A Word on Shame and Language

I have been grateful for the work of Dr. Brené Brown and personal experiences with emotional intelligence skills for my understanding of shame. I heard something on the topic recently that just did not sit right with me, and I could not find the words in the moment to express why. After reflecting on it, I felt it important enough to publish my thoughts here. First, the statement centers around the idea of "healthy shame"; I heard this explained in the context of society v. individual. Supposedly, the idea seems to be that shame is healthy when it is used to keep people from doing harmful things in public or social settings. We will come back to why I had an immediate sense of how wrong this is, but first I need to explain a few basics so the conclusion is clear.

My understanding is that the central difference between shame and guilt is the locus of responsibility or fault. This is often expressed as "Guilt is 'I did something wrong', and shame is 'I am something wrong'". Either I am separate from my choices or I am my choices; it is external or internal. This is an important distinction because actions can be changed more easily than selves. When I believe that I made an error in judgement and have learned that lesson, I want to change my behaviour to have better outcomes in future. My healthy self-image is not tied up with my choices, and I have a number of comparable paths to choose from. However, when I believe I made that choice because of who or how I am, it has a couple impacts. One is that the feeling of shame is reinforced, making it apparent that 'I always screw things up'. The other is that because it is who I am, I would have to be willing to change myself fundamentally to stop these mistakes in future. Furthermore, there is the learned helplessness of individuals with shame; nothing they have ever done was good enough, and no matter how hard they tried they could never change it-they likely will have given up hope that change is possible. To a person who is shame-filled, there are 'right' and 'wrong' choices, and every choice carries the weight of being the wrong one. This indicates that shame is intimately related to thinking in absolutes-often referred to as "black-or-white" and "either-or" thinking. Shame can come from a child hearing things like "you're such a screw up [no one else would do that]" instead of "oh, we all make mistakes-you'll do better next time." The former is being uniquely separate from 'normal people' and inherently a "screw up". The latter is being the same as everyone else and able to change. Incidentally, this is a good argument for using "people-centered" language, for example: "a person who has X" rather than "an X person". Now that these things are more clear, we can return to the original issue.

If shame is about the "who" someone is that they cannot change and locks them into "being" their choices, then how could that ever be "healthy"? Especially when the idea seems to be that this would change problematic social behaviours. I will suggest that the idea is more closely related to other 'feelings' that Dr. Brown has talked about: embarrassment and humiliation. These, again, can be divided into "internal/external" and  "healthy/unhealthy", but also don't quite explain what is really expressed by the notion. For that, we would look to social constructs: pressure, norms, and mores (the last is said "more-AYs"). These are essentially the social controls which keep people "in line" and from acting outrageously in public. When people talk about "pro-social" and "anti-social" behaviours, they are based off the aforementioned social constructs. They are what we learn without being told and what we fear to breach lest we are ostracized. Finally, this is where we encounter what "healthy [social] shame" actually is: the threat or action of casting out a member perceived as non-conforming. I think this exposes the intolerance and impracticality of the idea, which I hope leads us to healthier methods of encouraging pro-social attitudes and actions.

A Short Proposal on Expertise

I propose that the idea of being an expert in a field is misunderstood. A dictionary will define it as skill and/or knowledge of a particular area. This is both inadequate as well as under attack in recent history. By the latter, I mean that the very notion that someone can be an expert has been dismissed or ridiculed in public discourse for decades. This could be an attack designed to undermine the legitimacy of actual knowledge and/or science or a critical look at expertise being used to discount complaints of target populations. That is not the content of this post-I propose to look at the former notion and offer a less-expressed addition to the thinking on the subject.

While expertise can be seen as ability to perform all aspects of a task or act with authority in a position, this does not cover enough of what it is. The capacity to not only guide actions during everyday operations, but to do so when things go awry is what I suggest. Most people, most of the time, can sit in a chair wearing a bathing suit and holding a whistle while watching people in a swimming pool. Some of them may even be able to spot a swimmer in trouble and blow the whistle. However, even if they could tell something was amiss, I do not think many would be able to spot a person drowning and take appropriate action to save a life-many would even drown trying to save another! So I ask if you would frequent a swimming pool where the lifeguard did not have adequate training-or entrust the life of your child to such a lifeguard.

Similarly, we can operate most of the time with shortcuts and half-attention to what we do. Usually "good enough" is good enough; we can 'get away' with adequate. However, this system relies on all other things being within particular tolerances. Only as long as the situation is operating smoothly can most people handle managing or guiding their actions and those of others. All that changes when the unexpected or disastrous occurs. Once a person in the water is drowning, we need trained and fit lifeguards on duty. This is where expertise comes into play. Finally, we reach the purpose to this post: why is this an important addition to the definition and our understanding? It is because we need folks in charge of things who have experience or knowledge of what to do when things go wrong, not just when things are going according to plan. We have too few of them around at the moment, and too little trust in those who are. We will pay an exorbitant price when the crisis comes because of this absence.

Humans First!

I have been hearing an expression which reveals a sentiment I take exception to. I also recognize that I am behind the times on this, as a little research turns up equivalent terms from 2014. What I refer to is the new sense and way of speaking of pets as a 'parent-child' relationship. Expressions such as "dog [mom/dad]", "pet parent", and "fur baby" indicate the level of care such individuals evidently feel for their pets. Some even lavish attention and expense on their pets that seem like Christmas came early. As a parent, the idea that a person chooses to devote their attention to another species is not entirely my issue. I think having compassion, and even agape love, for animals of all species is noble. I care about the extinction of animal species and the mistreatment of domesticated animals. I believe it is a privilege to own an animal, and that includes the responsibility to care for that animal. I have owned a variety of pets in my life, and would enjoy the opportunity to again.

The reason I find this important enough to talk about is that it betrays a variety of problematic attitudes. Initially, I resented the implication that my status as parent was not as valuable or respectable because it was on par with owning a creature. I do realize that no one was making that explicit statement, and one engages in equivocation to draw the parallel. Still, the wording is a choice and it is one that expresses an equivalence where there is none. At best, it is great marketing disguised as a positive change for the animals. However, I find that it covers at least a couple truths. First, we steal baby animals from their actual parents for our own purposes, after breeding the animals for profit. Second, all these animals are the products of human manipulation; they are genetically modified organisms. We literally created everything about these pets: appearance, demeanor, and purpose. There is at least one breed of dog that cannot reproduce without humans. Finally, there are the startling number of animals who are killed each year as surplus.

These facts betray the weight of responsibility we have to these creatures, and how different having a pet is from children. As much as we owe pets for their companionship and service, our first duty is to ourselves. This is the only thing that makes the current treatment of animals minimally acceptable. Ultimately, no matter how loving one is towards a pet, a human life always takes precedence. If a human baby and a pet are both in peril, the human life must be saved. This is not an opinion. If we reach a point where we no longer consider every human life as eminently valuable, our species begins to lose our chance to survive. Consider that we evolved and continue to exist on this planet because of the fundamental rule that we continue to want to live. No matter what the cosmos throws at us as a species, we persist. I begin to think this attitude reveals a flaw in some folks that do not believe we deserve to continue as a species. At any rate, I think this simple exploration demonstrates how nonsensical the trend is. So everyone can stop using those terms now.

Mental Illnesses and How to Treat Them

First, because litigation has replaced dialogue as a form of communication, this is not medical or legal advice. This remains the blog of a layperson who expresses a perspective in order to challenge and support others to explore various topics which concern us all.

I will propose that we are still in a Dark Age of understanding mental health; even though we have gone from chaining patients in cells to giving them pills, it is only a first step. Let's briefly review some history of medical knowledge to draw some analogies. Even though intricate knowledge of the human body has been available since ancient Egypt, how to treat diseases was subject to debate and misapprehension. Most people know that prayer, bleeding, and trepanning were all considered actual medical treatment at various times in history (and many discredited 'treatments' still have adherents, sadly). Only in the last 200 years have necessary items like antiseptics, anesthetics, and antibiotics been understood and used generally. Out of thousands of years of recorded history, only the last couple centuries have contained advancements we now consider fundamental to restoring physical health. We still cannot regrow limbs, treat genetic diseases by altering DNA, nor even repair nerves to correct paralysis. Our medical knowledge has finally reached an adequate level; most people, most of the time, can be treated and restored to a physically functional level.

Similarly, our understanding of mental health has advanced. Whereas what has been seen as insanity (or aberrant behavior) must depend upon the surrounding culture, history does have records of various conditions. What we call schizophrenia, for example, shows up reliably; it may be supposed that religious figures who heard, saw, and/or felt things no one else did could have had it. This actually leads to my point: what is a mental illness? In the history of modern psychology, sexuality was grouped in with mental illnesses. Until about 50 years ago, anything other than heterosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Again, some still hold this absurd, dangerous, and disproven idea. PTSD was recognized by the mid-1900s, and has only seen significant treatment in the past 20 years. This, I think demonstrates that we are subject to the ongoing discovery of how our minds work and how to treat disease and injury of the mind. This is not to denigrate the advancements or profession of healthcare, just to recognize the limitations.

Now, I will suggest that some things we do not currently consider mental health issues could be, such as prejudice, conspiracy theories, and procrastination. Even if it turns out to be inaccurate, possibly using the model as laypersons could be helpful in our everyday lives. For example, rather than thinking of someone who is racist as a 'bad person', just think of them as struggling with a mental illness. Just as we can have compassion and sadness for someone with an anxiety disorder, we could think of the conspiracy theorist as deserving empathy. Additionally, this allows us to separate ourselves from those peoples' conditions. Just as I can acknowledge a persons' cancer, lupus, or other self-sustaining pathology, I can put aggression in its proper place. It is something that they suffer from and I can only see the outward signs of, but it is not contagious and I can take precautions to prevent being harmed by their disease.

Controlling the Narrative

There are things you don't want anyone to know, for fear of judgement; they may be things you're struggling to understand and are uncertain of how to address them. How far can this be taken before it is harmful? Can it ever be healthy? On a basic level controlling (or attempting control of) what is known is distorting reality-also known as lying. If every part of each aspect of a situation were known to others as I know them, there would be no mystery or deception. When I work to keep information from others-in part or in whole-then I want to shape another persons' perception. I do not want them coming to their own conclusions; rather, I want to control what they think. This may be an extraordinary interpretation, but it is not an irrational one. It is commonplace, and often unconscious, to tell only part of the story-even to tell the story which places us in the best light. Whether it is malicious or harmful is separate from the fact of it happening. Note that I will use "lie" as the root word for this discussion for the sake of brevity and simplicity.

Positive public relations in business puts a "spin" on things by only giving out particular information. It is a recognized form of public affairs, and can rely on claims of "intellectual property" and "trade secrets". This can move from complete and factual statements about something into "cherry-picking" only positive aspects, even to suppressing vital 'negative' information that consumers would need in order to make a fully informed decision. The need for private companies to be seen as beneficent entities leads to dubious statements. Naturally, this has extended into advertising, with companies making claims about products that are rather ridiculous lies. Similarly, individuals in the public eye (i.e. celebrities, politicians, and spokespersons) can have personal and professional needs around public image and control of information. We can see this in various campaigns and agencies. However, sometimes "staying on message" can be a form of disinformation-a special kind of lie. Again, we return to the idea that not everything is exposed; there are some things that those advertising their wares are scared of coming to light. These examples can have a far greater impact than those of an individual. I skim over this aspect because it is not the focus of the post, and deserves more exploration another time.

When it is an individual controlling or seeking to decide what is seen or known, we may call it 'privacy', 'secrecy', or 'confidentiality'. We may have select friends we tell all things to, while others receive only cursory or superficial versions of events in our life. Social media is an excellent example: the struggle to always appear positive and likable, as having it all together. It may go beyond "polite" topics, and become a neurotic competition for approval. However, in these situations the harm is fairly restricted to a few individuals around the liar. While it can lead to fervent defense, shame, and "family secrets", it will not have widespread impacts. There's more going on, and as much denial as is put into it, a person cannot succeed at 'spin' and remain authentic.

This is where the topic becomes more intriguing, because an unintended effect of lying is one of denying authentic connection. Rather than letting ones' mistakes and limitations be known, one chooses to obfuscate and deny their existence. This places a barrier between parties, known on one part and sensed by the other. The liar must guard against the lie being found out, for fear both of being judged for the original action as well as for covering it up. The other party begins to place the liar out of reach, as being 'other' in some way; they may not suspect lying, but know that somehow the liar is different. We all know that we are imperfect, and either we have a damaged self-image and think we're alone in that or a healthy self-image and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. If others don't own up to mistakes, we have to suspect something is wrong somewhere.

Finally, it is this social aspect that is at the heart of the matter. Because we are social creatures, and require connection, how we achieve that connection is vital. Basically, either we can connect to others through control or through vulnerability. There is a part of being around others that involves the challenge of judgment. The fear of rejection is the most common motivation for lying. Yet losing connection is the biggest risk of lying. This is an inherent tension of willing to be known by others. Additionally, others cannot struggle with their own judgements if I am not putting who I am in full view. This-again-is part of being human: to experience judgments. Here it is both judging others and being judged by others. The opportunity to be challenged by differing judgments or facts. These judgements are separate from truth or self-image; however, they matter because a healthy human requires the acceptance of other humans. That challenge of facing a difficulty and encountering it directly builds a more solid individual; we could say that it builds character.

All Laws are Negative

There seems to be a misapprehension about laws, that somehow they tell citizens how to live. This is inaccurate, in that laws only tell us what is prohibited. In fact, a great many laws are reactions to terrible injuries and exploitation. Child labor, environmental pollution,workplace safety, manufacturing practices, and financial regulations are all examples of laws that were enacted in order to prevent harms that were being done to the people and lands of various countries. It was not that governments were interested in curtailing business, but that there was such outrage at the deaths related to these business practices that governments no longer had a choice but to pass laws to protect the health and safety of citizens. The truth of this legal history is not the issue at hand. This is all to establish the basis for the objective of this post: that a focus on the negative leads to negativity. Since all laws are prohibitive (that is, they prohibit an activity) - they are negatively focused. Additionally, they are punitive or retributive; the consequence of being found guilty of breaking a law is always punishment. This is because there is no prescription for rehabilitation in a law-remember, laws do not tell anyone what to do-it only says what harm may be leveled against the 'criminal'. This negativity, aside from being demeaning, also sets the entire mindset around law and legality in a negative framework. This means every time I think about the subject, I think about it as a negative.

This relates to the idea of "pessimism", whereby all one sees is the negative or harmful possible outcomes of choices. Instead of recognizing, accepting, and weighing possibilities in a neutral way, the entirety of the process becomes increasingly focused on negatives. Negative reinforcement can be especially impactful when combined with an absolutist and/or "inherently bad" belief system. Someone who believes in absolutes is one who does not believe in extenuating circumstances or 'shades of grey'; these are folks who can only conceive of two possibilities in any situation. One can recognize these individuals by the expressions "like it or lump it", "there's only one way to do something: the right way", and "my way or the highway". The second mindset holds the belief that all people, or certain groups of people (here we can recognize racism or other prejudices), have an initial or inborn 'badness' to overcome...if they believe it possible to change at all. These beliefs combined with the initial assertion of the negativity involved in the "criminal justice system" lead to a greater problem than any of them individually.

Which leads to the conclusion that we are really talking about psychology, not least of which because every person involved in the legal system is a human. Every human is subject to the same psychological issues: biases, stresses, prejudices, and fatigue. Supposing humans somehow become immune to these realities once they enter the legal system is absurd, yet folks seem to act as if that were the case. In the legal system, these psychological factors have tremendous impacts on individuals and society. There are many studies that demonstrate how "priming" participants can lead to fewer options and less desirable outcomes. This is part of the reason defendants are allowed to change out of jail/prison clothes to appear in court: the sight of a person dressed as a 'criminal' primes the viewer (judge or jury) to see guilt, rather than maintaining the presumption of innocence. However, not all factors can be alleviated, thus allowing the psychology of those deciding a legal case to be swayed. Looking at the incarceration of persons of color in the U.S. is a striking example of a series of such psychological impacts. I speak not only of the attorneys, police, judges, and juries-of course these include also the individual suspected or convicted of crime and the communities. Here I may be accused of drifting into a spiritual arena, by including the psychological toll of having a prison or jail in a county, or of the family's grief over the conviction (rightly or wrongly) of one of their own. However, I intend to point out only that there is a psychological impact; this is factual, observable, and-possibly-measurable.

It is this negative psychological toll that I had in mind starting this post. It seems sadly lacking in the discourse of reform around "criminal justice" in the popular narrative of dominant culture. It has seemed absurd to ignore all these obvious components when talking about how to understand such an historically rooted system, let alone how to improve it.