Everyone loves to see justice done
On somebody else
(Bruce Cockburn)
But Brene Brown is out for shame punishment. In her book (I Thought It Was Just Me) she addresses a similar case of a man who abused his wife and had to stand on the court steps to read out an apology. Brown challenges us to think past what satisfies us as a punishment, and think about what really works.
It's key here to remember there's a difference between shame and guilt. Guilt can be healthy because it's our own perception that we've fallen short of our own values. Shame comes when we've fallen short of someone else's values, and it results in us feeling isolated. Punishment by shaming puts the criminal on the outs of society, rather than reintegrating them.
To address this "public shame as conviction" thing Brown quotes Dr Harriet Lerner: "For people to look squarely at their harmful actions and to become genuinely accountable they must have a platform of self-worth to stand on. ...Only from there can they apologize."
Lerner gives the example of Ron, who doesn't want to join a group for men who beat their wives, but will join one for men who have trouble controlling their tempers. She calls this a healthy act of resistance: "If Ron's identity as a person is equated with his violent acts, he won't accept responsibility or access genuine feelings of sorrow and remorse, because to do so would threaten him with feelings of worthlessness. ...How can we apologize for something that we are, rather than something we did." (pp65-66)
When I saw it put this way, I immediately knew this punishment by shame thing was wrong. Do I want anyone, even an abuser, to ever feel worthless? No, absolutely not. And as someone who believes in God and the inherent value of all life, I can't.
In Canada we wear felt poppies on our laps until Remembrance Day, and the sale of those poppies goes to veterans. Poppy donation boxes are often in stores, and this year to lower theft they handed out guidelines to stores on how to keep the boxes. As a result far less theft occurred. Now look at this CBC poll:
Even though we KNOW FOR A FACT that the best deterrent is to communicate with retailers, people believe sin shaming. Mind, Brown would see our response as normal--cause we tend to shame others when we ourselves are in a state of fear or anger. ;-)
8 comments:
I see what she's saying but on the other hand - "Lerner gives the example of Ron, who doesn't want to join a group for men who beat their wives, but will join one for men who have trouble controlling their tempers."
How exactly is he going to change the behavior of beating his wife if he doesn't admit that he beat his wife? Isn't admitting there is a problem the first step towards fixing the problem?
I'm only quoting her in part. Basically she's saying the person still needs a foundational identity to stand on, and then they can look at this ONE part of them, and admit to it, and feel real guilt/remorse. That if we're too strongly identified with Just That then it's too threatening to handle.
For example, in anger groups they do still talk about situations where they lost their temper etc. Maybe in that context he'd feel safer admitting to beating his wife, and then moving on. Maybe even after that THEN he'd join the other group? I assume Lerner's own book (I think it's from Dance of Anger) goes into it in more detail.
And maybe the whole "Hi my name is X and I'm an alcoholic" is something AA got wrong. I'm thinking of Skye's post about not taking Depression in as part of her identity. Maybe there's an important distinction to be made between "I am an alcoholic" and "I am addicted to alcohol." "I am a wife beater" and "I beat my wife." ?
This crime angle was just two pages in Brown's book, but I felt there was a lot of Food for Thought packed in there.
@London Mabel: I think your example is a good one about identity. If one identifies oneself as a wife beater, then that is who he is and he'll probably continue to do it. But if it's an action he commits, well, he could change that.
I read the Brene Brown book too and also think that shame just makes people feel worthless. And if it's shame that is externally applied, then I think resentment will be more likely than change.
It definitely has made a difference to think to myself that I have depression and anxiety rather than I am a depressed/anxious person.
There's a whole lot of conversation that could come from this.
this is fascinating, and gives me much to think about. I come at it from the other angle, from someone who was abused by someone who wouldn't admit it. That's always been my huge resentment about the whole thing-- not that it happened, worse things have happened to plenty of other people, but that I got to the point where I questioned my own sanity because he wouldn't admit that it happened. You see it in Lance Armstrong and Jerry Sandusky. I'm not sure I agree with you. I think these guys have such huge egos that they don't think they deserve to be treated as someone who abuses (kids, drugs, whatever), they don't think they should have to accept the consequences of those actions, so they just refuse to admit that they did it. I suppose you could argue that overly-inflated egos always rest on top of self-doubt. I don't know. As a first step, I suppose Ron going to the anger support group is better than nothing. But if it doesn't eventually lead to him being able to accept responsibility for his actions, then it's just another way for him to evade the consequences. great topic.
One speaker I listened to recently, in a Christian context, takes issue with the "My name is Steve and I'm an alcholic. I haven't had a drink now in three years, 10 months and 27 days..."
He maintains that Steve is still adicted to alcohol - it is still the center of his identity.
This speaker says the Christian pov should be: My name is Steve and I'm a child of God. I have a problem with alcohol, but it need not control me - I can be free of its grip altogether.
To me this does sound like a healthier way to approach issues of addiction, weaknesses etc... It seems move us from The Victim, to a person with the power to choose and to change and to overcome old ways.
Yes, very interesting conversation.
@Skye - Yeah, the topic/book is quite deep.
@Barb - I don't want to misrepresent what Lerner argues does work, cause I haven't read her book. She definitely isn't saying that it's okay for the person to not admit what they did.
But in this context Brown was just arguing that what does NOT work is shame. And your examples are good ones. People living in the public eye are Publicly Shamed for their crimes all the time, and we've seen how that doesn't necessarily lead them to change. And if you have a big ego, then you really have a vested interest in not wanting to adopt an identity that shatters that.
Reminds me of Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld) who called an audience member the N-word. When Seinfeld recently interviewed him, it seemed like Richards was really shattered by the event. And Seinfeld was telling him: You've got to move on. -- Maybe this is what happens if you let down your defenses and take in the shaming, let yourself be defined as The Racist. He apologized, he's sorry, but he's also kind of messed up. We want people to feel remorse and change, but we don't want to break them. Brown's mantra is: Shame damages, shame is bad for society.
@ladada - Yeah, and as Christians we don't have the right to take away someone's sense of self worth. Because it's God-given and without conditions.
Thanks for joining a convo, my buddies!
(I don't really have anything to add, just wanted to let you know that I saw your reply and appreciated it)
( :-) )
Post a Comment