My column today at Role/Reboot looks at the redemptive aspect of shaming, drawing on an incident from last week where a TV anchor in Wisconsin movingly responded to a viewer who called her a bad example for young girls.
Excerpt:
Leaving aside the question of whether Krause’s email constituted bullying (I think it did: Meanness often masquerades behind false expressions of concern), I’m struck by the question of whether calling him out, as Jezebel did, amounted to an unhelpful “shaming” of a well-intentioned dude who wrote a private email to a public figure, or whether naming him was a justifiable response to an act of colossal cluelessness at best or calculated cruelty at worst.
Part of the answer lies in recognizing the positive aspects of shame. In our contemporary culture, we tend to think of shame as an invariably unhealthy private emotion. In her popular TedTalk, Brené Brown builds on a distinction between guilt and shame originally made by John Bradshaw. Shame says “I am a bad person” while guilt says “I did a bad thing.” As Brown and Bradshaw would have it, guilt is about distinguishing right and wrong actions; shame is a negative judgment about one’s intrinsic worth. Guilt is a necessary reminder of the harm we can do to other people; shame is a corrosive force that eats away at our self-worth. The less shame we have, the better—or so one popular conception of shame suggests.
Sex educator and occasional Role/Reboot contributor Charlie Glickman takes a more nuanced approach, one that may help explain why the shaming of Kenneth Krause serves an important public function. Glickman writes about what he calls the “adaptive value of shame,” arguing that shame is a powerful emotion of disconnection:
“I expect the folks in my life to demonstrate respect for other people, regardless of their sexual orientation, sexual practices, or gender expression. If you don’t, I will call you on it. If you persist in not changing your actions, I will disengage from you. To the degree that you want to be in connection with me, that can be a motivation to explore your ideas and beliefs and perhaps, change them.”
Disconnection isn’t always about toxic alienation, Charlie argues, but about healthy boundary setting. Making clear that there are consequences for disrespecting others is a helpful tool to protect ourselves and our community. It’s a way of reminding people that their words and actions have consequences.
I usually agree with you, Hugo, but on this one, I categorically do not. I am amazed that you do not support that individuals are entitled to their opinions, even if those opinions are not politically correct by today’s thought police.
I’m “hyper-privileged” as the accused Kenneth Krause apparently is in your view (and btw, you live in that world, too, as does Jennifer Livingston!), but I am still entitled to believe that overweight people are not good role models for society, and I am entitled to send an email to anyone I choose stating that opinion (especially a public figure), as long as I am not making any kind of threat. Would such an action be the kindest, most compassionate move? Probably not, but it’s still within my right, and what bothers me the most about this whole nasty thing is that everyone is still afraid to have a real conversation about the zillions of ways being overweight harms individuals, families, and society. Lives are shortened, not as full, and all of society pays the medical and other costs of sick people that are sick simply because they are overweight. The majority of medical costs in the USA and beyond are directly related to diet and lack of exercise. Period. I am not an advocate of shaming under any circumstances, but I do believe in truthful conversations, no matter how difficult. This turned into another “poor fat person” was bullied, instead of, “bullying is bad, but maybe there is truth in what was said and let’s open a discussion”. It is unfortunate that this opportunity was completely lost and that you now have contributed to that loss with this piece. “Shame”.
Looks like we have an EWF–Existing While Fat.
So having a medical problem–which in fact might not even be one’s fault–is some sort of a crime? So only people fortunate enough to be healthy get to be on tv shows? A person can eat the healthiest food for years and exercise too and that still doesn’t guarantee that they will be, stay or become slim.
You want to look at bad influences, try these–a nation/culture/economy that makes refined/junk food cheaper and more appealing than the good stuff; planners who design cities without bike lanes; doctors so busy shilling for pharmaceutical companies,growing hair on cue balls and mutilating baby boys that they don’t have time to take on real problems; the list goes on.
In Butler’s “Erewhon” criminals were treated with compassion and people who got sick were punished. It seems to have come true now.
I don’t have a tv, so I don’t know a lot about the content of this woman’s program. If she spends her time telling people to watch tv all day and support the junk-food industry, that’s one thing, but otherwise, anyone who doesn’t like to look at her can turn off the damn tv–and concentrate on real dangers, like bullying, and the problems I mentioned above.
I’m with Ms Livingston, and Hugo. I like how she spoke in defense of, not herself but people more vulnerable. The only thing she got wrong is saying that schools are “becoming” battlegrounds–they have always been thus.
If the appearance of people on tv is so key, BTW, why not hide all the real human beings of any size and just use computer-generated images all the time?
Bullying: Really HUGO, you think this was bullying.
So there is a scenario for you, There is a fat kid in school, one of the skinny kids come up to him in the hallways and tells him he is fat and that he should exercise. No one is around, no one else hears it (remember folks this was a private email to this person). The fat kid btw is 6 feet tal and the kid who comes up to him is 5′ 1″. The fat kid takes offense and immediately gathers all this friends who corner the little kid in gym and pound the living crap out of him. they take pictures of the little kid and they spread it all around school.
NOW who is the bully in that scenario: Sorry but metaphorically speaking that is what happened to this womand , her reaction was the exact same (metaphorically speaking) as my scenario