I have too much to say about this, so I’ll limit it to, “yes!” And add, I’ve been really concerned about those who find an off-ramp and whether they will have a safe place to land. Even just to read alternative views from what they’ve been getting from Fox or prominent influencers, the comments sections are full of slurs, how could they possibly take that in and stay. What’s more likely is they’ll return to the extremist community and defend their inner being from the shame and humiliation they found when venturing down that off-ramp. This is a big deal. We’re in for some serious trouble no matter the outcome of this upcoming election.
If people begin to question what they have been told, but the first place they land is contempt, slurs, humiliation, or “how could you be so stupid,” many will retreat right back into the community that gives them identity and protection from shame.
That does not mean accountability disappears. It means the off-ramp has to be real. There has to be a way back through truth, responsibility, and repair without requiring people to be publicly humiliated before they are allowed to change.
That feels like one of the biggest design questions ahead of us: how do we protect people from the harm being done, while also making room for the reachable to leave the pattern without being crushed by shame on the way out?
Also, David Frum (with The Atlantic) had David Blight on his podcast this week talking about reconstruction, 14th amendment and that groove of which you speak.
There’s something that has struck me these past several years about how people are averse to apologizing as though doing so is humiliating. I believe that apologizing is actually the instrument of liberation from shame. Yes, there are people who will respond to an apology by humiliating, but the apology isn’t in itself humiliating (or isn’t necessarily so.) Dignity is at play here as well. I see I’m about to climb down a rabbit hole just as I should be (already) winding down for the night, so I’ll stop. To be continued. But there’s something about separating accountability from an apology or from contrition and something about an internal sense of dignity (wholeness and integrity, not righteous dignity) that has a protective effect against shame.
Freddie, yes. I think this is an important distinction.
Apology can feel humiliating when dignity is already fragile or when the surrounding culture uses confession as a setup for punishment. But in its healthier form, apology is not humiliation. It is a way back into integrity.
That may be part of the architecture we need: accountability that includes truth, repair, and apology without turning contrition into public degradation. If people experience apology only as shame, they will defend against it. But if apology becomes a way to recover dignity, then it can become liberating rather than crushing.
I’d definitely read more if you climb further down that rabbit hole.
And here we are again. Shame is the architecture, with a curtain covering the removal of Trump’s name and watch parties live-streaming the event. The conundrum we face seems to be, what to do when contrition isn’t an option? The high ground, I suppose, is to both-sides, but that’s not really accurate. Even without the watch parties, Trump would experience humiliation. He may have had that curtain installed even without the watch parties.
How “should” we respond to this? We need to hold an official in check. Public outcry does help. And shame and humiliation does serve a purpose in keeping one’s behavior in check. This display may prove to be a turning point, the outcome of which is still unknown.
For me, the distinction is not between consequence and no consequence. Consequence is necessary. Public scrutiny is necessary. Naming the harm is necessary. Removing honors or symbols can be necessary too.
The distinction is between accountability and humiliation as spectacle.
A person may feel humiliated when accountability arrives, especially if they have refused contrition or repair. That does not mean accountability is wrong. But when the public response becomes pleasure in degradation, watch parties, or collective gloating, then we may be crossing into the very architecture the post is warning about.
So maybe the question is not, “How do we prevent powerful people from feeling shame?” We probably cannot, and in some cases shame may be part of conscience trying to break through.
The question is: can we hold firm consequences without making humiliation our fuel?
I have too much to say about this, so I’ll limit it to, “yes!” And add, I’ve been really concerned about those who find an off-ramp and whether they will have a safe place to land. Even just to read alternative views from what they’ve been getting from Fox or prominent influencers, the comments sections are full of slurs, how could they possibly take that in and stay. What’s more likely is they’ll return to the extremist community and defend their inner being from the shame and humiliation they found when venturing down that off-ramp. This is a big deal. We’re in for some serious trouble no matter the outcome of this upcoming election.
Freddie, yes. This is exactly the concern.
If people begin to question what they have been told, but the first place they land is contempt, slurs, humiliation, or “how could you be so stupid,” many will retreat right back into the community that gives them identity and protection from shame.
That does not mean accountability disappears. It means the off-ramp has to be real. There has to be a way back through truth, responsibility, and repair without requiring people to be publicly humiliated before they are allowed to change.
That feels like one of the biggest design questions ahead of us: how do we protect people from the harm being done, while also making room for the reachable to leave the pattern without being crushed by shame on the way out?
Also, David Frum (with The Atlantic) had David Blight on his podcast this week talking about reconstruction, 14th amendment and that groove of which you speak.
There’s something that has struck me these past several years about how people are averse to apologizing as though doing so is humiliating. I believe that apologizing is actually the instrument of liberation from shame. Yes, there are people who will respond to an apology by humiliating, but the apology isn’t in itself humiliating (or isn’t necessarily so.) Dignity is at play here as well. I see I’m about to climb down a rabbit hole just as I should be (already) winding down for the night, so I’ll stop. To be continued. But there’s something about separating accountability from an apology or from contrition and something about an internal sense of dignity (wholeness and integrity, not righteous dignity) that has a protective effect against shame.
Freddie, yes. I think this is an important distinction.
Apology can feel humiliating when dignity is already fragile or when the surrounding culture uses confession as a setup for punishment. But in its healthier form, apology is not humiliation. It is a way back into integrity.
That may be part of the architecture we need: accountability that includes truth, repair, and apology without turning contrition into public degradation. If people experience apology only as shame, they will defend against it. But if apology becomes a way to recover dignity, then it can become liberating rather than crushing.
I’d definitely read more if you climb further down that rabbit hole.
And here we are again. Shame is the architecture, with a curtain covering the removal of Trump’s name and watch parties live-streaming the event. The conundrum we face seems to be, what to do when contrition isn’t an option? The high ground, I suppose, is to both-sides, but that’s not really accurate. Even without the watch parties, Trump would experience humiliation. He may have had that curtain installed even without the watch parties.
How “should” we respond to this? We need to hold an official in check. Public outcry does help. And shame and humiliation does serve a purpose in keeping one’s behavior in check. This display may prove to be a turning point, the outcome of which is still unknown.
Freddie, I think this is the hard question.
For me, the distinction is not between consequence and no consequence. Consequence is necessary. Public scrutiny is necessary. Naming the harm is necessary. Removing honors or symbols can be necessary too.
The distinction is between accountability and humiliation as spectacle.
A person may feel humiliated when accountability arrives, especially if they have refused contrition or repair. That does not mean accountability is wrong. But when the public response becomes pleasure in degradation, watch parties, or collective gloating, then we may be crossing into the very architecture the post is warning about.
So maybe the question is not, “How do we prevent powerful people from feeling shame?” We probably cannot, and in some cases shame may be part of conscience trying to break through.
The question is: can we hold firm consequences without making humiliation our fuel?
Agreed. We have more to do than hold firm, but humiliation is not helpful.