"Nor does it make sense to me to treat him as a responsible being and then assume that there are no circumstances where he should be blamed"
Perhaps if you used the word "accountable" it might remove some of the judgemental and controlling connotations which make it somewhat anthema to Karen and to many others. I can't help feeling that there are two ships passing in the night here. Let me comment on some of the shame/blame stuff I have tried to hold my tongue on...
"Shame" is created by internalizing ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, worthy and unworthy...and so forth. These measures of self concept are learned from family, friends, school, and society. Thus there is no ONE relationship between an act and how one has been taught to "moralize" it. It is all relative to context, culture, and conditioning.
People can be conditioned to feel pretty much anything for any reason; but in the end it is all filtered and screened through the feelings and beliefs of each individual. And it is always dynamic and ongoing.
The capacity to be conditioned is indeed a part of human nature. But whether the conditioning of shameful feelings is necessarily the best side of human nature, and whether and to what specifics such conditioning is either rational or commendable is a legitimate concern which appears to be where Karen was speaking from (I am sure you remember the psych. experiment where students were conditioned to electrocute the subjects??).
When is an act "shameful" outside of culture, context, and conditioning? Across cultures and over time many acts have been viewed and treated as shameful in one place or time...while as shameless (or even laudable) in another. You oughtta be ashamed of yourself--IF YOU: Masturbate; if you don't; if you wear a beard; or if you are clean shaven; if you marry more than one wife; or if you don't-- if you are stupid; if you are ugly; if you are gay; or if you eat pork; if you are drunk in public; or if you are drunk in private...or if you peed your pants.
Did you kiss on the first date, did you cover your face? If you were overweight and wore a revealing bathing suit, did you at least apologize to those whose sensibilities you offended? Did you ever fall in the cow shit while you were playing and got smelly? Shame on everybody.
I'm just having a bit of fun. Shame on me for that, too!
None of these are intrinsically shameful. They are shameful (or not) depending on mother's knee...or the priestly hem. Certainly there are things that both you and I agree as being "shameful" insofar as we share many common values regarding human rights and freedoms--and the responsibility of humans to not intrude on the sovereignty of others. Still, I am sure we both disagree on much of what is shameful. At the least, I am not interested in shame being used as a weapon to coerce people into accepting THEIR values so that they may exercise arbitrary control. I no longer need parents, priests, or politicians to set what values I "ought" to embrace. As to what I am FORCED to DO...well, that is another matter.
You will appreciate that what you learned at your mother's knee is different than what anyone else learned. Obviously, it was far different than what a Mennonite learns, or what I learned. Certainly, it does not trump what others have learned. Any moralistic statements presented in a dogmatic fashion are quite rightly viewed as dismissive of a great many knees --knees of many colours, shapes, and flexibilities.
Shame is not a very useful idea for me. One needs to be accountable for behaviour; but one does not need to internalize prevailing (and so often, irrational) concepts of wickedness, evil, and unworthiness into their concept of self. Words like "duty", "shame" and the like evolved out of the desire to control members of the group...from family on up. As people become more civilized in the recognition of individual rights--control of private behaviour (or public behaviour which does not overtly harm others) is more and more frowned upon as being intrusive and ridiculous. |
