with it.
Right now I believe that shame is a bad thing mostly used to control others with, while guilt has its uses as a compass telling us that we are doing something wrong.
Glad to hear it, and welcome :-)Quote:
Interesting topic, thanks for posting it.
Then why is it that monkey's in the wild who faked making the call (ie crying wolf) alerting the troop they are in of a predator being nearby (so that they could steal the fruit they traditonally would first offer to the troops alpha male first for themselves) later show every sign of guilt that human beings do when back in the presence of said alpha and the rest of the troop?
Learned behavior from humans? I think not.
Wolves and big cats in the wild and even birds like crows do the same types of things.
These so called "higher" emotions that human beings exhibit are simpley not as uniquely "human" or as high as we would like to admit sometimes.
And have a well established place within evolution and the actual structural to functional relationships of our bodies and minds that can be benifical to our survival as a group.
Imagine a world where no shame/guilt existed at all, where no one or thing would feel even the slightest bit of remorse for anything they did to anyone or anything.
I thought this through before looking at other people's opinions on Wiki, but I'm glad to see I'm not alone... As I understand and use the terms, the difference between guilt and shame is the nature of the transgressions that evoke them.
Guilt comes from the awareness of having done some practical harm, whether through action or failure to act. (Leave aside whether the awareness is factually correct, we all know that people can be made to feel guilty when they have done nothing wrong, but only if they are convinced that they have.) Shame comes from the awareness of having broken some important rule, whether internalised from outside or personal. They often overlap but don't necessarily.
Example of the former: a cop shoots someone who was coming at him with a knife. He feels no shame, because what he did was correct according to both the law and his beliefs, but he feels guilt at having killed.
Example of the latter: you find a high value banknote blowing down the street and stick it in your wallet. You feel no guilt, because there is no realistic way you could return it to whoever lost it, but you might feel shame if your belief system tells you that you should work for what you have.
Both of these are conditional reactions, not absolute ones. Nobody but a Jain can live without causing harm to anything, so everyone has thresholds for what level of harm to what creatures or people they can cause without feeling guilt A large part of socialisation is programming these levels appropriately. A sociopath is essentially someone whose guilt thresholds are off the top of the scale.
Similarly, anyone who can live without ever breaking or bending their principles either has very easy rules or rewrites them retroactively: so anyone but a fanatic has fuzzy zones where they don't actually feel ashamed of breaking their rules, but are uncomfortably aware that they are pushing it.
There's more, but that's all I have time for now, I'll get back to this.
I am thinking much the same as Tantric was talking about, that maybe the we put too many human reactions on animals?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I do not think that only shame or guilt rules us. There are also instincts, or a will to do things in ways that feels good.
So, one is harm, the other just a rule..?Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
I have had to put 3 cats down in my life, all were terminally ill and in distress. It was obvious that I had a duty, however difficult. But I cannot get over the guilt of killing my pets who trusted me unconditionally. It is not rational, but then feelings rarely are, which I why I do not think you can divide these ones up so neatly.
It is true I feel shame if I break my own rules, if I feel I dishonour myself, if you will. But even more if that causes harm.
I still think it depends on the situation.
Where does conscience come into all this, I wonder?
Is it other than shame and guilt controls? Is it rather a sense of right and wrong, and wanting to do what is ok and right?
The stick and the carrot? With guilt and shame as the stick, and feeling good as the carrot?
I never said that guilt and shame are the only emotions that help guide, but I am saying that such emotions stem from more of an instincual root than "social conditioning" and that people would like to think they are artifical concepts when in fact they are inheirentaly based.
For instance...its been medically shown that social paths have distinctive structural differences in their brains compared to people that do not exhibit such behaviors.
No, you didn't. That was just me putting further thoughts into the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I think you are right.Quote:
but I am saying that such emotions stem from more of an instincual root than "social conditioning" and that people would like to think they are artifical concepts when in fact they are inheirentaly based.
Shame and guilt are both... interesting emotions. I generally file guilt under "actions" and shame under "wants/needs/states of being." If I feel that I've done something wrong (however that is being defined) then yes, I would feel guilty. Shame is a little more... nebulous, in my head anyway. I can feel shame for wanting to do something wrong, or for repeating an action that I felt guilty over.
More concretely, because these are fuzzy blurry concepts. I felt shame for many many years for being a drug addict. Every time I picked up or used, I would feel stung with guilt for doing something I had sworn (sometimes just 10 minutes before) I wouldn't do again. My inability to stop cause me to feel shame, because I felt I should be able to simply... stop, and found myself unable. I generally feel "shame" for something that is more intrinsic to myself, and I think that shame is a much more secondary emotion than guilt. Guilt, as denu mentioned, might show up with any action that one's society/values feels is "wrong," and justifiably so. In addition to positive rewards for "falling in line" with whatever the social structure is- wolves have their rewards just as humans do- guilt for misbehavior may be one of those very basic motivating principles.
Shame I tend to view as a secondary emotion (secondary in that it's a reaction to another emotion, not that it's less visceral or important), or a reaction to some aspect of the self that one feels does not "fit" with the larger social paradigm. The tonic for which, is self-acceptance. If I accept myself as I am, I have little reason to feel shame. I may still feel guilty for making mistakes, or having to make a difficult decision which results in an ambiguous result (as Leo brought up, with the cop.) The cop needn't feels shame, because he already accepts that his actions were necessary. He could feel shame, certainly, but the general social "rules" of engagement are on his side.