Re: Monicagate, Shame, and Affect Theory

I believe that the models of normative and humanist are valuable models to use in assessing the general behaviors and attitudes of a nation or group, and are useful values and modes to test for in individuals. I would, however, like to suggest an additional theory to describe the behavior of our fellow constituents at the polls recently.

First, we live in times when the momentum of encountering potentially shaming circumstances is more and more likely to overwhelm the consciousness of the average person. While our national epidemic of violence and our recent Monicagate validates the significance and variety of attack-other in our society, I believe that most people unconsciously attempt avoidance, simply because of the frequency that shame is encountered, avoidance is the most economical method.

The almost obscene drive to accumulate wealth simply because the person next door has slightly more, is commonplace. The preoccupation with this need for what we don't need, provides a most dynamic structure of addiction to facilitate shame-avoidance. Like most addictions, the source must be protected, so more money is required to ensure the availability. This also has the potential to require additional structures to support shame-avoidance, as their disparity of wealth becomes more and more apparent. They are likely to seek additional 'support' from people of like wealth, which can only increase the likelihood of introducing them to people who have more...

Dr. Nathanson has provided us with extensive descriptions of shame-avoidance behavior in his many works, so before I continue, I want to make it clear that I don't believe that my observations should necessarily be instructive for him. I have been waiting to see the extent of response to his 9/27 Soapbox: 'Monicagate, Shame, and Affect Theory.'

Though the example involves a small sampling, I think it possible that the lack of significant response could be partially as a result of wanting to avoid this no-win situation: 'either way I take this issue I have to deal with shame.' Why is choosing a plate of shame necessarily a rational choice?

I believe that if we continue in our investigations of the affect of shame, we will someday, if not sooner, conclude that, as it is theorized to be the most recently evolved affect, it is also the predominant influence in our behaviors until we become conscious of it. I don't believe that it is too much of a generalization to describe an unconscious motivation of most people to seek positive affect and avoidance of negative. This might also be an appropriate description for other forms of life.

Since the pain of shame-humiliation is potentially most painful, the sophistication of our social and individual defenses is likely to be elaborate.

'Shame about Shame' is accurate, and elegant as a concise description. Yet I suggest that there is evidence to support the argument that the recent national elections contain a substantial dose of shame-avoidance, and not simply, or, predominately a choice for humanist vs. normative.

Our presidential elections of recent times have been inextricably involved with shame. Four years ago, a significant part of our constituency chose attack-other. U.S. Republicans regained majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Many voters rejected Democratic (humanist) incumbents in November 1994 despite economic gains made under the Democrats. (It was likely the most significantly shame-driven national election since Roosevelt's first presidential victory.) The taste for attack-other was also significantly driven by issues of sexuality because of Clinton's support for gay rights within the military.

This attack-other rampage was also likely to contain a strong shame-avoidance component. Just as people tired of the constant ongoing Monicagate humiliation this year, the complexity of shame-humiliation in 1994 was equally present. The momentum of humiliation from 1994 was still within the hearts of many. Yet, I believe that many might also have chosen to use their vote again as a tool for shame-avoidance, by saying 'enough' to the 'attack-other' that they chose in 1994.

In any case, the subject of sexuality and the issue of shame in relationship to Clinton were again the predominant dynamics voters for many in an off year election. I would like to believe that most people have the maturity to consciously choose the humanist pole vs. the normative, but I believe that the ubiquitous and dominating nature of shame can induce many people to behave similarly while operating from different directions of the compass. This allows many people to stay 'apparently part of the herd,' while inwardly their motives are more diverse.

Finally, to what extent is our society unconsciously and inadvertantly driving these shame dynamics because of our deeper need to somehow keep issues of sexuality in the forefront of the public arena?

No Replies