Madeleine Shield

Despite signifying a negative self-appraisal, shame has traditionally been thought by philosophers to entail the presence of self-respect in the individual. On this account, shame is occasioned by one’s failure to live up to certain self-standards—in displaying less worth than one thought one had—and this moves one to hide or otherwise inhibit oneself in an effort to protect one’s self-worth. In this paper, I argue against the notion that only self-respecting individuals can experience shame. Contrary to the idea that shame presupposes the presence of self-worth, I contend that shame merely requires that one have the desire, rather than the expectation, that one is worthy. Furthermore, I suggest that the desire for concealment fueled by shame is not an inherently self-protective mechanism but can alternatively be understood as an effort to safeguard one’s connection with others.

How one should respond to shame is a moral consideration that has figured relatively little in philosophical discourse. Recent psychological insights tell us that, at its core, shame reflects an unfulfilled need for emotional connection. As such, it often results in psychological and moral damage—harm which, I argue, renders shaming practices very difficult to justify. Following this, I posit that a morally preferable response to shame is one that successfully addresses and dispels the emotion. To this end, I critique two common responses to shame, compliance and anger, and then propose an alternative: the practice of emotional vulnerability.

For many philosophers, there is a tension inherent to shame as an inward-looking, yet intersubjective, emotion: that between the role of the ashamed self and the part of the shaming Other in pronouncing the judgement of shame. Simply put, the issue is this: either the perspective of the ashamed self takes precedence in autonomously choosing to feel shame, and the necessary role of the audience is overlooked, or else the view of the shaming Other prevails in heteronomously casting the shame, and the ashamed individual’s agency becomes problematically understated. I argue that this debate is fundamentally misguided insofar as it assumes that shame must be exclusively contingent upon either the perspective of the self or that of the Other, when it is in fact dependent upon both at once. This is the “double movement” of shame: an appraisal of the self that is at once social and private.

What is your authentic self—is it something that you design and create, or something to be discovered within yourself? The philosophical literature remains somewhat divided on this question, and this lack of consensus is also reflected in the popular sphere; in fact, ordinary appeals to the notion of an ‘authentic self’ often involve diverse, if not contradictory, views on selfhood. Interestingly, the self-help psychology of Canadian author and professor Jordan Peterson offers a particularly fitting example of this conflict. The argument that Peterson makes for the importance of personal authenticity in his 2018 book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, highlights some of the metaphysical and moral challenges surrounding the concept. In particular, his portrayal of the authentic self demonstrates the degree to which conflicting views of selfhood can coincide: at the same time as his belief in biological essentialism supports a view of the self as genetically fixed, his appeal to social autonomy characterises the self as free and self-determined. Nonetheless, conceiving of the self as constrained in some aspects yet autonomous in others is not an inherently contradictory position. This chapter considers the extent to which these two visions of the self can be reconciled in Peterson’s work and, firmly situated as Peterson is within contemporary discourse, what his ideas on authenticity can tell us about the wider cultural debate.