Curious about a Tomkins Passage on Shame

I am thinking about a topic that I hope someone more expert than I on Affect Theory by Tomkins may want to address. My curiosity (interest-excitement) was activated after reading the following from Tomkins, AIC, I, p. 289 (in the rich chapter on affect dynamics): ..........

Although we have argued that the difference between the effects of interruption of positive affect depend critically on the externality or internality of interruption, and although this is generally true, this is not altogether the heart of the matter. The critical distinction is that between interruption of ongoing positive excitement or enjoyment which is experienced as external and regarded as inherently surmountable and which therefore does not reduce positive affect but increases it, and the interruption which actually somewhat reduces the ongoing excitement or joy. Such reduction may be produced because the interruption is from within, or if it comes form without, seems permanent or insurmountable. Anything, in short, whether form internal or external sources, which interrupts and also actually attenuates positive affect without completely reducing it will activate shame. A child who responds with shame to a parent's interruption of an enjoyable game either also has an internalized shamer wo resonates to the parent's dictates, or believes that there is no chance of successful rsistance. .........

Now here's how I understand this. Shame results from an impediment to the continuation of interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy whenever either of these positive affects remains active--not yet spent. Thus, if there is no continuing interest or joy, there can be no shame from what only appears to be "interrupting."

But the above passage seems to also say that, in addition to the continuation of interest or enjoyment in a true interruption, two other things happen when shame occurs. First, the level of interest or enjoyment is reduced somewhat by the interruption. (The positive affect is only reduced by the interruption but not eliminated.) Second, the positive affect is reduced by an interruption BECAUSE the interruption is regarded as either permanent or insurmountable.

If the positive affect is not reduced, there will be no shame. And positive affect will not be reduced if the interruption is seen as temporary or able to be surmounted. So if I believe I can surmount an unwanted or merely temporary interruption of my continuing interest or joy, then my positive affect will not be diminished (it may actually increase!) and, thus, I will feel no shame.

Just interrupting positive affect will not produce shame. If I understand Tomkins correctly, shame is produced only if: (a) the positive affect remains after an interruption and (b) the positive affect is attenuated by the interruption (c) because the interruption is regarded as either (i) permanent or (ii) insurmountable.

An interruption can come from something happening within the person him/herself or from something happening outside the person. In either case, the interruption will not produce shame if it is seen as an interruption that can be overcome or as just a temporary interruption. (Tomkins seems to imply in the above passage that when the interruption comes from something going on within the person her/himself, it is likely to be regarded as either a permanent or an insurmountable impediment.)

Do others approve my interpretation of this passage by Tomkins?

• Impediments by Don Nathanson, 12/7/97