It used to be that those who attempted to shame other people were told bluntly to mind their own business
27
"Bloom’s thesis was accurate at the time, but it’s not accurate anymore. College campuses are today awash in moral judgment."
The conservative chickens have come home to roost.
As an aside, you've gotten the essence of shame vs. guilt wrong. One feels guilt for having done wrong. One is made to feel shame just for being. So the attacks on gay/lesbian/liberal/black/hispanic/non-religious folks is a page out of the playbook of ideologues who KNOW they're saved and everyone else is just bad.
The conservative chickens have come home to roost.
As an aside, you've gotten the essence of shame vs. guilt wrong. One feels guilt for having done wrong. One is made to feel shame just for being. So the attacks on gay/lesbian/liberal/black/hispanic/non-religious folks is a page out of the playbook of ideologues who KNOW they're saved and everyone else is just bad.
22
Students are trying to develop their moral value systems as they go. The old system was destroyed by war, greed and misinformation. They are trying to get down to the knitty gritty, because the media and the politicians have managed to treat morality as a tool, like money.
6
Reading this made me think about why there is a backlash against political correctness. I think people use this sort of thinking to attack people so they can distract others from the real issues. I'm not one of those whose self-esteem is depended upon being "liked" on Facebook, or having "friends" on Facebook. I feel like Facebook adds to the low self esteem that some of these individuals are trying to deal with, possibly having been outcasts and now feeling like they have many friends who are not friends. If used wisely, I think social media can be good helping to connect people, and I find that LinkedIn has been positive with connecting people on a professional level, and Twitter is convenient for getting an instant message out to anyone who is on it. But, it's time we move away from calling anyone a racist or sexist just because we don't like their opinion. It's like "big brother" is always watching, and we need to move back in the direction of protecting one's free speech.
28
I find Mr. Brooks' penultimate sentence very disturbing. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" has long been the favorite cop-out line of homophobes who somehow manage to believe that "loving" someone can possibly include hating a central and innate part of who they are and denying them "permission" to love and commit and grow. Mr. Brooks is too much a gentleman to be using a right-wing dog whistle, but I'd feel better if he'd clarify or retract that phrase.
13
"Shame culture" seems to tell you what you did was wrong even if your own convictions -- assuming everyone has them to one degree or another -- tell you otherwise. It enforces not independent thought and action but party-line towing. How does this respect the autonomy and uniqueness of individuals when they are told what to do, how to think and act, and what can and cannot be said?
Perhaps this culture's leaders don't value such autonomy.
What they value is the rigid enforcement of their views.
Perhaps this culture's leaders don't value such autonomy.
What they value is the rigid enforcement of their views.
11
There is a way of absorbing ideas and values that is from interactions with others and a way that requires solitude and deep thinking. The habits of always being connected, always interacting with others through telecommunications networks and media always only the acquisition of knowledge and beliefs from others, not from private considerations. Given people's psychological cravings for human interactions and the availability technologies which make it available everywhere and at all times, it would seem to be the normal environment in which people live. Regardless of whether people's cultural preferences are of shame or guilt, almost all are not learning to think for themselves but are acquiring their views and convictions from their interactions with others. The modern values which place so much value upon moral conscience and individual choice, as well as respecting individual differences, are being displaced by the old human tendency to belong to and to relate comprehensively to values shared with a group to which they feel primary affiliation.
2
"The purpose of war, military or economic, is to get your enemy to do something it would rather not do." David Brooks, August 7, 2015.
I'm not sure that, after that statement, I'm quite ready to listen to Mr. Brooks' ruminations on morality.
I'm not sure that, after that statement, I'm quite ready to listen to Mr. Brooks' ruminations on morality.
2
The guilt-shame paradigm is interesting theory, but it doesn't lead to any action except perhaps conscious raising activities among college students and Trump supporters. I think the better explanation for Trumpism is the economic and social devastation of at least 25% of white Americans - those whose jobs have been outsourced and their life devastated. This group in search of a collective identity has coalesced and created the cult of Trump who says they believe what they are prevented from saying and touts the Truth in the way of a Biblical prophet. Trumpism could be challenged by providing honest decent work for its followers -- much like FDR did in the depression.
Similarly, for the internet, its not guilt-shame, its just school yard bullying gone cyber. We now have zero tolerance for bullying in many schools, perhaps we should have the same ethic for cyber space. Why should persons be allowed to anonymously ruin others to the point of causing them to commit suicide?
I think its better to focus on grounded theories that can generate interventions than those that are too philosophical.
Similarly, for the internet, its not guilt-shame, its just school yard bullying gone cyber. We now have zero tolerance for bullying in many schools, perhaps we should have the same ethic for cyber space. Why should persons be allowed to anonymously ruin others to the point of causing them to commit suicide?
I think its better to focus on grounded theories that can generate interventions than those that are too philosophical.
5
Read this along side Windy West's Op-ed "What Are Trump Fans Really 'Afraid' to Say?". She asks what they are afraid to say, but she doesn't name what they are afraid OF. Trump's fans, by cheering the "politically incorrect", are rebelling against shaming. They don't want to have to be afraid of shaming when they voice their values.
I don't think I agree with the dichotomy Brooks sets up. Our traditional culture is one of guilt AND shame. Brooks notes, "The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner." But in the LGBT case, when the 'sin' was part of the person's identity, shame was their lot, and gay liberation was a rebellion and rejection of that shame.
Now we are in a shame war. Conservatives are intent on preserving the shaming of LGBTs -- or at least their right to do so -- and LGBT defenders continue their fight against shame by shaming the shamers.
I don't think I agree with the dichotomy Brooks sets up. Our traditional culture is one of guilt AND shame. Brooks notes, "The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner." But in the LGBT case, when the 'sin' was part of the person's identity, shame was their lot, and gay liberation was a rebellion and rejection of that shame.
Now we are in a shame war. Conservatives are intent on preserving the shaming of LGBTs -- or at least their right to do so -- and LGBT defenders continue their fight against shame by shaming the shamers.
2
What of the shame culture that has arisen around climate change? Express even a scintilla of doubt that maybe, just maybe, we don't actually know a) whether the climate is changing, given our sparse data going back all of about two hundred years for a planet that's been around for 4.5 billion, or b) that even if it is changing that we might not really know why, given the difficulty of understanding a system so vastly complicated with so many independent and interdependent variables.
If you don't think there's a culture that will immediately and forcefully shame anyone who expresses the slightest skepticism at our conclusions regarding the whole earth's climate, just watch what happens if this gets posted to this board.
If you don't think there's a culture that will immediately and forcefully shame anyone who expresses the slightest skepticism at our conclusions regarding the whole earth's climate, just watch what happens if this gets posted to this board.
1
Indulgence and entitlement arose most powerfully in the post-baby boomer era where kids became assured that each was irreplaceably special and deserving. I don't recall my parents ever feeling entitled to anything, and I, a late boomer, was not brought up to think that way. Paradoxically, the freedom of the boomer generation (which inarguably produced the greatest wealth explosion in the history of mankind) did not do much to engender responsibility if the offspring of that generation. I think this came from boomers' intent to not raise their children as 'uptight'. It also led to over-solicitation of children with respect to their wants. We see this today where children are given a 'vote' in any and all matters, and parents routinely feel their children should receive open invites to any and all affairs.
Children who grow up in this environment have a hugely overdeveloped sense of their own importance which is fundamentally narcissistic. To this degree, modern youth 'movements' are less thoughtful, tolerant, and analytical, and thus more tribal and prone to shaming judgements. They are also much more lazy than prior generations because, after all, manual labor means they are not special.
As an old-school liberal, I find it all rather tiresome.
Children who grow up in this environment have a hugely overdeveloped sense of their own importance which is fundamentally narcissistic. To this degree, modern youth 'movements' are less thoughtful, tolerant, and analytical, and thus more tribal and prone to shaming judgements. They are also much more lazy than prior generations because, after all, manual labor means they are not special.
As an old-school liberal, I find it all rather tiresome.
8
It's hard to understand the intent of this inchoate column. Is Mr. Brooks attempting to say that our young, in their enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders( for example), are being shamed into doing so by their peers? If this is the case, I draw the opposite conclusion, being grateful that the young are able to discern the wheat from the chaff.
How does this comments section fit in the picture? Does it promote a guilt or a shame culture?
Not much new here. In my late 1950s and early 1960s education and growing up we called conformity. It was thought to be a cheap way to live, at the whim of a deep desire to be accepted. The teachers and leaders of youth ( boy scouts, ministers) beseeched us to be non-confomists. They taught us it took courage to turn against the tide and do what was right. It was this impulse that led us to civil rights and war protests and a mix of higher calling and self indulgence. Justice as fairness and respect for persons was the principles to follow.
Some called this cultural relativism, but a relativism in pursuit of respect for persons.
I think we are far from being a shame culture. In my work with immigrant persons of East Africa, East and central Asia and various Latin American nations, honor culture is important and thrives, and the flip side of that coin is shame.
I have learned to be empathetic and respect these persons yet see the pain they are willing or forced to carry. I see little of the same perspective doing the same work for US dominant culture.
Some called this cultural relativism, but a relativism in pursuit of respect for persons.
I think we are far from being a shame culture. In my work with immigrant persons of East Africa, East and central Asia and various Latin American nations, honor culture is important and thrives, and the flip side of that coin is shame.
I have learned to be empathetic and respect these persons yet see the pain they are willing or forced to carry. I see little of the same perspective doing the same work for US dominant culture.
1
It seems to me that the current anger of many at "political correctness", and, is really anger that their prejudices, against gays, minorities, women, foreigners, etc., etc., are no longer socially acceptable. Conservative college students have, for years, openly insulted minorities, and defended themselves and their nastiness by claiming to be oppressed by political correctness. The anti-PC crowd want to go back to the days when one could be a bigot and not be shamed for it.
Donald Trump has become the magnetic pole for them by taking taking their tribalistic resentments from the dark corners of right-wing talk radio into the spotlights of GOP "debates". With the Donald, you can be as nasty as you please, and be proud of it.
Donald Trump has become the magnetic pole for them by taking taking their tribalistic resentments from the dark corners of right-wing talk radio into the spotlights of GOP "debates". With the Donald, you can be as nasty as you please, and be proud of it.
5
I completely get it., on so many levels, the moral high ground, coming from someone who works in social services, so we're all competing for who is the holiest, meanwhile killing each other for approval, not to mention benefits and raises and heaven forbid, working together. It's awful! The currency is information and the in-crowd, who is good enough to updated to do their job. By the way, Game of Thrones reflects it in the shaming of the Queen of the Big City, can't remember her name, sorry, but it's the same exact phenomenon. When will it end???
2
Which is painfully similar to Mob Rule.
4
Who else is going to shame the hateful, anti-diversity culture, that permeates our country, if not our youth (with their attendant social media tools?). You certainly don't see the adults in the room shouting down the hate culture that has become the community fabric of this country. If our politicians and our media would denounce the ideas of hate and social injustice that have permeated our society over the past 15 years than society would not have to be the moral police. Instead, a candidate like Donald Trump can spout all kinds of hateful rhetoric and promote violence against social and ethnic groups and the rest of society stands by quietly and counts his delegates. Our youth are angry and they have reason to be.
3
We are vulnerable to mob-rule, or herd mentality, and social media fosters this human propensity. As such, monster "herds" form online and target scapegoats. Often, there is a ring leader (or several) to set things off. The religious mores that give us a higher merciful authority to curb our tendency to lash out, are fading. The most basic and universal of which is "Do unto others..." This core value would serve to restrain us from judging too harshly, lest we feel guilty. But, The Golden Rule has, unfortunately, been reduced to a quaint passe meme rather than a guiding principle. Or perhaps this has always been the case.
3
"Of the two, shame and guilt, guilt was a greater source of self-regulation. Its power sprung from the heart, regardless of its burden to the bearer."
It's in the structure of the distinction that guilt comes out the privileged term, at worst the lesser of two evils. It derives from Ruth Benedict's "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture" (1946), which was undertaken at the request of the then propaganda arm of the U.S. government, the Office of War Information. The book sold few copies in the U.S. until it was reissued in paperback in 1967. But translated into Japanese in 1948, it became a best-seller in the People's Republic of China. Is Chinese culture "guilt" or "shame"? It does not matter. This is Anthropology at its most shameful. The purpose of book was to cast Japanese culture as peculiarly afflicted. The Chinese read it with that understanding, as Brooks invokes it now to cast aspersions on campus culture today.
It's in the structure of the distinction that guilt comes out the privileged term, at worst the lesser of two evils. It derives from Ruth Benedict's "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture" (1946), which was undertaken at the request of the then propaganda arm of the U.S. government, the Office of War Information. The book sold few copies in the U.S. until it was reissued in paperback in 1967. But translated into Japanese in 1948, it became a best-seller in the People's Republic of China. Is Chinese culture "guilt" or "shame"? It does not matter. This is Anthropology at its most shameful. The purpose of book was to cast Japanese culture as peculiarly afflicted. The Chinese read it with that understanding, as Brooks invokes it now to cast aspersions on campus culture today.
1
Mr. Brooks outlines a serious, difficult and complex problem to which there is a remarkably simple solution: if you don't like social media culture, don't use social media.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
Interesting thought experiment, today, but it lacks historical credulity. The Christian religion based culture from the end of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the Modern era was focused upon moral certainty and deep concerns about maintaining both a good conscience and obedience to very well defined moral philosophy based up the teachings of the Christian Church and after the Reformation upon moral teachings in the Bible. During that entire period, conformity and loyalty to the community of religions dominated people's lives and very often justified terrible violence upon non-conformists, exactly the same as the shame culture described in this column. In all of our history, tolerance and respect for the limits of human understanding have been the most common characteristics of all truly enlightened people who live by moral philosophical values but did not presume that their knowledge of themselves nor of others were perfect and certainly true.
The strength and weakness in humans is their reliance upon and psychology when they affiliate with others in groups. It enables longer lives, more offspring able to live longer lives, and culture which preserves the life's experience of many generations. It also leads to war and intolerance of non-conformists. The university is a place in our modern world to learn by not just reason and rote memorization but thinking and experimenting. To succeed one must be able to disagree without being ostracized.
The strength and weakness in humans is their reliance upon and psychology when they affiliate with others in groups. It enables longer lives, more offspring able to live longer lives, and culture which preserves the life's experience of many generations. It also leads to war and intolerance of non-conformists. The university is a place in our modern world to learn by not just reason and rote memorization but thinking and experimenting. To succeed one must be able to disagree without being ostracized.
3
Why does everyone always give David Brooks such a hard time? I don't agree with him politically, but he frequently brings up quite interesting topics with an honest (even at time, self-deprecating) appraisal. Today is no exception. I can't think of another Times columnist who seems to get such knee-jerk reactions. Carry on, Mr. Brooks. Some of us are interested in what you bring to the conversation.
14
This piece triggered thoughts of the Salem witchcraft trials and the Soviet show trials, but even more the self-criticism sessions conducted by the Red Guard during China's Cultural Revolution. One difference is that this new culture has no leaders, no Gang of Four. It seems prepared to consume absolutely anyone. It is a culture of fear, and the most vulnerable are academics in the Social Sciences that provided the fertile soil in which the culture took root. Because they have to talk about these delicate subjects, every word and expression puts them at risk. Even the most "intersectional" "victims" are not safe. The good news is that the Cultural Revolution eventually consumed itself to be followed by the best period in Chinese history in hundreds of years. May we be so lucky.
Holy heck, Brooks owes Trump a huge thank you for allowing him to write relevant essays again.
2
Since we are all born with animal instincts and a soul, and since factual evidence is now preferred over religious morality and ethics belief Gang leaders have taken place of parents evident by Opiates, Cartels, Murder, Crime, and Filled Prisons results. What you reap is what you have sown is also evidence.
It's easy to return to the respect of morality! Read and teach the Ten Commandments backwards beginning with "thou shalt not covet" to at risk children and ending with questionable adults. Proof of success will be evident. Right?
It's easy to return to the respect of morality! Read and teach the Ten Commandments backwards beginning with "thou shalt not covet" to at risk children and ending with questionable adults. Proof of success will be evident. Right?
Brooks notes the ancient (Greek) distinction between shame and guilt cultures which may be useful if the distinction were known or upheld. Instead, a deregulated American corporate economy mirrors a deregulated emotional economy. We can only hope that people become ashamed of themselves when they refuse to self-scrutinize or realize their fears and projections on to others. It isn't enough to fear being outside the group. What counts is being outside your own moral imperative -- if you have one or seek one. Good luck to us all.
I'm reading Covey's 7 Habits book and this article reminded me of the second habit, beginning with the end in mind. It basically told me to have unchanging set of principles to live by, which is critical to this constantly changing society. If we base our individual values based on what other people or the society says about you, you're letting those people or the environment control you. If you don't have imagination, conscience or self awareness, you're basically living the life scripted by others and not really living your life.
1
Simpler explanation: Primate Tribalism enforced by the Facebook Panopticon
3
You could go through Brooks's piece and substitute "bully" for shame and you'd see what this really is--moral mob rule. From where I sit, it's a regressive form of social regulation that disallows tolerance for difference.
Honor and shame societies require buy-in to work, though, so if enough people stand up and are willing to suffer the shunning, they lose power and meaning. Unless challenged, they wind up being self-affirming, closed units that become increasingly homogeneous and view original thought and expression as a threat.
Honor and shame societies require buy-in to work, though, so if enough people stand up and are willing to suffer the shunning, they lose power and meaning. Unless challenged, they wind up being self-affirming, closed units that become increasingly homogeneous and view original thought and expression as a threat.
Social media is not a required activity. If people are so worried about what is said about them online.... don't be online.
4
Oh for God’s sake David, another thinly veiled explanation of the situation you find yourself in? You’re preaching to the choir.
Your party departed from your “True North” a long time ago my friend. I, and millions of others, enjoy reading your column because you present an intelligent counterpoint to a more liberal view of politics/government/society. You make us stronger, and we in turn make you stronger. Don’t we? Wasn’t that the original deal? While it’s entertaining to watch the other side crumble, there are plenty of us on the left that bemoan the loss of a reasonable opponent.
I worry that the splintering of your party is causing you undue anxiety. I would encourage you to forget about being popular, forget about what the GOP might brand you for breaking with them. Why does it matter what crazy people call you? Please do your part by laying out why you don’t agree with your party anymore. And don’t bother trying to relate the ideas to any of your candidates’ platforms, we know that would just be lip service. Your party is dying David, stop wasting time and do your part to reclaim it. We ALL need you to do this.
Your party departed from your “True North” a long time ago my friend. I, and millions of others, enjoy reading your column because you present an intelligent counterpoint to a more liberal view of politics/government/society. You make us stronger, and we in turn make you stronger. Don’t we? Wasn’t that the original deal? While it’s entertaining to watch the other side crumble, there are plenty of us on the left that bemoan the loss of a reasonable opponent.
I worry that the splintering of your party is causing you undue anxiety. I would encourage you to forget about being popular, forget about what the GOP might brand you for breaking with them. Why does it matter what crazy people call you? Please do your part by laying out why you don’t agree with your party anymore. And don’t bother trying to relate the ideas to any of your candidates’ platforms, we know that would just be lip service. Your party is dying David, stop wasting time and do your part to reclaim it. We ALL need you to do this.
5
Often, these comments are an example of an online shame culture. No matter what Brooks says, he is trashed, the substance of his column hardly digested.
I don't think the internet has changed things qualitatively regarding shame and guilt. It merely takes the former realities and places them on steroids. Perhaps that does constitute a qualitative difference in that a momentary stupid act or comment, which would likely have remained local and transitory in the past, now lives on everywhere and forever, providing little room for "growing up."
People always wanted to be popular and have their choice of or born into groups validated. My own experience with Allan Bloom as a professor was supportive of such a conclusion, as he had little tolerance for those of us with differing views. It seemed to me he was looking in a mirror, when he wrote "The Closing of the American Mind." However, we cheat ourselves when we ignore the substance of what is written because the writer may be a hypocrite or patently wrong in other contexts. This applies to Bloom and Brooks, as well as those of us who comment in these pages.
A thought on shame: as there is an inability currently to levy appropriate sanctions for economic and violent crimes, perhaps we should consider shaming. Granted, the potential tyranny of a scarlet letter can be overwhelming, but it would be interesting to see if we could deter recidivism by putting people in stocks -- the old fashioned kind -- in the public square.
I don't think the internet has changed things qualitatively regarding shame and guilt. It merely takes the former realities and places them on steroids. Perhaps that does constitute a qualitative difference in that a momentary stupid act or comment, which would likely have remained local and transitory in the past, now lives on everywhere and forever, providing little room for "growing up."
People always wanted to be popular and have their choice of or born into groups validated. My own experience with Allan Bloom as a professor was supportive of such a conclusion, as he had little tolerance for those of us with differing views. It seemed to me he was looking in a mirror, when he wrote "The Closing of the American Mind." However, we cheat ourselves when we ignore the substance of what is written because the writer may be a hypocrite or patently wrong in other contexts. This applies to Bloom and Brooks, as well as those of us who comment in these pages.
A thought on shame: as there is an inability currently to levy appropriate sanctions for economic and violent crimes, perhaps we should consider shaming. Granted, the potential tyranny of a scarlet letter can be overwhelming, but it would be interesting to see if we could deter recidivism by putting people in stocks -- the old fashioned kind -- in the public square.
3
One has to wonder how much social media plays a role in this phenomena of conformity among the young, especially that seemingly innocent but pernicious aspect of clicking on "like" or "dislike".
People monitor their personal collection of affirmations like a midas weighing gold and to a large extent determine their value/intelligence/social merit accordingly. No nuance. No debate. No gray areas. Just UP or DOWN.
Nothing in life is so black or white! As a painter I can affirm, not even black or white.
This simplistic dividing line is ubiquitous, pervasive, and potentially dangerous as it yields an utterly false sense of either confirmation or condemnation.
People monitor their personal collection of affirmations like a midas weighing gold and to a large extent determine their value/intelligence/social merit accordingly. No nuance. No debate. No gray areas. Just UP or DOWN.
Nothing in life is so black or white! As a painter I can affirm, not even black or white.
This simplistic dividing line is ubiquitous, pervasive, and potentially dangerous as it yields an utterly false sense of either confirmation or condemnation.
7
I'm taking this column as the public confession of someone trying to alleviate his own shame over the fact that for decades he pretended his group was moderate and reasonable (when in fact it was filled with ideologues, racists, liars, & crackpots) and ridiculed the people (liberals) who ended up being right about all the big questions (Iraq, stimulus, healthcare, gay rights).
David: better late than never.
David: better late than never.
5
Larger forces are at work here. Extreme political correctness is the result of a human race that finds itself in the final stages of shaking off a hundred thousand years of tribalism and discrimination. There will doubtless be a degree over-correction. Given the history we are trying to overcome, is a little over zealous political correctness really that large of a price to pay? Is shouting down a few people excessively worth the larger societal message being conveyed? A message that the larger public will all no longer embrace the remaining intolerant among us? Society is simply no longer making it convenient for people to try to hold firm to their old school biases. As with any great sweep of social revolution, there will be a struggle of ideas fought on many levels. Bigotry is simply losing the fight.
2
Can't we learn to treat Facebook and Twitter like Fox News? Some people find these entertaining, others don't see any value in them.
1
As someone who -- as of not too long ago -- both taught and studied at institutions of higher learning, I don't feel that much of this rings true whatsoever.
"It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along." I would wholeheartedly disagree. Is teaching cultural sensitivity fostering "oversensitivity," and is saying "that isn't cool to say" to someone deemed "overreaction," and is moral awareness a "frequent moral panic?" This piece seems to paint social awareness as a rampant threat to inclusion and nonjudgmentalism on campuses instead of a champion for them. Personally, anyone I know who spearheads political and social awareness doesn't demean or shame when offering up corrections on something said that might have been racist, sexist, heteronormative, etc. as that is the easiest way to ensure a person becomes defensive and staunchly holds his or her (potentially harmful) viewpoint. I don't find this kind of learning wrongful in an educational process meant to mature and grow a student, particularly outside of the classroom.
"It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along." I would wholeheartedly disagree. Is teaching cultural sensitivity fostering "oversensitivity," and is saying "that isn't cool to say" to someone deemed "overreaction," and is moral awareness a "frequent moral panic?" This piece seems to paint social awareness as a rampant threat to inclusion and nonjudgmentalism on campuses instead of a champion for them. Personally, anyone I know who spearheads political and social awareness doesn't demean or shame when offering up corrections on something said that might have been racist, sexist, heteronormative, etc. as that is the easiest way to ensure a person becomes defensive and staunchly holds his or her (potentially harmful) viewpoint. I don't find this kind of learning wrongful in an educational process meant to mature and grow a student, particularly outside of the classroom.
I don't get it. Where are these places "awash in moral judgment", and who are the people so insecure and Rubio-like that they cower and shrink away least they be "condemned." I think people like Brooks look from the outside as see stuff that really isn't there. They don't understand the culture or the vernacular so they misinterpret what they see as somehow sinister.. You all at the times need to grow a pair and stop with the chicken little stuff.
SHAME AND GUILT
Shame is what occurs when the community tells you
that you are rotten.
Guilt is what occurs when your conscience tells you
what you've forgotten.
Shame isn't felt if you do not have a community
to which you belong.
Guilt is felt when you cannot without impunity
do what you feel is wrong.
A person who to no community has cowered
rarely becomes conscience's great coward.
In a guilt culture you can hate the sin and love the sinner.
In a shame culture the shamed is theloser, shamer winner.
[email protected]
Shame is what occurs when the community tells you
that you are rotten.
Guilt is what occurs when your conscience tells you
what you've forgotten.
Shame isn't felt if you do not have a community
to which you belong.
Guilt is felt when you cannot without impunity
do what you feel is wrong.
A person who to no community has cowered
rarely becomes conscience's great coward.
In a guilt culture you can hate the sin and love the sinner.
In a shame culture the shamed is theloser, shamer winner.
[email protected]
1
The Internet has changed our civility. People make comments online hidden behind a screen and within minutes attacks begin. Before the Internet we had our disagreements but we also had actual discussions.
One word profane expletives have replaced the wonderful sharing of why someone believes something, in hopes of providing some food for thought, that results in positive change.
In this whole Trump circus I miss Ronald Reagan even more. Reagan was civil and never sought to shut anyone out. One need only remember how he and Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet leader who had polar opposite views, were able to come together for positive change.
One word profane expletives have replaced the wonderful sharing of why someone believes something, in hopes of providing some food for thought, that results in positive change.
In this whole Trump circus I miss Ronald Reagan even more. Reagan was civil and never sought to shut anyone out. One need only remember how he and Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet leader who had polar opposite views, were able to come together for positive change.
Brooks conflates the interpersonal social construction of a college campus with the largely anonymous social construction of social media. The former is more accepting and less 'shame' or 'guilt' driven than the latter (not free of it mind you).
'Political Correctness' is an outdated term, and pretends there is one standard of 'correctness' that is applied across the board, there is not. It would be closer to truth to call it 'Partisan Correctness' since each ideology determines its norms and heresy. It is within these paradigms that the guilt and shame cultures are set to work.
I always fall back to the idea of generational sovereignty, embraced by Jefferson. Progress brings with it new values, and new boundaries within which society must face growth or retreat, and if indeed the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice, these new boundaries encourage the former over the latter.
Shame does not equate silence. The protesters in Chicago did not silence Donald Trump, they resisted his ability to speak unchallenged. Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility, or freedom from consequence.
'Political Correctness' is an outdated term, and pretends there is one standard of 'correctness' that is applied across the board, there is not. It would be closer to truth to call it 'Partisan Correctness' since each ideology determines its norms and heresy. It is within these paradigms that the guilt and shame cultures are set to work.
I always fall back to the idea of generational sovereignty, embraced by Jefferson. Progress brings with it new values, and new boundaries within which society must face growth or retreat, and if indeed the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice, these new boundaries encourage the former over the latter.
Shame does not equate silence. The protesters in Chicago did not silence Donald Trump, they resisted his ability to speak unchallenged. Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility, or freedom from consequence.
I enjoy Brooks' columns of this sort. He's just about my age, so reading his columns can be a nostalgic trip through quotations from the pseudo-intellectual potboilers of my life, with the added pleasure of all the wrong take on them. Ok, so I have no shame.
2
"Morality is only moral when it is voluntary" - Lincoln Steffens
1
Using shame to change people's behavior, the way some religion's have used shame to control sexuality for example, leads to extremes and secrecy. Catholic priests unable to have sex in the open end up having sex with children and even protecting each other when they get caught.
Those of you that think you will end isms by shaming people are ignoring history. One of our great advancements our civilization has had, peaking in the 1960's, was to rebel against shame and take control of our own moral judgment.
This does not mean that we let institutional abuses go on, but it does mean that if you are using shame as a tool, you need a new technique. It will not work. It will just create more people that like Donald Trump.
Those of you that think you will end isms by shaming people are ignoring history. One of our great advancements our civilization has had, peaking in the 1960's, was to rebel against shame and take control of our own moral judgment.
This does not mean that we let institutional abuses go on, but it does mean that if you are using shame as a tool, you need a new technique. It will not work. It will just create more people that like Donald Trump.
1
David Brooks is going to explain what happens inside a college undergraduate's mind. So glad you explained it all.
The irony to Mr. Brooks' editorial is a bit shocking, especially from someone whom I've admired for many years even when I disagree with him. He ignores the past in which shame was the province and weapon of many religious groups.
Does one have to be reminded of the shame inflicted on people who were gay, cohabited outside of marriage, got divorced, remarried or even married someone of a different race or ethnicity? Has the Scarlet Letter been forgotten? These were not guilt-based, they were shame-based. To suggest they were guilt-based is to ignore historical facts. Shame was the primary method used against those who disagreed with what religions said was good or bad. What is good or bad most often is created by societal norms for the times and varies considerably from one region/country to another. Thankfully the arc of justice and inclusion continues.
While I believe political correctness by the left has gone so far as to sometimes constitute denial of free speech, implying that shame culture is new is unsupportable. Finally, protesting against racism/exclusion and intolerance by people who are "different" and incitement to violence is something to be condemned vociferously. We know what happens when it isn't.
Does one have to be reminded of the shame inflicted on people who were gay, cohabited outside of marriage, got divorced, remarried or even married someone of a different race or ethnicity? Has the Scarlet Letter been forgotten? These were not guilt-based, they were shame-based. To suggest they were guilt-based is to ignore historical facts. Shame was the primary method used against those who disagreed with what religions said was good or bad. What is good or bad most often is created by societal norms for the times and varies considerably from one region/country to another. Thankfully the arc of justice and inclusion continues.
While I believe political correctness by the left has gone so far as to sometimes constitute denial of free speech, implying that shame culture is new is unsupportable. Finally, protesting against racism/exclusion and intolerance by people who are "different" and incitement to violence is something to be condemned vociferously. We know what happens when it isn't.
3
History repeats itself: the electronic/technologic age has taken us back to the times when ignorance bred superstition, and persons unsure of their inner compass espoused all sorts of beliefs - religious, magical or practical/scientific. A sense of belonging gave such persons their only sense of self-worth, of self-respect.
Respect is earned, not a birthright. That applies to both self-respect as well as respect for one’s community. If one is insecure in one’s own self-worth, plus one needs to feel somewhat more secure in one’s community, the insistence on respect for both one’s community and for oneself becomes paramount.
This says a lot about the effects of the electronic/technologic age on our peers (young and old), and of the sense of insecurity which it has brought. We are overwhelmed by the complexity of life in which we find ourselves, accentuated by the rapidity and extent of this complexity’s change even while we learn to manipulate and master its electronic/technologic gadgetry. The feeling of running just to keep standing still overwhelms any sensible steps to make room for a “time out” so that each person can reflect where s/he fits into the world and into life. Searching for a sense of self-worth in the often-changing beliefs of any group or community seems a waste of time since such groups are usually made up of equally lost individuals, lost in this new electronic/technological age.
Respect is earned, not a birthright. That applies to both self-respect as well as respect for one’s community. If one is insecure in one’s own self-worth, plus one needs to feel somewhat more secure in one’s community, the insistence on respect for both one’s community and for oneself becomes paramount.
This says a lot about the effects of the electronic/technologic age on our peers (young and old), and of the sense of insecurity which it has brought. We are overwhelmed by the complexity of life in which we find ourselves, accentuated by the rapidity and extent of this complexity’s change even while we learn to manipulate and master its electronic/technologic gadgetry. The feeling of running just to keep standing still overwhelms any sensible steps to make room for a “time out” so that each person can reflect where s/he fits into the world and into life. Searching for a sense of self-worth in the often-changing beliefs of any group or community seems a waste of time since such groups are usually made up of equally lost individuals, lost in this new electronic/technological age.
Mr. Brooks:
Another,cherry-picking gem of obfuscation. I can't imagine a conservative living a life that is not flat and empty, as they pursue the the total regimentation of a society based on the myths of Christmas past. Flat and empty is the foundation of modern conservative thought. You know, a world where everyone knows their place and stays there, not bothering their betters. It is just so messy otherwise,don't you think.?
Another,cherry-picking gem of obfuscation. I can't imagine a conservative living a life that is not flat and empty, as they pursue the the total regimentation of a society based on the myths of Christmas past. Flat and empty is the foundation of modern conservative thought. You know, a world where everyone knows their place and stays there, not bothering their betters. It is just so messy otherwise,don't you think.?
1
All I can say after ready Brooks today is to paraphrase Forrest Gump:
"Simple Minded is what simple minded does."
"Simple Minded is what simple minded does."
1
What Brooks is talking about is exactly what is going on with Trump. People, especially younger ones, feel it is incumbent of them to insult and very openly ridicule him because that's the status quo.
This is not to defend Trump, but rather an example of how people are increasingly participating in the shame culture, which puts less emphasis on individual reasoning and more so on what looks like the right thing to say.
This is not to defend Trump, but rather an example of how people are increasingly participating in the shame culture, which puts less emphasis on individual reasoning and more so on what looks like the right thing to say.
1
When is the Times going to cancel this column on moral philosophy in favor of someone with a point of view they are no longer ashamed to espouse? Is this really the best they can do? A political columnist whose politics have been so thoroughly discredited that even he is afraid to write anything other than this pablum?
2
Not everyone agreed that Bloom's thesis was accurate at the time. Furthermore, how accurate can college campus culture be as a measure of American society's moral status? The full-time college student who lives and studies in a university environment is hardly representative of overall American society. The American middle class has been priced out of it.
1
The San Francisco Chron columnist Jon Carroll used to observe (paraphrase):
"Before we become weekly columnists, we all think we have a lot of insights and valuable opinions to share. Then you become a columnist, and realize you really only have about twenty columns' worth of things to say. Then you're struggling to manufacture SOMETHING."
I think we hit Peak Brooks several years ago.
"Before we become weekly columnists, we all think we have a lot of insights and valuable opinions to share. Then you become a columnist, and realize you really only have about twenty columns' worth of things to say. Then you're struggling to manufacture SOMETHING."
I think we hit Peak Brooks several years ago.
1
Benjamin Franklin thought that churches in the towns of the New World served the important task of keeping people in line. If the neighbors know what you are doing you are likely to not do what is bad for you or the community.
A person with a strong inner moral compass will know how to act in ways that do service to the universal. It doesn't matter to this person what people think, he can steer his own course.
A person with a strong sense of ego may, or may not, be bothered by what others think but they will act according to what others think.
I really wonder where M. Brooks is going with all this philosophizing. I guess it is just getting harder and harder to find anything worth writing about the republican campaign.
A person with a strong inner moral compass will know how to act in ways that do service to the universal. It doesn't matter to this person what people think, he can steer his own course.
A person with a strong sense of ego may, or may not, be bothered by what others think but they will act according to what others think.
I really wonder where M. Brooks is going with all this philosophizing. I guess it is just getting harder and harder to find anything worth writing about the republican campaign.
1
Agree with nothing to write about Republicans this has been going on for years. This is getting way too complicated for me!
Of course, all this only matters if you actually care about Facebook or Twitter, but that says something about you already, doesn't it?
2
SHAME AND GUILT
Shame is what occurs when the community tells you
that you are rotten.
Guilt is what occurs when your conscience tells you
what you've forgotten.
Shame isn't felt if you do not have a community
to which you belong.
Guilt is felt when you cannot without impunity
do what you feel is wrong.
[email protected]
Shame is what occurs when the community tells you
that you are rotten.
Guilt is what occurs when your conscience tells you
what you've forgotten.
Shame isn't felt if you do not have a community
to which you belong.
Guilt is felt when you cannot without impunity
do what you feel is wrong.
[email protected]
1
One factor that DB does not mention which contributes to the shame culture is political correctness and the role of social media in this society of contrition. In view of the emphasis on cultural diversity,there is the fear of offending this or that group. Because of the pressure to withhold judgement on anybody, regardless of who they r or what they have done, there r no standards, nor is there anyone interested in maintaining them. Students today r not taught to objectively analyze, to draw their own conclusions, but to accept shibboleths, usually coming from the left. Finally, bookishness and intellectual curiosity are no longer held up as virtues, and the assumption that writing literate English, being able to pass a diction exam, even for college graduates, is open to question. Jimmy Breslin recorded one of his most terrifying moments, which occurred when this great journalist took the subway at rush hour, and saw that no one was reading a newspaper. Vast majority had their eyes on their I pads.Back in the day, a line would form at news stands Saturday evening to get the early Sunday edition of the DAILY NEWS.Its editorials were written by one of the wittiest editors in the business, somebody named O Neill. Not so today.Perusing the NEWS today is as boring as stones, and reflects the cultural level of its dwindling number of readers.
I am not really sure that I come to the same conclusions as Mr. Brooks and Mr. Bloom about the effects of social media (which is more often than not, 'asocial') on society -- I'm inclined to see its effects less of "shame" or "guilt" and more of being a 'Bully' factor.
Whether one of these any of these comes into play before or after the fact isn't relevant, as they are all interchangeable and evident in the behavior found not only on college campuses (for those fortunate enough to be there), but throughout the strata of our society.
The antics of the current Presidential Campaign not only exemplifies this, but exemplifies an extreme lack of "moral judgement" as well, with its circus-like atmosphere of calumny and aspersions. And then there are the candidate's supporters, who are the "enforcers within the group", by setting the stage for the ruthless policing of the norms they set on everyone else, under threat of public condemnation and humiliation.
If indeed this is representative of some 'new moral system' coming into place, with its new set of accepted and acceptable 'common behavior patterns' -- we have every right to fear it, and shame it, as much as we shame ourselves and each other.
Whether one of these any of these comes into play before or after the fact isn't relevant, as they are all interchangeable and evident in the behavior found not only on college campuses (for those fortunate enough to be there), but throughout the strata of our society.
The antics of the current Presidential Campaign not only exemplifies this, but exemplifies an extreme lack of "moral judgement" as well, with its circus-like atmosphere of calumny and aspersions. And then there are the candidate's supporters, who are the "enforcers within the group", by setting the stage for the ruthless policing of the norms they set on everyone else, under threat of public condemnation and humiliation.
If indeed this is representative of some 'new moral system' coming into place, with its new set of accepted and acceptable 'common behavior patterns' -- we have every right to fear it, and shame it, as much as we shame ourselves and each other.
1
The core argument of Bloom's book was not that American campuses were awash in moral relativism but that American students had thoughtlessly accepted a particularly superficial version of moral relativism. It was the smug, easygoing thoughtlessness of American students' relativism that bothered Bloom. He did not think, for example, that Nietzsche or Heidegger, both of whom were relativists (i.e., historicists) had closed their (non-American) minds.
excluding, shaming, guilty consciences, prohibitions and social 'police'. this seems no different from the culture and behavior that existed before social media. perhaps only faster. but perhaps correctives arrive faster as well?
1
Most respondents here are guilty of over-postulating. Shame!
Brooks's perceived shift to a shame culture from a guilt culture is not limited to universities, nor it is new. Two examples from my time on a regional school board more than 20 years ago.
First, teachers showed us a question they were presenting to fourth graders. Teachers asked why kids should not cheat on schoolwork. The correct answer was not that cheating was wrong or immoral but that you might get caught. To get caught would surely shame you.
Second, a committee of teachers and administrators asked the board to sponsor a "civil rights" day, but which they meant a "decency" day so high-school kids could focus for an entire day on how to treat other people. They asked for ideas for presentations to be made during "civil rights" day. Several hundred ideas came in about how to treat people in families, schools, communities and the larger world. When the committee finished sifiing ideas, only those that dealt directly with high school remained as topics. In other words, limit the discussion to the immediate group, the group in front of which you do not want to be shamed.
Those were not the only times in seven years on the board that I heard teachers and administrators say, in one way or another, "It is not our job to teach morality." Whose, then? The family needs the support, not the opposition, of our few remaining institutions to teach right from wrong.
First, teachers showed us a question they were presenting to fourth graders. Teachers asked why kids should not cheat on schoolwork. The correct answer was not that cheating was wrong or immoral but that you might get caught. To get caught would surely shame you.
Second, a committee of teachers and administrators asked the board to sponsor a "civil rights" day, but which they meant a "decency" day so high-school kids could focus for an entire day on how to treat other people. They asked for ideas for presentations to be made during "civil rights" day. Several hundred ideas came in about how to treat people in families, schools, communities and the larger world. When the committee finished sifiing ideas, only those that dealt directly with high school remained as topics. In other words, limit the discussion to the immediate group, the group in front of which you do not want to be shamed.
Those were not the only times in seven years on the board that I heard teachers and administrators say, in one way or another, "It is not our job to teach morality." Whose, then? The family needs the support, not the opposition, of our few remaining institutions to teach right from wrong.
2
You've said a lot of shameless things over the years. Even now, many of us wonder if you have any sense of shame at all. Alas, it gives us no comfort to know you feel some guilt inside sometimes -- it's not enough.
David, maybe what you are talking about could more accurately be divined by framing your ideas in terms of personality traits and the ability to think clearly for ones self.
It strikes me that you are perpetually talking to or about the sheep when the important roll is played by the flock guardian who doesn't give a bark about guilt or shame or any other bogus manipulation perpetuated by the worst instincts in humans. The flock guardian is concerned with identifying reality and understands that the primary prerequisite is maintaining intellectual integrity. In other words the ability to perceive and think clearly and accurately and to not be swayed by dogma or unfortunate brands of group think that the right is much more a victim of than the left. And that is why you guys vote in a block no matter how rotten your candidate is while the left vote their individual conscience.
It strikes me that you are perpetually talking to or about the sheep when the important roll is played by the flock guardian who doesn't give a bark about guilt or shame or any other bogus manipulation perpetuated by the worst instincts in humans. The flock guardian is concerned with identifying reality and understands that the primary prerequisite is maintaining intellectual integrity. In other words the ability to perceive and think clearly and accurately and to not be swayed by dogma or unfortunate brands of group think that the right is much more a victim of than the left. And that is why you guys vote in a block no matter how rotten your candidate is while the left vote their individual conscience.
1
Few people are spiritually enlightened enough to belong to either a shame culture or a guilt culture with any appreciation of people exclusive to their groups. Both groups are primarily driven by a need to belong, to be accepted, not by any inner sense of empathy for anyone outside of their group, nor by any moral conscience which they have come to adopt for themselves. Religions tend to be communities of believers whose most pious considerations are whether those who they love who do not believe in the true faith, their faith, will be forgiven by God.
Tolerance is based upon skepticism and a willingness to accept the possibility that what one most fervently wants to be true, may not be. That hurdle is greater than most people who are either in the shame or guilt groups can possibility get over or around with any real success.
Tolerance is based upon skepticism and a willingness to accept the possibility that what one most fervently wants to be true, may not be. That hurdle is greater than most people who are either in the shame or guilt groups can possibility get over or around with any real success.
Its too bad Foucault did not live long enough to see the social media age. Its a marvelous proving ground for many of his ideas on the diffuse nature of power and its embodiment within discourse. There is no longer a need to trace the thread of power through the history of disciplines since we can now watch it develop in real time. Social media is a particle accelerator that affirms Foucalts pen and paper equations. What is has affirmed is in many ways frightening. Arguments based on facts are now as easily dissolved as a sugar cube in a cup of hot coffee. The worst are filled with passionate intensity, and the gyre keeps widening. We ignore, or disengage, at our peril.
Mr. Brooks, would you see US organized criminal culture, and more recently city gang culture, as following this shame model? No guilt over killing, robbing, but shame of not taking on rivals etc.
"The desire to be embraced and praised by the community is intense. People dread being exiled and condemned. Moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion."
Hasn't it always been so? Necessarily. Evolution did it. A cooperating group does best at survival. Within the group a self interested individual does better than others. To control individual depredations against the group, punishment rises -- physical and emotional.
Shunning and its extension, exile, makes clear to the selfish one, the criminal, what the stakes are: loss of group protection. Pull your load, confirm to group norms
or you're out. One if the first functions of language, after danger! and food! was gossip and story telling -- to get the word out about slackers, liars, thieves, and to tell exemplary stories of heroes, generosity, purity.
It is in our DNA. The problem is in a world much less dangerous, the evolved behaviors haven't adapted. We go on shaming and shunning when there is no real danger to the group, save the threat of not being a group
It's hard to live and let live with a million years of evolution in our sails
Hasn't it always been so? Necessarily. Evolution did it. A cooperating group does best at survival. Within the group a self interested individual does better than others. To control individual depredations against the group, punishment rises -- physical and emotional.
Shunning and its extension, exile, makes clear to the selfish one, the criminal, what the stakes are: loss of group protection. Pull your load, confirm to group norms
or you're out. One if the first functions of language, after danger! and food! was gossip and story telling -- to get the word out about slackers, liars, thieves, and to tell exemplary stories of heroes, generosity, purity.
It is in our DNA. The problem is in a world much less dangerous, the evolved behaviors haven't adapted. We go on shaming and shunning when there is no real danger to the group, save the threat of not being a group
It's hard to live and let live with a million years of evolution in our sails
3
My Christian friends say the morality is not relative and we should follow the bible.
Then I remind them the bible has slavery, polygamy, women as second class citizens, and it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery as long as it as a house slave and not a field slave.
Then I remind them the bible has slavery, polygamy, women as second class citizens, and it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery as long as it as a house slave and not a field slave.
1
Perhaps the guilt/shame axis has always been there, part of evolution's heritage that floats through modern times like a ghost from our ancient development. The massive change is social media. Unless you have personally witnessed (as many parents have) the devastating effect on a teen when his online social world turns on him, you might not really understand that. Whether it's shame or bitterness after false accusations, it's truly destructive. How to cope with it, personally and institutionally, is the question.
15
Somehow, I find this entire article a reach for something that is not there. What is the point of it? If leaders use social media, they now can get direct feedback from their followers, but otherwise it is a free-for-all. I have never felt shame using social media.
23
Doesn't happen too often but I agree with David Brooks on this one. There are things people say I don't like or don't agree with. Sometimes I engage with them - sometimes I walk away. But they should be allowed to say them. Donald Trump has shown that not allowing certain speech (racists, misogynistic) has not made people racists or misogynists. They are so overjoyed to hear someone saying these 'no-no' things that they are rallying to him.
I say 'let them talk' - there's a different between talk and action. Let ugly things come out and die on their own. You can call me a bad name if it makes you feel better - but you can't hurt me. Perhaps we should draw that line there.
I say 'let them talk' - there's a different between talk and action. Let ugly things come out and die on their own. You can call me a bad name if it makes you feel better - but you can't hurt me. Perhaps we should draw that line there.
3
I wonder when the "shame culture" Brooks claims is prevalent is going to hit the upper 1% (or even upper 10%) who engineer and exploit the system at the expense of the rest. They seem rather immune from shame... and guilt, too.
1
One must ask where does your moral compass come from? From God, Christian teachings, or form something else, or just what you think YOUR moral law might be? The central issue today is that all to many think of them selves as the center of the universe, it all me and no we. If I am unhappy it is someone else's fault. How do I spend my life...helping others or just doing all I can to make myself happy? I just do what ever I want with no recourse as My moral code is absolute. Tolerant has become intolerable as you must tolerate me first, and let me do what I want as it makes me happy. This centrist view never leads to happiness as we have seen around the globe and on college campuses. If it feels good, do it with no one to criticize my desire. When your moral compass comes from not from God, then one set themselves up for unhappiness. We all have boundaries and many accept them to live in a just society. If we fail to follow the rules in school or at work one has no one to blame. We each choose which door to walk through and become a part of something bigger than ourselves. Those who choose not to follow a Godly moral law risk a great deal. It is the result of the chaos we see in America today.
The shame culture sounds like a tactic from the right wing political playbook.
While conservatives accept as gospel every detail from every woman who says Bill Clinton raped her, they refuse to recognize that rape even exists on college campuses.
In fact, prominent conservatives have even invented a new term for the despicable act: the women on a college campus was not raped, she suffered " an ugly sexual experience."
While conservatives accept as gospel every detail from every woman who says Bill Clinton raped her, they refuse to recognize that rape even exists on college campuses.
In fact, prominent conservatives have even invented a new term for the despicable act: the women on a college campus was not raped, she suffered " an ugly sexual experience."
2
Once again, Mr. Brooks oversimplifies, oversimplifies, oversimplifies and creates a caricature of perhaps laudable ideas.
The culture In which I grew up in th 50s and 60s had elements of both shaming and guilt and, though it has evolved mightily, still does.
The culture In which I grew up in th 50s and 60s had elements of both shaming and guilt and, though it has evolved mightily, still does.
The avenues for shame and exclusion have grown exponentially over the past decade. Yes, there are the celebrity twitter battles. But More profound are the micro-bouts of exclusion and bullying social networks can do to friends and family. No longer are these traumas subject to a fight at Thanksgiving or a slight at a party; no, the onslaught starts with every click, every swipe, every text, everyday. Ego management and status checks become a subliminal mind-game that may slowly usurp one's own values. One's own convictions, one's own moral judgement, may get lost in the never ending quest for likes and approval and feelings of acceptance.
Henry David Thoreau said that a majority of one can make a difference. His civil disobedience set the tone for today's protest culture. The challenge today could be navigating all the protests on social media to figure out your own majority of one, for we might be persuaded by the group-think and a need for peer likes. Walking to the beat of a different drum becomes a lock-step for likes and approval--no moral code, no quest for truth. Just what will be liked by the group, and a primal fear of being not liked, not included. So the moral code, the social value, even among family groups, ultimately becomes a type of popularity, a phony sheen of likability. What's right gets lost in what *feels* right and what *looks* right. And shame on those who don't play the game.
Henry David Thoreau said that a majority of one can make a difference. His civil disobedience set the tone for today's protest culture. The challenge today could be navigating all the protests on social media to figure out your own majority of one, for we might be persuaded by the group-think and a need for peer likes. Walking to the beat of a different drum becomes a lock-step for likes and approval--no moral code, no quest for truth. Just what will be liked by the group, and a primal fear of being not liked, not included. So the moral code, the social value, even among family groups, ultimately becomes a type of popularity, a phony sheen of likability. What's right gets lost in what *feels* right and what *looks* right. And shame on those who don't play the game.
2
One of the best reasons to leave conservative religion behind is to escape a world of judgment and coercion, guilt and shame. But the funny thing is, the secular youth culture almost seems more puritanical, coercive and shame-oriented than conservative Christianity. Christianity at least offers a structure for atonement and forgiveness. By contrast, if you get in the Facebook doghouse, do you ever get out?
2
I seem to recall that Bloom wrote his book after being shut in a building during the campus unrest at Berkeley. My lasting impression was that he was embittered and infuriated at the hypocrisy of the 'Free Speech' movement people in that confrontation.
The path to wisdom starts with the discovery of how little we actually know. Perhaps the path to virtue starts with humility. Acknowledgement of one's own imperfections makes one less ready to shame someone else.
Should I get angry about this so-called Christian nation that mostly ignores the actual Christ?
Condemnation is easy; tolerance, forgiveness and redemption are not. Its sad that path is such a 'road less traveled' in today's discourse.
The path to wisdom starts with the discovery of how little we actually know. Perhaps the path to virtue starts with humility. Acknowledgement of one's own imperfections makes one less ready to shame someone else.
Should I get angry about this so-called Christian nation that mostly ignores the actual Christ?
Condemnation is easy; tolerance, forgiveness and redemption are not. Its sad that path is such a 'road less traveled' in today's discourse.
3
Perhaps the next twist in the dialectic after the movement from Bloom (Zombies are real!) to social media shaming, is to politics. God knows we sit around way too much on our computers commenting on your articles, liking/disliking our facebook posts, and posting our own opinions in search of 'likes'.
As a university professor who encounters some measure of what you discuss in my classrooms, I am always encouraging my students to act outside of social media and to get inolved in their communities outside the university. Indeed social media is a political force unto itself. But the majority of us exorcise our moral impulses in 1500 character sound-offs. And many of us do not even vote.
So maybe we can get beyond the dichotomy of guilt and shame and move towards creative democratic experiments. Engaging in local issues with complete strangers
1) for the sake of the common good,
2)with an understanding that we will fail to achieve our goals 95% of the time,
3) to encounter and learn about how social mechanisms frustrate community goods
and
4) to develop a thick skin with respect to those who vehemently disagree with us but who nonetheless prefer the process of self-government
would teach any citizen more about politics than any text.
As a university professor who encounters some measure of what you discuss in my classrooms, I am always encouraging my students to act outside of social media and to get inolved in their communities outside the university. Indeed social media is a political force unto itself. But the majority of us exorcise our moral impulses in 1500 character sound-offs. And many of us do not even vote.
So maybe we can get beyond the dichotomy of guilt and shame and move towards creative democratic experiments. Engaging in local issues with complete strangers
1) for the sake of the common good,
2)with an understanding that we will fail to achieve our goals 95% of the time,
3) to encounter and learn about how social mechanisms frustrate community goods
and
4) to develop a thick skin with respect to those who vehemently disagree with us but who nonetheless prefer the process of self-government
would teach any citizen more about politics than any text.
4
There is something to Brooks'/Crouch's argument about shame and internet culture, but Brooks is wrong that campus values are based on the "shifiting fancy of the crowd." Bloom was wrong in 1987, too, a time when politics at universities were pretty similar to today. Those values _are_ those of virtue and justice, and student activism is rightly aimed at discrimination, oppression, and poverty. Is there too much shaming and verbal policing? Yes. But much more disturbing is the reactionary backlash; it also has "values", but they are mostly resentful ones. It's worth remembering that the "gamergate" scandal that Brooks alludes to was an attempt to shame an entirely justified and long-overdue critique of misogyny in gaming culture, and Trumpism is the obvious endpoint of that point of view. So, yes, shaming and exclusion are bad, our childish and narcissistic media culture is bad, oversimplification is bad, empty posturing about identity that doesn't create actual change is bad. However, a real fight for justice is also taking place; those students who work for NGOs & protest racism have a real moral compass that is shaped by the campus culture Brooks disparages.
2
As if to prove the point of Mr. Brook's column on the shame culture (that is, I will be roasted or "excluded" by the Sanders "community" just for writing this), but one need to look no further than these NYT comments pages to see the behavior described by Mr. Brooks.
The entire comments pages of the NYT have lately become a giant Bernie Sanders Fan Club and Marching Society. Anyone with the nerve to support Hillary, up to and including even Paul Krugman, for goodness sake, is mocked and hooted down as a sell-out and a corporate tool. Where else but in the virtual Internet world do you get a place to come on and taunt a Noble Laureate?
This group behavior serves both to bond the Sanders supporters and to exclude differing opinions to the point where many Clinton supporters no longer even bother to post anymore on here, knowing that they will be labeled a Tool of Wall Street, or something similar.
Who needs the aggravation?
The entire comments pages of the NYT have lately become a giant Bernie Sanders Fan Club and Marching Society. Anyone with the nerve to support Hillary, up to and including even Paul Krugman, for goodness sake, is mocked and hooted down as a sell-out and a corporate tool. Where else but in the virtual Internet world do you get a place to come on and taunt a Noble Laureate?
This group behavior serves both to bond the Sanders supporters and to exclude differing opinions to the point where many Clinton supporters no longer even bother to post anymore on here, knowing that they will be labeled a Tool of Wall Street, or something similar.
Who needs the aggravation?
2
Blooms thesis was never accurate. It was just the media meme of the day. Young people have always been judgmental and always will be. Those judgments have always been based on a set of cultural norms that people had to tread carefully around. And, as here, elderly people are always complaining about those judgments and norms.
2
Character is defined by how you act when nobody is watching and you are unlikely to get credit.
Of the two, shame and guilt, guilt was a greater source of self-regulation. Its power sprung from the heart, regardless of its burden to the bearer.
Of the two, shame and guilt, guilt was a greater source of self-regulation. Its power sprung from the heart, regardless of its burden to the bearer.
4
I liked this one. But what does this mean in the long run? I suspect 100 years of historical perspective on the NYT social gossip columns might provide some insight into the dynamics here, although at a slightly slower pace and smaller scale.
"If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd."
Always look for the "shoulds" and "musts". Underneath this essay is the unreasonable demand that some campuses and individuals are responsible for the breakdown of the moral fabric of American society. Forget any anxiety made the top down. A shared sense of judgment comes from having credible news and public information on a shared public forum (by an independent press in the public's interest). Washington deregulated and pushed for party aligned news, made for political interests. The line between today's discredited news and social media is blurred.
For Brooks, "a few irresponsible individual home owners" brought global sized banks to collapse, and today he say's you can't put the demagogical genie unleashed by American politics back in the bottle unless you work to correct the inner moral character of social media followers.
Always look for the "shoulds" and "musts". Underneath this essay is the unreasonable demand that some campuses and individuals are responsible for the breakdown of the moral fabric of American society. Forget any anxiety made the top down. A shared sense of judgment comes from having credible news and public information on a shared public forum (by an independent press in the public's interest). Washington deregulated and pushed for party aligned news, made for political interests. The line between today's discredited news and social media is blurred.
For Brooks, "a few irresponsible individual home owners" brought global sized banks to collapse, and today he say's you can't put the demagogical genie unleashed by American politics back in the bottle unless you work to correct the inner moral character of social media followers.
The moment I saw Ruth Benedict's name appear I thought 1) another book report and 2) another Brooksian spasm of over-simplicity. Shame and guilt might be a useful distinction, although few would be able to clarify the difference. But I am not convinced that there is a sharp enough pencil to draw the fine line between the two afflictions. Saying my conscience is some entity living outside social convention is a huge stretch. This is the same fairy land where the Christian soul dwells, methinks.
3
Conformity of thought and action has been a part of childhood socialization since time began. Exclusion has long been the punishment for non conformity. You see it in pre-school, In college, and corporate life. Social media has just taken it to a new and vicious level. It takes maturity of mind and heart that comes with age, to move beyond crowd thinking, and sadly too many never do.
4
The shame culture Brooks describes is not a culture at all. Though shaming may have the force of true shunning in some highly politicized circles, most people do not live in terror of the PC police or the Tannic Inquisition. I'd argue that shaming is mainly a rhetorical strategy, one allied to shouting down your opponent. Silencing the opposition has become the basic principle of political debate in the US.
As for why THAT's happened, we might look to the cocoon-like political perspectives that are all-but-automatically generated for us in our online lives. When one only speaks with and listens to and gathers news from the like-minded, opposition, even from a fact, begins to feel like a threat to reality itself.
As for why THAT's happened, we might look to the cocoon-like political perspectives that are all-but-automatically generated for us in our online lives. When one only speaks with and listens to and gathers news from the like-minded, opposition, even from a fact, begins to feel like a threat to reality itself.
Brilliant! Having lived in Asia and experienced the shame culture, I can see the similarities between the U.S. now and Asia. "Shame culture" is the perfect phrase for what we are experiencing now and it is not just on college campuses, it is everywhere.
1
Remember, the GOP candidates made a big deal out of the culture of "political correctness" that has American society in a chokehold. "It's killing us!" ranted Dr. Ben Carson as did Ted Cruz. But our Donald Trump, has cried foul the most about the culture of "political correctness".
Ironically, it's the one's who cry foul against the culture of political correctness are the one's who are the harshest enforcers of its rules. Donald Trump uses the tactic of guilt and shaming, inclusion and exclusion in his own political game; according to the rules of his game, one can openly call a spade a spade if the "truth" shames and guilts another. However, if a truth be told about Trump and his followers, then all hell breaks loose and one is accused of being insensitive to the dreams and desires of the "common", American folks. Trump shames you into feeling "elitist".
Trump is a liar who will bark back if you call him out on his lies. Yet, he cons his supporters into believing that he is the one honest person, standing bravely against the tide of political correctness.
Ironically, it's the one's who cry foul against the culture of political correctness are the one's who are the harshest enforcers of its rules. Donald Trump uses the tactic of guilt and shaming, inclusion and exclusion in his own political game; according to the rules of his game, one can openly call a spade a spade if the "truth" shames and guilts another. However, if a truth be told about Trump and his followers, then all hell breaks loose and one is accused of being insensitive to the dreams and desires of the "common", American folks. Trump shames you into feeling "elitist".
Trump is a liar who will bark back if you call him out on his lies. Yet, he cons his supporters into believing that he is the one honest person, standing bravely against the tide of political correctness.
3
Groupthink has to have a beginning prior to it's gathering enough popularity to reach/establish shame status.
That "Beginning" is driven today by moral and cultural relativism just as Bloom outlined it in his day.
AND it is enhanced by virulent pervasive political correctness, overseen by gutless academics,everywhere on our College campuses.
That "Beginning" is driven today by moral and cultural relativism just as Bloom outlined it in his day.
AND it is enhanced by virulent pervasive political correctness, overseen by gutless academics,everywhere on our College campuses.
One of the uglier aspects of shame culture is that the shaming is often done by those who prefer anonymity. Not only are they damning the sinner and not the sin, but they are passing judgment out of sight. Is this customer going to flame me on Yelp? Is this student going to flame me on Rate My Professor in part because I am a woman? Suspicion becomes the subtext and residue of even benign relationships.
Shame used to be the function of the village, for good or ill, now "we" are observed in dozens of micro-villages everyday, all the time.
The panopticon is us.
Shame used to be the function of the village, for good or ill, now "we" are observed in dozens of micro-villages everyday, all the time.
The panopticon is us.
David Brooks should be the last person to advocate a simplistic duality: EITHER shame OR guilt, nothing in between. Life never conforms to such. We have been steadily submerged in moral relativism since the 1960s, especially via the media, where the "could be this, could be that, let's say it's gray, you decide" ethic has prevailed. A basic morality is inbuilt in the human race, everywhere and always. But it is not always adequately cultivated, through education, leadership, and public discussion. Slowly, I think, this is changing here in the USA--as in the widespread if still diffuse reactions to Trumpism.
1
another one of this guy's pop psych articles designed to shame those whom he disagrees with, in this case anyone who is willing to stand out and criticize colleges' refusal to deal with sexual assault on campuses.
it's especially ironic since brooks is constantly attempting to diminish, demean and embarrass and shame anyone who disagrees with his neo-con, pr-ocorporate entity, ideology.
it's especially ironic since brooks is constantly attempting to diminish, demean and embarrass and shame anyone who disagrees with his neo-con, pr-ocorporate entity, ideology.
2
Brooks actually is one of the most reasoned, even-keeled, tolerant, respectful columnists out there. All you need do is watch his weekly exchanges with Mark Shields to see the respect he holds for those of differing opinions, and the extent to which he actually listens.
Respect and the ability to listen. Judging from your comment, john smith, you could benefit from a healthy dose of both.
Respect and the ability to listen. Judging from your comment, john smith, you could benefit from a healthy dose of both.
3
The guilt and shame are sub-cultures that coexist and have symbiotic relationship in all societies. Ruth Benedict was "guilty" of generalization, and it seems so is Mr. Brooks. The guilt is mostly about not meeting the standards set by the society. As social beings we are are shaped by social gaze, which in turn relies on moral principles arrived from scripture, law, ethical axioms, changing community standards.
We haven't left our marl codes nest yet. Our civilization is barley out of the shell.
"The guilt culture" Brooks describes essentially tries to distinguish between the morality cultivated in churches vs. that cultivated by non-church goers / society at large. To suggest that guilt culture comes from "within" is disingenuous at best. Inclusion and exclusion exists at every level of the church, starting at the youngest of ages. As someone who was raised in an evangelical church and later broke away, I can tell you that when my internal sense of right and wrong shifted, my inclusion from the friendships and groups I'd long associated with in the church completely dissolved. And many of those people who I had long enjoyed "inclusionary" debate with (so long as all debate was rooted in the belief that the Bible was the literal word of God) became quite exclusionary -- especially in social media -- when I started challenging whether a black and white interpretation of the Bible could / should be a factor in government and Constitutional issues that affected people who subscribed to a completely different "world view."
3
Each individual has the choice to ignore others and exercise their right to have their opinions. I reject the notion that I am part of a guilt culture or a shame culture.
My choices are mine and I do not need the approval of others when I exercise my choices. Others are welcome to their choices as well. It is what it is...
My choices are mine and I do not need the approval of others when I exercise my choices. Others are welcome to their choices as well. It is what it is...
3
Let's bring back shame. Single motherhood is one of the worst things that could happen to this country. Why aren't we shaming the women who give birth out of wedlock and the men who don't step up to their responsibilities? And while we're at it, let's bring back debtor's prisons.
Mr. Brooks seems to be describing the Republican party of Goldwater-Reagan-Bush. This is exactly the way they operate. Spot on.
But I don't see how any of this is very apt when applied to college campuses or the rest of society. In that regard it's unsubstantiated sociological mush.
But I don't see how any of this is very apt when applied to college campuses or the rest of society. In that regard it's unsubstantiated sociological mush.
1
What people generally consider a person should be made to feel ashamed of in American society today, and the types of guilt a person can suffer from (one's possible collection of transgressions in the eye of beholder?)
I personally have no idea what I should specifically be ashamed of in America today or my list of transgressions I should be considered guilty of in the eye of beholder. I do not even know how to put such into a comprehensible sentence. I just say accuse me of everything and anything and let me get back to work. I have just accepted for years what I have read in the best literature of the world concerning the fate of the person who attempts to think as clearly and as truthfully as possible especially about people and society.
The more a person begins to think about especially people and society the more shame and guilt become automatic because one is attempting to see people as they are past, present and future. For me, for example, this has been reading Darwin, Marx, right wing theories to point of fascism, abnormal psychology and so on,--constantly theorizing this or that aspect about people and wondering about this or that course for society to take.
How a person can avoid being and feeling alienated on such a project I have no idea--one must become something of an alien life form in first place to be objective with respect to the human race. This is just basic history of intellectual knowledge and intellectual integrity. With maturity comes sobriety.
I personally have no idea what I should specifically be ashamed of in America today or my list of transgressions I should be considered guilty of in the eye of beholder. I do not even know how to put such into a comprehensible sentence. I just say accuse me of everything and anything and let me get back to work. I have just accepted for years what I have read in the best literature of the world concerning the fate of the person who attempts to think as clearly and as truthfully as possible especially about people and society.
The more a person begins to think about especially people and society the more shame and guilt become automatic because one is attempting to see people as they are past, present and future. For me, for example, this has been reading Darwin, Marx, right wing theories to point of fascism, abnormal psychology and so on,--constantly theorizing this or that aspect about people and wondering about this or that course for society to take.
How a person can avoid being and feeling alienated on such a project I have no idea--one must become something of an alien life form in first place to be objective with respect to the human race. This is just basic history of intellectual knowledge and intellectual integrity. With maturity comes sobriety.
Okay, Mr Brooks, you're right - I will state it here and now, and I don't care what anyone thinks: "conservatism" and radical reactionary politics are bad. So is racism. Their purveyors are morally deficient. People who want to give such folks a pass (maybe out of moral relativism) are truly misguided. If the shoe fits...
Society and empathy are good, and attempts to equate them with "nanny-statism" are the disingenuous ravings of "them that's got" in Billie Holiday's words. Religious fundamentalism is bad - no, it's horrid, and the source of much suffering and grief.
I guess I should really say these things on a reactionary social media forum (to be shunned), but I don't know any.
Society and empathy are good, and attempts to equate them with "nanny-statism" are the disingenuous ravings of "them that's got" in Billie Holiday's words. Religious fundamentalism is bad - no, it's horrid, and the source of much suffering and grief.
I guess I should really say these things on a reactionary social media forum (to be shunned), but I don't know any.
3
It's a good thing social media grew up in the current culture of moral relativism rather than the days of True North. What would be worse, being "condemned" online for failing to respond correctly to some ephemeral social media statement, or being condemned online for BEING (probably forever) gay, not-a-virgin, an adulterer, passing, whatever. Those were harsher times, and the sinner was indeed hated. Today's college students are going through painful and sometimes humiliating times, but they're getting a good education as they participate in some very significant societal evolution.
1
Readers should seek out the essay "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill. This English philosopher from the 1800's articulated the importance of individual liberty to think and share ideas, even if they were seen as false by society. That the truth will eventually prevail, when an educated and thoughtful public is able to debate ideas freely, was the underlying theme of this essay. Those who claim we are hindered by "political correctness" are likely to hold beliefs that the society at large has already debated and determined that those beliefs are false. One example in the current political season, is the idea that it is ok to use violence against people who you disagree with. I hope that we all would find this idea repugnant and loudly make our voices heard.
It is middle school, all over again.
Are you kidding? On the day so many delegates will be selected by both major parties, Brooks changes the subject. After this election, I suppose he'll have to find a new Party to which he can turn a blind eye.
1
An overlooked aspect of this phenomenon is the human impulse to attain power over others. Demand public apologies, force a resignation, make them change the curriculum, shout down a scheduled speaker. Those who find a way to put their hands on the levers of power without accompanying responsibility tend to find the experience intoxicating.
2
The new campus orthodoxy/shame culture resembles a new religion more than anything else. And the first Commandment of this new religion: "Never blame the victim."
Once you understand that first BIG Commandment, it's easy to get by. Watch what college kids do. They are constantly claiming they are hurt by words, wounded by microaggressions, hated by the vile patriarchy, fearful, in need of safe place, and seek out ever more arcane group identities to take up the mantle of victimhood.
It looks goofy, until you realize that when one gets dubbed "victim," no matter how silly the pretext, then the victim can no longer be faulted (blamed) for any actions, is no longer responsible for his/her own condition, and authorities, (teachers and such, hereafter called oppressors) MUST do whatever the victim is demanding or the mob will tear them apart for the high sin of "blaming a victim." (Remember the Mizzou ex-President who didn't step fast enough when a single student claimed someone somewhere sometime used a racial slur against him? Quid Erat Demonstratum)
We should all just get on board the victimhood bus as quickly as we can. It's a good bus.
Once you understand that first BIG Commandment, it's easy to get by. Watch what college kids do. They are constantly claiming they are hurt by words, wounded by microaggressions, hated by the vile patriarchy, fearful, in need of safe place, and seek out ever more arcane group identities to take up the mantle of victimhood.
It looks goofy, until you realize that when one gets dubbed "victim," no matter how silly the pretext, then the victim can no longer be faulted (blamed) for any actions, is no longer responsible for his/her own condition, and authorities, (teachers and such, hereafter called oppressors) MUST do whatever the victim is demanding or the mob will tear them apart for the high sin of "blaming a victim." (Remember the Mizzou ex-President who didn't step fast enough when a single student claimed someone somewhere sometime used a racial slur against him? Quid Erat Demonstratum)
We should all just get on board the victimhood bus as quickly as we can. It's a good bus.
1
2 books this article calls to mind are "American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion" by neoconservative Judith Shklar & Arendt's "The Human Condition.' A third, almost too obvious to mention: David Riesman's classic "The Lonely Crowd," diagnosing the hyperconformist "other-directed" personality popularized in Woody Allen's "Zelig" (both referenced by Bloom). Also, "Organization Man." Truth is, this conformity-&-individualism theme is endemic since the 50s.
Shklar & Arendt recognized the challenges of forging social meaning & bonds in a democratic capitalist society distancin itself from traditional European culture with is valorization of spiritual & intellectual depth & complexity, & roots in Christianity, feudalism & aristocratic ideals. Shklar & Arendt posited contrasting ideals, notions of excellence & norms for a democratic culture opposing European fascism & soviet authoritarianism.
Shklar's answer was simple: cathexis of a worker identity & status in the economic system: you had "face" and status based on your economic position.
Arendt rejected (although predating, but clearly recognizing) Shklar's position, decrying capitalism's reduction of all life to some form of consumerism (including identities/projected self-images). For her, the political realm was the chance to be seen & heard, the locus of excellence & enduring identity. Inherited from the Greek sense of arrete as displayed virtue, it also suggested popular acclaim as a touchstone of excellence.
Shklar & Arendt recognized the challenges of forging social meaning & bonds in a democratic capitalist society distancin itself from traditional European culture with is valorization of spiritual & intellectual depth & complexity, & roots in Christianity, feudalism & aristocratic ideals. Shklar & Arendt posited contrasting ideals, notions of excellence & norms for a democratic culture opposing European fascism & soviet authoritarianism.
Shklar's answer was simple: cathexis of a worker identity & status in the economic system: you had "face" and status based on your economic position.
Arendt rejected (although predating, but clearly recognizing) Shklar's position, decrying capitalism's reduction of all life to some form of consumerism (including identities/projected self-images). For her, the political realm was the chance to be seen & heard, the locus of excellence & enduring identity. Inherited from the Greek sense of arrete as displayed virtue, it also suggested popular acclaim as a touchstone of excellence.
"When a moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes. If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned."
It perplexes me that those who speak out against the horrors of political correctness and social media shaming on college campuses are often those who aren't actually members of a college campus community. I doubt David Brooks' opinions are based on experience, but are instead gleaned from what he has seen in the media or gathered from various think pieces (written by other non-student observers).
As a recent college graduate, I can assure you that these stories about the supposed PC "crusades" on American campuses are largely exaggerated. Perhaps it is just the fear of a generational evolution in sociopolitical perspective that drives some baby boomers to condemn millennials for our so-called "shame culture."
It perplexes me that those who speak out against the horrors of political correctness and social media shaming on college campuses are often those who aren't actually members of a college campus community. I doubt David Brooks' opinions are based on experience, but are instead gleaned from what he has seen in the media or gathered from various think pieces (written by other non-student observers).
As a recent college graduate, I can assure you that these stories about the supposed PC "crusades" on American campuses are largely exaggerated. Perhaps it is just the fear of a generational evolution in sociopolitical perspective that drives some baby boomers to condemn millennials for our so-called "shame culture."
2
I found this article thought provoking and insightful. While I am long past college and grad school, what I do know of social media websites like Facebook suggests to me that the sort of cultural evolution he descirbes could be happening.
But let me provide a little liberating information to the young folks out there who feel they are stuck in this guilt and shame vice. As you get out of high school, whether you got to college or not, you will have the opportunity to form your own indentity informed by your education, peers, experiences, reading, society etc. You choose. When you leave college, you are even more liberated because you are no longer in the closely networked confines of college. You don't have to be on Facebook or you can limit your exposure. Your true friends are not going to shame or exclude you for not sharing their exact same beleifs. If they do, you need some new friends.
But let me provide a little liberating information to the young folks out there who feel they are stuck in this guilt and shame vice. As you get out of high school, whether you got to college or not, you will have the opportunity to form your own indentity informed by your education, peers, experiences, reading, society etc. You choose. When you leave college, you are even more liberated because you are no longer in the closely networked confines of college. You don't have to be on Facebook or you can limit your exposure. Your true friends are not going to shame or exclude you for not sharing their exact same beleifs. If they do, you need some new friends.
1
Poor David. I almost feel for you. It seems your columns of late [actually all of them] seem to be an internal battle of Mea Culpa about your decades of deafening silence about all things rising out of the Conservative Cultural Swap. Even when you dare not mention his name; the invisible second line of your title(s), screams Donald Trump. Enough Already:
Public Confession is good for the soul and the quicker you write one for all of us to read- the freer you will be.
Public Confession is good for the soul and the quicker you write one for all of us to read- the freer you will be.
2
"Bloom's thesis was accurate" has been a sticking post for those who wanted to criticize the "liberal college campus" culture, which had already begun to move on by the time Bloom's book came out.
In part, the liberal college campus was a reaction to a society which refused to address the moral judgments necessary to resolve ingrained and culturally acceptable racism, bigotry, and greed. If the adults were not going to address what was right and wrong, why should their children think there were rights and wrongs.
College campuses have moved on, but the larger society still has difficulty address the morality of racism, bigotry and greed with a clear measure of what is right and what is wrong. Mr. Brooks, again, fails to address the larger societal problem while seeking to attack the incoming generation for its coping device.
In part, the liberal college campus was a reaction to a society which refused to address the moral judgments necessary to resolve ingrained and culturally acceptable racism, bigotry, and greed. If the adults were not going to address what was right and wrong, why should their children think there were rights and wrongs.
College campuses have moved on, but the larger society still has difficulty address the morality of racism, bigotry and greed with a clear measure of what is right and what is wrong. Mr. Brooks, again, fails to address the larger societal problem while seeking to attack the incoming generation for its coping device.
1
First, Bloom's thesis was not accurate at the time. People are always judgmental. In 1987, collective judgment, to the extent one can even generalize about such a mythical beast, was just not to Bloom's nostalgic liking. Another term, a very American one, for "nonjudgmentalism" is tolerance. Yet another is dispassionate objectivity.
Second, to imagine an entire generation of college students in the thrall of a "shame culture" is as gross a self-serving generalization today as Bloom's was in the 1980s. The tendency to go along to get along is not some new thing, nor peculiar to college campuses. Wherever a consensual set of moral judgments gains any degree of ascendancy in a free society, it inevitably carves out an easy space for "rebels" to occupy, merely by threading their opinions through the dominant shibboleths and finding no shortage of company and a sense of moral righteousness in doing so.
Lastly, it's worth noting that the very distinction between a guilt culture and a shame culture is itself a piece of wartime propaganda, articulated in "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture" (1946), which Ruth Benedict undertook at the invitation of the U.S. Office of War Information. Her "anthropological technique" consisted in reading and passing judgment on books and literature, not in observing and talking to humans. It belongs in Anthropology's voluminous Hall of Shame for works serving imperial powers' ideological subjugation of conquered peoples.
Second, to imagine an entire generation of college students in the thrall of a "shame culture" is as gross a self-serving generalization today as Bloom's was in the 1980s. The tendency to go along to get along is not some new thing, nor peculiar to college campuses. Wherever a consensual set of moral judgments gains any degree of ascendancy in a free society, it inevitably carves out an easy space for "rebels" to occupy, merely by threading their opinions through the dominant shibboleths and finding no shortage of company and a sense of moral righteousness in doing so.
Lastly, it's worth noting that the very distinction between a guilt culture and a shame culture is itself a piece of wartime propaganda, articulated in "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture" (1946), which Ruth Benedict undertook at the invitation of the U.S. Office of War Information. Her "anthropological technique" consisted in reading and passing judgment on books and literature, not in observing and talking to humans. It belongs in Anthropology's voluminous Hall of Shame for works serving imperial powers' ideological subjugation of conquered peoples.
2
"..but it [the modern shame culture] can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in."
As evidenced, David, by the anger & condescension directed your way in the vast majority of comments on your columns here in The Times. I often find myself hoping you're not reading them. As hate-filled as they can be.
As evidenced, David, by the anger & condescension directed your way in the vast majority of comments on your columns here in The Times. I often find myself hoping you're not reading them. As hate-filled as they can be.
1
Please be specific. There are LOTS of groups on the Internet, even within any given network like Facebook or Twitter, and different groups handle dissent and disagreement differently. Likewise, there are LOTS of different college campuses, and LOTS of groups on each of those campuses, and they obviously embrace or reject different opinions to different degrees.
Your abuse of generalization here makes your column far more wrong than right. Perhaps there *is* a shame culture, and a guilt culture, but there are also, in the very same places, cultures that support open debate and introspection and friendly disagreement.
Your abuse of generalization here makes your column far more wrong than right. Perhaps there *is* a shame culture, and a guilt culture, but there are also, in the very same places, cultures that support open debate and introspection and friendly disagreement.
1
Groucho Marx summed this up about 50 years ago when he said he would refuse membership in any club lax enough to accept him. RIP, Groucho.
Oh, good God... If you want to avoid all the pitfalls David Brooks is talking about, simply unplug from Facebook and Instagram. There's more to life than seeking other's approval.
As Katherine Hepburn said "If you always do what interests you, at least one person is pleased."
As Katherine Hepburn said "If you always do what interests you, at least one person is pleased."
6
David, do you seriously not see the straight line between the laughing at "norms that have come into existence" (apparently your words for "treating people like human beings") and the rise of Donald Trump? You can't have it both ways, David.
2
One of Brooks' better writings, judged by the depth of the responses and readers picks.
Jim
Jim
Shame and Guilt are two sides of the same cheap coin. The much more valuable treasure is Understanding & Humility
People have always wanted to feel good about themselves - and that is often done by finding ways to justify how we are better than others. We want to be "right" and "good"- and that usually means pointing out others doing it "wrong" or being "bad". Now we have new technology and social media that makes it so much easier & quicker to do that. OUTRTAGE seems to be the new normal in politics and social media
What is missing is a focus on UNDERSTANING - recognizing our own biases and seeing other peoples actions/words largely as a function of their biases. We all have many biases working on us at once - it is how we make sense of the world. There is a grain of truth in every bias - though it is usually warped and distorted to justify making us right and make others wrong.
So is it possible to move past guilt/shame and put our technology and social media to work understanding each other and showing some humility?
People have always wanted to feel good about themselves - and that is often done by finding ways to justify how we are better than others. We want to be "right" and "good"- and that usually means pointing out others doing it "wrong" or being "bad". Now we have new technology and social media that makes it so much easier & quicker to do that. OUTRTAGE seems to be the new normal in politics and social media
What is missing is a focus on UNDERSTANING - recognizing our own biases and seeing other peoples actions/words largely as a function of their biases. We all have many biases working on us at once - it is how we make sense of the world. There is a grain of truth in every bias - though it is usually warped and distorted to justify making us right and make others wrong.
So is it possible to move past guilt/shame and put our technology and social media to work understanding each other and showing some humility?
1
You write, "In the new shame culture, the opposite of shame is celebrity — to be attention-grabbing and aggressively unique on some media platform." Your party's frontrunner is both a celebrity and shameful with a whole 'culture' behind him.
The notion of shame culture and guilt culture is that the individual must submit to the prevailing norms of that culture, the etiquette, rules, and codes, or suffer consequences. In this view, culture equals mob and mob inflicts punishment against anyone who undermines mob's closely held and revered identity
Societies or mobs always have inflicted punishment on those who don't fit in or dare to disagree publicly. Whole nations have gassed, stoned, burned, beheaded, hung, shot, poisoned, electrocuted and drowned throughout history those who dared to think differently and say so, were considered mad and expendable, were just 'different', or had what the mob wanted.
It takes courage to go against the mob, but despite true belief at the outset, and fear of being different from the mob, some spark of inner consciousness or conscience fosters doubt in the individual and he can no longer be a part of it. Even if there are no consequences in parting ways with the culture, one cannot disagree or ignore the prevailing norms without becoming alienated. One must submit to the trappings of religion despite disbelief or engage in the entertainment and sports of the moment or be considered unworthy, boring and uninteresting, a loser.
The notion of shame culture and guilt culture is that the individual must submit to the prevailing norms of that culture, the etiquette, rules, and codes, or suffer consequences. In this view, culture equals mob and mob inflicts punishment against anyone who undermines mob's closely held and revered identity
Societies or mobs always have inflicted punishment on those who don't fit in or dare to disagree publicly. Whole nations have gassed, stoned, burned, beheaded, hung, shot, poisoned, electrocuted and drowned throughout history those who dared to think differently and say so, were considered mad and expendable, were just 'different', or had what the mob wanted.
It takes courage to go against the mob, but despite true belief at the outset, and fear of being different from the mob, some spark of inner consciousness or conscience fosters doubt in the individual and he can no longer be a part of it. Even if there are no consequences in parting ways with the culture, one cannot disagree or ignore the prevailing norms without becoming alienated. One must submit to the trappings of religion despite disbelief or engage in the entertainment and sports of the moment or be considered unworthy, boring and uninteresting, a loser.
1
Why do conservatives always start discussions like this using college campuses as prime examples? We have a major political party where a member dare not utter a favorable word about the President without risking condemnation and exclusion.
3
I don't always agree with Mr. Brooks but I do this time. A culture based on "guilt" might be oppressive or stultifying, but at least it provides a connection to society at large via its moral precepts, whereas a "shame" based culture is concerned only with the immediate members of one's own group. Putting aside the actual haters it seems to me that many who attack others for committing this or that sin of political incorrectness are displaying a shallow mediocrity of thought that can't (or won't) look beyond the form to the substance of speech. Of the young firebrands who seek to shame or suppress unpopular speech, e.g. on college campuses or in social media, I hope that their exuberant "yeasting youth" (Keats, not mine!) won't prevent them from according to others the same liberties that they hold precious.
2
Brooks writes: "First, members of a group lavish one another with praise so that they themselves might be accepted and praised in turn. Second, there are nonetheless enforcers within the group who build their personal power and reputation by policing the group and condemning those who break the group code. Social media can be vicious to those who don’t fit in. Twitter can erupt in instant ridicule for anyone who stumbles. Third, people are extremely anxious that their group might be condemned or denigrated. They demand instant respect and recognition for their group. They feel some moral wrong has been perpetrated when their group has been disrespected, and react with the most violent intensity."
It sounds like he's describing the modern Republican party as much as anything. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, among so many others, exemplify each point Brooks makes. Why does David even consider himself a Republican anymore?
It sounds like he's describing the modern Republican party as much as anything. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, among so many others, exemplify each point Brooks makes. Why does David even consider himself a Republican anymore?
1
An individual is only swayed by guilt or shame when they have no personally developed reason to live(think Sartre here) - moral or not. A "Personal Aesthetic" is of vital importance. A "Personal Aesthetic" is a keel and a rudder for your life. My personal aesthetic certainly doesn't allow me to go down to Barneys and buy one of those patterned skinny shirts! Walmart has perfectly good black T-shirts and then you have $375 left over!
1
In a column Brooks wrote (1/6/2015) he presented the practical wisdom of John Gardner which included the following:
“The things you learn in maturity aren’t simple things such as acquiring information and skills. . . . You come to understand that most people are neither for you nor against you; they are thinking about themselves. You learn that no matter how hard you try to please, some people in this world are not going to love you, a lesson that is at first troubling and then really quite relaxing.”
Maybe the new ethic of shame that seems to have arrived with social media, is just something we will all have to outgrow.
“The things you learn in maturity aren’t simple things such as acquiring information and skills. . . . You come to understand that most people are neither for you nor against you; they are thinking about themselves. You learn that no matter how hard you try to please, some people in this world are not going to love you, a lesson that is at first troubling and then really quite relaxing.”
Maybe the new ethic of shame that seems to have arrived with social media, is just something we will all have to outgrow.
3
What Americans are really good at is rationalizing away shame. in spite of , if it were measurable, however much scolding is probably a bigger sport than the NFL and the opportunities for a valid theoretical shame assigning aspire, it somehow gets lost in the relativism. Cops killing kids in the street has even found its own "solid ground" to stand on esp. in Cleveland. But the real Olympic athletes at it are the lawyers who just recently set a record in Rhetorical Alchemy of sophistry by succeeding, to get past our sentinel for holding the line between right and wrong, the most creative of arguments, one, "Affluenza". Its so novel that the word editor hasn't yet included it in her data base ...yet. George Burns said of sincerity, "if you can fake that, you've got it made." , same goes for ignoring shame. All our efforts for avoiding going full draconian will keep assigning shame the damage it really deserves and on a par with tackling Barry Sanders. ... but then the complete opposite might be just as valid.
There is no evidence that the cosmos "cares" about the moral judgments people make. "Karma" is a myth. Our capacity to feel shame or guilt are the products of natural selection, over which we had not control. Feelings of shame and guilt may have some evolutionary "fitness" if one allows for the possibility of group selection; for the individual, "success" is only measurable by perpetuation of one genes into the future, thus the person who gets enough resources to stay alive and get his or her genetic offspring safely to their own reproductive age is the winner, without regard to the morality of any actions.
Morality is an attitude toward others that makes sense in social terms, and allows us to live without constant fear of imminent attack, but morality does not exist as an imperative of gods or other possible forces in the universe. Kant's Categorical Imperative of the "Golden Rule" is as good as any other philosophy to live by.
Morality is an attitude toward others that makes sense in social terms, and allows us to live without constant fear of imminent attack, but morality does not exist as an imperative of gods or other possible forces in the universe. Kant's Categorical Imperative of the "Golden Rule" is as good as any other philosophy to live by.
On a Day like Today, that could mark the Day a Demagogue takes over thr GOP, Mr Brooks who should be ASHAME for seeing what has become of Lincoln once proud Party and GUILTY for being one of the People who enable such Disaster to happen, has decided it was more important to write about the Culture of Shame and Guilt in Colleges and Universities.
I'm sure the day Trump becomes the Nominee, Brooks will write about the Weather.
I'm sure the day Trump becomes the Nominee, Brooks will write about the Weather.
2
Mr. Brooks - really interesting article and I agree w/ the thesis. I think it's a bit incomplete, and what I think could be added is the context for some of the anxiety, the searching for True North, and the impulse to identify with your group (or tribe!) It's hard to argue that our national social norms aren't changing more quickly than usual over the life of the Obama presidency. In six years we elected our first black President, we moved from legislating against gay marriage to having it be the law of the land, and we have seen latent (and blatant) racism move from a space where we mostly agree not to talk about it because we can point to improvement, to a place where we talk about it a lot because many acknowledge that significant improvement is still required. I think our society was getting ready for some of these discussions and changes, and Obama is uniquely able to encourage conversations about where we could do better - ranging from racism to immigration to gun control. So the conversations are happening. The status quo is significantly less assured, relative to early 2008. Some big discussions (healthcare, gay marriage) have already brought large scale and long lasting change, and others may follow. And I think that change in the rate of change is a big reason why more people are seeking the safety of a group that they identify with. Social change breeds insecurity, and groups mitigate that insecurity - as long as you or your group aren't under threat.
Current online culture described as anxiety and group think based upon standards of justice and virtue? Modeled by whom? Wall street? Our current crop of politicians?
If the lemming like nature of online “communities” is leading to more anxiety and over reaction because the risk of being ostracized or excluded weigh heavily then perhaps the next self help craze will be helping those poor excluded souls find a culture that offers comfort to the overly sensitive or one could simply opt out of the whole cyber wanna bee scene.
If the lemming like nature of online “communities” is leading to more anxiety and over reaction because the risk of being ostracized or excluded weigh heavily then perhaps the next self help craze will be helping those poor excluded souls find a culture that offers comfort to the overly sensitive or one could simply opt out of the whole cyber wanna bee scene.
In her book "Daring Greatly," Dr. Brené Brown says "Everyone has it [shame], the less you talk about it, the more you have it."
Brown is a qualitative researcher who studies shame and vulnerability.
The reason why shame culture is so rampant is because we do not discuss it. It grows, with interest, like the account balance of a past due bill we hide in the back of a drawer. We prefer to go about life muscling through feelings of shame, just as we prefer to ignore a looming bill.
However, Brown notes that when we talk about our shame, we can regain its control over us. Just as when we open our bills, and spread them across the kitchen table, a calculator in hand, we step into a position of control. That's where vulnerability comes in.
It takes vulnerability to open past due bills. It takes vulnerability to call the credit card company and let them know your payment will be late. It takes vulnerability to have a conversation about debt with your spouse.
Nobody allows themselves to be vulnerable in today's culture. We shield ourselves, by shaming others, often through the anonymity of the Internet.
We need to acknowledge our own shame, so we stop creating it in others--that's what I believe this article and Brown's work can do.
Brown is a qualitative researcher who studies shame and vulnerability.
The reason why shame culture is so rampant is because we do not discuss it. It grows, with interest, like the account balance of a past due bill we hide in the back of a drawer. We prefer to go about life muscling through feelings of shame, just as we prefer to ignore a looming bill.
However, Brown notes that when we talk about our shame, we can regain its control over us. Just as when we open our bills, and spread them across the kitchen table, a calculator in hand, we step into a position of control. That's where vulnerability comes in.
It takes vulnerability to open past due bills. It takes vulnerability to call the credit card company and let them know your payment will be late. It takes vulnerability to have a conversation about debt with your spouse.
Nobody allows themselves to be vulnerable in today's culture. We shield ourselves, by shaming others, often through the anonymity of the Internet.
We need to acknowledge our own shame, so we stop creating it in others--that's what I believe this article and Brown's work can do.
1
The northern European settlers who came to the Americas brought with them a Puritanism and concomitant paranoia that is an earlier age's manifestation of what goes on on campus and Twitter today.
Whether a shame or a guilt culture, it has never been common, or easy, to think for oneself and leave go of the orthodoxies of one's time . Often when reading, I feel I can see the same compulsory ideas, the same demand for orthodoxy, in the editorial slant of this newspaper, even. Is it a fear of freedom?
Whether a shame or a guilt culture, it has never been common, or easy, to think for oneself and leave go of the orthodoxies of one's time . Often when reading, I feel I can see the same compulsory ideas, the same demand for orthodoxy, in the editorial slant of this newspaper, even. Is it a fear of freedom?
We in the West, for the most part, are trying to shake off the burdens of absolute truth, which didn't always work for some, and trying to deal with a whole new reality. Jettisoning the absolute truth altogether is the seismic friction causing anxiety today. The vacuum is freighting.
Absolute truth? Whose absolute truths? Remember the Inquisition? Complete anarchy? Remember Mao's Cultural Revolution?
The only way to deal with these opposite forces is education. A real education (not just specialization in the sciences and law), the kind our Founding Fathers had, and hoped the citizens of the Democracy they devised would have.
I think the agony our country is going through now, especially with Trumpism and his "know-nothing" crowd, is telling. The next election will be very important.
David, relativism is a basic canvas. What it needs is an educated public to deal with it. A canvas that is already painted is for the lazy or timid, those afraid to have a personal opinion, yet protect their ignorance by adhering to boiler-plate opinions already made for them.
We must come to terms with absolute truths (the Bible?), and not altogether invalid, devised by flawed men in order to civilize themselves and rational solutions based on objective reasoning.
"The Closing of the American Mind" is very important still, if only for the title. Maybe Bloom's answers don't work any more, but his question is still valid.
Absolute truth? Whose absolute truths? Remember the Inquisition? Complete anarchy? Remember Mao's Cultural Revolution?
The only way to deal with these opposite forces is education. A real education (not just specialization in the sciences and law), the kind our Founding Fathers had, and hoped the citizens of the Democracy they devised would have.
I think the agony our country is going through now, especially with Trumpism and his "know-nothing" crowd, is telling. The next election will be very important.
David, relativism is a basic canvas. What it needs is an educated public to deal with it. A canvas that is already painted is for the lazy or timid, those afraid to have a personal opinion, yet protect their ignorance by adhering to boiler-plate opinions already made for them.
We must come to terms with absolute truths (the Bible?), and not altogether invalid, devised by flawed men in order to civilize themselves and rational solutions based on objective reasoning.
"The Closing of the American Mind" is very important still, if only for the title. Maybe Bloom's answers don't work any more, but his question is still valid.
So let's look at what's really going on nationally instead of a few campuses with a few thousand students. Millions of people are told daily on Fox News that there is a war on Christianity and that anyone who does not denounce it is unAmerican. Similarly, every politician and all Muslims are targeted as personally responsible for the acts of Islamic terrorists who they must denounce daily apparently. This is the reality that David Brooks and his ilk have fomented for the last two decades at least. It is more than a little strange that Brooks keeps finding motes in the eyes of "liberals" but cannot see the beam in the eye of his party, not the party of Lincoln, but the party of Trump and Cruz.
1
I approve. But I am ashamed to admit it…must be my inner guilt.
1
Guilt and shame are not so different. Both depend on the judgment of others. Guilt depends on judging ourselves as others judge us and it judges our behavior without taking account of our reasons so it is as if we are "other" to ourselves. Humans unfortunately remember their behavior and forget their reasons which leaves them susceptible to feeling guilt when others judge the behavior. Recovery from guilt depends upon remembering the reasons for the "bad" behavior.
Who's "standards of justice and virtue" are you referring to? Mine? Your's? Donald Trump's? Hillary Clinton's? The Pope's? The Dalai Lhama's? Am I allowed to change my mind?
You suggest not, but the world isn't that simple. Everyone's True North (please explain the capital letters BTW) changes based on their circumstances. So your solution isn't really a solution.
You suggest not, but the world isn't that simple. Everyone's True North (please explain the capital letters BTW) changes based on their circumstances. So your solution isn't really a solution.
The guilt culture ossified into a rigid judgement culture. What you call the shame culture is the recognition of a need to grow, expand and accept newer realities and wisdome. This is not comfortable for all involved. But there will be a new coalescence of the shame culture which will become the new guilt culture, which will go through the same metamorphosis at some time in the future. This is called the cycle of cultural evolution.
The shame and guilt culture have always been with us. Dr. Seuss understood this in his profound "Start Bellied Speeches", with its "Star On" and "Star Off" machine. One group of Speeches was feeling superior to the other group of Speeches because they had "Stars upon Thars" and then when the "Star On" machine gave everyone the ability to have "Stars upon Thars" the "Star Off" machine allowed the Stars to be taken off, but then things became so confused with Stars on and Stars off, the Speeches finally realized they were all alike and there was no need to exclude based upon false values. Were it so simple in our world today to get people to realize we are all humans regardless of color of skin, sexual orientation, wealth, or position in life. Some groups, particularly white wealthy males still tend to think they have "Stars upon Thars". The Democrats with their socially progressive programs have sought to level the playing field, to give everyone dignity and respect, regardless of life circumstances. What have the Republicans done but try to exclude and shame with their racism and misogyny?
Here's an example of aa guilt culture:a Danish couple in their own country gave a ride to a refugee family with small children walking along the highway on a hot summer day. They took them home and offered them drinks. The Danish government is now fining them $7,000 for their act of kindness. I heard this on NPR this morning.
The shame culture and the university campus moral judgment movement remind me of the Red Guard in China, the equivalent of social media pressure for non conformists in its day. Even more so because today's campuses have become so intolerant of political thought that strays from far left tenets.
We have recently learned that some contemporary campuses are awash in Koch money. Cynical, secret-sourced, profiteering Koch money.
David -- please write us something about the 'shame' in That.
David -- please write us something about the 'shame' in That.
2
luckily, those that shame are being excluded more and more as people see that the emperor has no clothes. Its a heartening thing to see for people on all sides of the spectrum, including those of us who are liberal but have been embarrassed by this behavior.
What facts is this based on? The Times would do well to replace half the Opinion columns with factual columns....give us the stats on immigrants, wages, personal and private debt, levels of education, etc. please give us more charts and graphs and less of this wafer-thin moralizing.
Mr. Brooks seems to be arguing that there is a single proper source of moral judgment in the world and that this source is without compromise or rebuke. It must be liberating to know that only your pastor can put a name to your sins (shame you into guilt) and that your Sunday Tribe will support any actions you take in your everyday existence that take to task the Devil's work: abortion, homosexuality, racial integration, welfare for the common good, compassion for foreigners in need of a safe place. All good believing Christians bring this to the world, and they find themselves attacked by society as a whole. What gives? Why don't the "rest of us" get it? How dare we "interpret" the Bible (or the constitution for that matter) in a way that is clearly not adherent to the principles for which they might claim to lay down their lives for? I myself lack this rigid moral compass even though I was raised a Protestant. The endless hours I spent in Sunday school were wasted. I find myself in awe of the Bible, but simultaneously sickened by the way it has been used to consolidate moral/social power in the hands of an ordained few. I don't subscribe. In spite of that, I have grown up to be a respected, functioning member of American Society. But it would seem in Mr. Brooks view, I have no moral right or justification to join a tribe of like believers to try to shape the definition of what we are as Americans. Who am I to judge?
"Those accused of incorrect thought face ruinous consequences. When a moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes. If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned."
Does this sound a little like the increasingly puritanical, lockstep, eat-your-own GOP of the last 20 years or so? Thanks a lot, Ronald Reagan, for mainstreaming the venom.
Does this sound a little like the increasingly puritanical, lockstep, eat-your-own GOP of the last 20 years or so? Thanks a lot, Ronald Reagan, for mainstreaming the venom.
I think there are no permanent moral standards across the time continuum and never have been; just periods when little changed occurred. The rapid change is the result of the speed of communication in continuum.
1
The only way to win, in this war of culture, is to not play the game.
Dump Facebook, ignore twitter, shut your cell phone off when with friends, and read a book!
Dump Facebook, ignore twitter, shut your cell phone off when with friends, and read a book!
7
Something Brooks left out.
Up until the sixties the presumption was the college students, at least those under 21, were still minors and that the college acted "in loco parentis", supposedly helping the transition between life under parents and total adulthood. ( I know this was abused -- several years ago I read in the Times about a scandal where Ivy League colleges forced students to cooperate with crackpot experiments conducted by friends of the administrations). Now we have the opposite presumption -- that students at 18 are mature enough to do anything, including denouncing misfits on the Internet whenever they feel like it.
Up until the sixties the presumption was the college students, at least those under 21, were still minors and that the college acted "in loco parentis", supposedly helping the transition between life under parents and total adulthood. ( I know this was abused -- several years ago I read in the Times about a scandal where Ivy League colleges forced students to cooperate with crackpot experiments conducted by friends of the administrations). Now we have the opposite presumption -- that students at 18 are mature enough to do anything, including denouncing misfits on the Internet whenever they feel like it.
The biggest "shame culture" in our society is that of fundamentalist Christian conservatives. They do not permit points of view which are simply not Christian identified. "Christ died for your sins" and "by no other way but through me" are shame positions. The very concept of sin and redemption through faith makes guilt inappropriate to "salvation."
1
I'm not sure I see a new problem. People mostly have been followers, a path that requires less effort -- just chant the ongoing slogans -- and is socially and sometimes physically safer. Social media just makes conforming and rejecting more collective, easier and faster. However, it also commonly exposes the character of both the conformer and the rejected, just as the slower media did, for example, in the Alabama of Wallace's time.
As for college campuses, fads come and go. But at all times it's up to adults to help guide youthful enthusiasms in the direction of rational, considered, and dispassionate discourse, even when doing so is unpopular. What is shameful is to do otherwise.
As for college campuses, fads come and go. But at all times it's up to adults to help guide youthful enthusiasms in the direction of rational, considered, and dispassionate discourse, even when doing so is unpopular. What is shameful is to do otherwise.
There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd. the market is at work.
Thank you David Brooks for putting this thorny issue into clear, understandable terms. I've been spooked by what I've read about the knee-jerk moralism on college campuses over the past few years, which Mr. Brooks sums up in the following line:
It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along.
Much has been written about the Twitter mob, and it's the same phenomenon. It's the publicness of it that impresses me. The goal isn't to examine or debate an issue, but to be the first, loudest, or most clever embodiment of the party line, to author the devastating bon mot guaranteed to garner the most likes. What's so interesting is that there's no government determining what this should be, no Communist party demanding these gratuitous displays of loyalty. It is, to use a computer term, user generated.
I'd imagine guilt culture, where these feelings are kept more on the inside, depends on cultural hegemony. The prestige of church and state have to be high to effect guilt in the population at large. Now that government is fractured and increasingly ineffective, and the status of organized religion is uncertain in this country, the mob, with the help of the Internet, is filling the void.
It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along.
Much has been written about the Twitter mob, and it's the same phenomenon. It's the publicness of it that impresses me. The goal isn't to examine or debate an issue, but to be the first, loudest, or most clever embodiment of the party line, to author the devastating bon mot guaranteed to garner the most likes. What's so interesting is that there's no government determining what this should be, no Communist party demanding these gratuitous displays of loyalty. It is, to use a computer term, user generated.
I'd imagine guilt culture, where these feelings are kept more on the inside, depends on cultural hegemony. The prestige of church and state have to be high to effect guilt in the population at large. Now that government is fractured and increasingly ineffective, and the status of organized religion is uncertain in this country, the mob, with the help of the Internet, is filling the void.
Leaving aside the inaccuracy of the picture -- that college students "rush to social media to post when a moral crusade erupts" -- isn't the trouble --as Brooks would say in another context-- that we cannot bear to have our faults pointed out?
I guess our politicians missed the boat on this one. They have no shame.
"Crouch argues that the omnipresence of social media has created a new sort of shame culture....People dread being exiled and condemned. Moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion."
Exiled and condemned. My, how little has changed since the Church declared itself the arbiter of right and wrong! As if a bunch of guys from the Bronze Age had figured everything out, for all times. Ever wonder why the great mammals of North America or Russia never appear in the Bible? Well, that's because the folks that wrote the Bible never laid eyes on a musk ox, moose, elk, grizzly bear, walrus, raccoon, beaver or wolverine. The Bible they wrote is the perfect lens through which we can view their actual state of ignorance about the world they inhabited.
So David bemoans the rise of a new, intolerant culture, based on shame and exclusion. How is this any different from 2,000 years of the Catholic Church, where non-believers were routinely put to the sword or burned at the stake, in the name of "deeper and more permanent" morality? (The lucky ones were merely excommunicated.)
Here's a thought, David: forget about social media, and ask yourself why so many self-described "Christians" are flocking to the latest, more sinister version of your shame/exclusion culture: Donald Trump. Get out of the weeds and see the existential threat to American democracy. Hint: it ain't Facebook.
Exiled and condemned. My, how little has changed since the Church declared itself the arbiter of right and wrong! As if a bunch of guys from the Bronze Age had figured everything out, for all times. Ever wonder why the great mammals of North America or Russia never appear in the Bible? Well, that's because the folks that wrote the Bible never laid eyes on a musk ox, moose, elk, grizzly bear, walrus, raccoon, beaver or wolverine. The Bible they wrote is the perfect lens through which we can view their actual state of ignorance about the world they inhabited.
So David bemoans the rise of a new, intolerant culture, based on shame and exclusion. How is this any different from 2,000 years of the Catholic Church, where non-believers were routinely put to the sword or burned at the stake, in the name of "deeper and more permanent" morality? (The lucky ones were merely excommunicated.)
Here's a thought, David: forget about social media, and ask yourself why so many self-described "Christians" are flocking to the latest, more sinister version of your shame/exclusion culture: Donald Trump. Get out of the weeds and see the existential threat to American democracy. Hint: it ain't Facebook.
1
I knew my Masters degree would be useful someday! We used Ruth Benedict's "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword," in which she discusses shame culture and guilt culture, as an example of how NOT to study a culture. She wrote her book in 1946 in an attempt to explain how the people of Japan could support the war effort, how they could be our enemy.
However, there was a glaring flaw in Benedict's work: she never went to Japan. Instead she relied on newspaper articles, literature, films, and interviews. Her very questionable conclusions tell us far more about the mindset of wartime America than Japan. And she was dead wrong, since it turns out that Japanese people have a perfectly good inherent sense of right and wrong.
On the other hand, the "fame-shame" from Andy Crouch's article used to go by a different name: bullying. We also used to call groups of people gathered together and motivated by inchoate rage "mobs" rather than "Trump supporters."
However, there was a glaring flaw in Benedict's work: she never went to Japan. Instead she relied on newspaper articles, literature, films, and interviews. Her very questionable conclusions tell us far more about the mindset of wartime America than Japan. And she was dead wrong, since it turns out that Japanese people have a perfectly good inherent sense of right and wrong.
On the other hand, the "fame-shame" from Andy Crouch's article used to go by a different name: bullying. We also used to call groups of people gathered together and motivated by inchoate rage "mobs" rather than "Trump supporters."
There is nothing new under the sun.
1
Oh please. Shame culture? You mean shaming women to make babies? Or shaming black people because all lives matter more than theirs? Or shaming gay people not to walk into a county office because the clerk's religious beliefs them non-entities? Shaming Muslims because our President is one and they want to kill us all? Or shaming Mexicans because they come here and take our jobs? Political correctness is simply anybody-who-is-a-non-white-man asking for the respect has Mr. Brooks enjoyed every day of his entire life. Shame is a tool alright, it just doesn't work as well as it used to.
71
If the "shame culture" makes people think before they speak, if it enables one to react and respond without emotionally charged language, then it is working for the good. It is often the case for people to "pin a label' on something to which they disagree or otherwise against which they have an aversion. If concern for "political correctness" provides an imperative to consider carefully what one says, it might also moderate the language used in thought.
Consider the terms "disadvantages" and "freeloaders." One is an objective statement of fact, a statement of position against a norm; the other characterizes in a judgmental fashion, it is an epithet, although the circumstances that might have led to the condition is not known.
The Trump "campaign" serves to liberate people from the constraint of moderating emotional language with thoughtful language. The issue is not one of "political" correctness, but of correctness in description. It might not be emotionally satisfying to have to consider what one says before saying it, but it creates less harm without having a perceptible effect on the the subject of a remark.
By the way, en passant (I love my FRENCH fries), when Mitt Romney - the moderate, establishment voice in the Republican Party - referred to 47% of Americans as takers and freeloaders because they were too poor to pay income taxes, he was correctly criticized for a remark for which a Christian should be ashamed and shamed.
Consider the terms "disadvantages" and "freeloaders." One is an objective statement of fact, a statement of position against a norm; the other characterizes in a judgmental fashion, it is an epithet, although the circumstances that might have led to the condition is not known.
The Trump "campaign" serves to liberate people from the constraint of moderating emotional language with thoughtful language. The issue is not one of "political" correctness, but of correctness in description. It might not be emotionally satisfying to have to consider what one says before saying it, but it creates less harm without having a perceptible effect on the the subject of a remark.
By the way, en passant (I love my FRENCH fries), when Mitt Romney - the moderate, establishment voice in the Republican Party - referred to 47% of Americans as takers and freeloaders because they were too poor to pay income taxes, he was correctly criticized for a remark for which a Christian should be ashamed and shamed.
47
Good grief--shame has been a lever of control in American life forever. Until recently, people were made to feel ashamed for being gay, atheist, Black, single, and poor--just to list attributes that come quickly to mind.
One of the many admirable traits of today's young people is the graceful way they've gotten past so much of that baggage.
Modern university culture proscribes language of exclusion. It can be difficult--especially for the older faculty (like me)--to reconstruct our way of looking and thinking and speaking. But where speech contains shaming judgements, it needs to be relearned.
Yesterday, I ate my lunch on a commons at my university. Across the square, was a group of 8-10 students enjoying the sunny lunch break. They were male and female, white and non-white; one woman wore an Islamic headscarf; several of the men looked like athletes. There was laughter and horse play. They checked their text messages. Two of them seemed actually to be looking at class notes.
I was struck by how heterogeneous they were outwardly, but also by the easy, friendly way they meshed together. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
One of the many admirable traits of today's young people is the graceful way they've gotten past so much of that baggage.
Modern university culture proscribes language of exclusion. It can be difficult--especially for the older faculty (like me)--to reconstruct our way of looking and thinking and speaking. But where speech contains shaming judgements, it needs to be relearned.
Yesterday, I ate my lunch on a commons at my university. Across the square, was a group of 8-10 students enjoying the sunny lunch break. They were male and female, white and non-white; one woman wore an Islamic headscarf; several of the men looked like athletes. There was laughter and horse play. They checked their text messages. Two of them seemed actually to be looking at class notes.
I was struck by how heterogeneous they were outwardly, but also by the easy, friendly way they meshed together. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
2
"Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain."
And what text is this to which Mark Twain refers? The same one he describes as having "....some noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
God or some comparable version thereof, around the globe, was invented by man. Every culture, every civilization explained its existence in the technological language of its time and location. The absolutes that emerged from the desert Middle East were not those of Meso-America, or of the occupants of the island land masses of the Pacific, or Asia.
As man evolves and changes, so, too, do the control mechanisms that guide, or perhaps steer societies. What is essentially a myth text has been, and remains for many the easy way out. There is no need to explain, reason, justify any action, merely because "it says so in the bible." Thinking is not only not optional, it is in essence forbidden.
The difference between guilt and shame is the difference between Blue Bell's Homemade Vanilla and Natural Vanilla Bean ice creams.
And what text is this to which Mark Twain refers? The same one he describes as having "....some noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
God or some comparable version thereof, around the globe, was invented by man. Every culture, every civilization explained its existence in the technological language of its time and location. The absolutes that emerged from the desert Middle East were not those of Meso-America, or of the occupants of the island land masses of the Pacific, or Asia.
As man evolves and changes, so, too, do the control mechanisms that guide, or perhaps steer societies. What is essentially a myth text has been, and remains for many the easy way out. There is no need to explain, reason, justify any action, merely because "it says so in the bible." Thinking is not only not optional, it is in essence forbidden.
The difference between guilt and shame is the difference between Blue Bell's Homemade Vanilla and Natural Vanilla Bean ice creams.
1
I suggest two of the most important areas of thought and action in our lives are aesthetic judgment and moral judgment. Each is important in constructing a "considered way of life."
With respect to aesthetic judgment, it breaks down into: the arts, nature and transcendent order. I believe its power helps to link science, faith and eternal values as reasoned in philosophy. With respect to moral judgment, it consists, in part, of trying to find meaning in our day-to-day lives. I strongly believe we can find this meaning through a set of values including: respect for self and others; kindness; fairness for each and every person; and self-reliance, to the extent one has the capacity and opportunity to exercise it.
I offer that a structure formed through development of these dual judgments carries more insight than ever changing, subjective cultural standards.
With respect to aesthetic judgment, it breaks down into: the arts, nature and transcendent order. I believe its power helps to link science, faith and eternal values as reasoned in philosophy. With respect to moral judgment, it consists, in part, of trying to find meaning in our day-to-day lives. I strongly believe we can find this meaning through a set of values including: respect for self and others; kindness; fairness for each and every person; and self-reliance, to the extent one has the capacity and opportunity to exercise it.
I offer that a structure formed through development of these dual judgments carries more insight than ever changing, subjective cultural standards.
Bloom's thesis wasn't even accurate at the time. It was, in itself, a work of easy generalizing and subjective moralizing. I do not know when Mr. Brooks grew up, but the so-called shame culture of the 1970's was nothing compared to the shame culture of the 1950's. The sort of "pop" criticism that he gives us sheds little light on what is a complicated social and cultural milieu and completely ignores the role of media and technology in creating a mass pseudo-culture of outrage and entertainment.
1
Social Media is a vehicle that allows powerless initiates to to feel moral vindication. It is mob-think. It allows people to carry a chip on their shoulder to move freely in and out in out as they will and to harm others without the harmed person having any recourse. The more the crowd joins in on the assault the less the person(s) are likely to be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves or the less likely their explanations are going to be allowed a platform. The troll, what the personality of a perpetrator is called, is on the constant hunt for a victim; which is why they move in an out of different social medias. They usually have a small group of disciples who readily join force once the troll appears. They feel no shame for what damage they are causing to either the victim of choice or the society they are manipulating. They cannot be reasoned with and they are incapable of feeling shame or guilt. When a social system begins following them, they are the same. Avoiding them or turning away from a troll (bully) justifies their attack in their own mind. That is why what is on the internet (social medias) should stay on the internet and not moved into anyone's actual day to day life. You can bet your last dollar that not a single bully in life or in social media has ever felt the slightest twinge of guilt for any thing they have ever done that caused someone to suicide or lose their job or be forced to move. They feel vindicated and powerful instead and are brazened.
1
Perpetual insecurity comes from income insecurity. Full stop.
Another wasted column.
Another wasted column.
2
We will adapt. We will develop thicker skins, and we will teach our children to think and say "I've been called worse by better."
Post an unpopular view on an ideological blog, and you, too, can be called an idiot by idiots. Then read Richard Feynman's book "What do you care what other people think?" Granted, Prof. Feynman's brain worked especially well, but his message is one of assertiveness, not arrogance.
The mean girls don't have to win, and, after awhile, they won't.
Post an unpopular view on an ideological blog, and you, too, can be called an idiot by idiots. Then read Richard Feynman's book "What do you care what other people think?" Granted, Prof. Feynman's brain worked especially well, but his message is one of assertiveness, not arrogance.
The mean girls don't have to win, and, after awhile, they won't.
3
What's not mentioned is this column is that the moral judgment in vogue on college campuses today is at complete odds with the meritocracy of the business world that students graduate into. Students held in high esteem by their peers for their campus activism on behalf of politically correct causes will find themselves ignored by corporate recruiters who are seeking employees with a relevant degree and good grades.
1
There are some interesting points here. Why have I gotten off almost all social media (except for the NYT comment section!)? Because I think a constant or even frequent presence on social media brings out the worst in me: self-righteousness, the desire to be heard above others, too much interest in sounding clever and/or right. Yes, these are human weaknesses that we all share and can come up at any time, but I still feel that most social media somehow goads us to get up on our soapbox. We are all ranting at one another and making snap judgments at breakneck speeds. And look what social media does to a political campaign. It jacks everybody up and dumbs everybody down.
2
What our Twitter society lacks is the ability to make distinctions in how we show moral outrage and what we get outraged over. The situation in Flint is most definitely something which deserves our collective moral outrage. Children were quite literally poisoned by the callous indifference of their elected leaders. It's evidence of the systematic racism and classism that still exists in how our government treats its citizens. But when every perceived sight becomes cause for a declaration of a micro aggression, then I believe it lessons our ability to be outraged at Flint and come together to solve it.
Brooks is right that shame and guilt have made a comeback. This is because they are powerful emotions, and they are good for us when they show us how our behavior has gone wrong. But they can be unhealthy as well; especially when they are multiplied in such a way that all feelings of joy and exploration are crowded out of society and the individual. In all things balance. And whatever our society is in 2016, it's most definitely unbalanced.
Brooks is right that shame and guilt have made a comeback. This is because they are powerful emotions, and they are good for us when they show us how our behavior has gone wrong. But they can be unhealthy as well; especially when they are multiplied in such a way that all feelings of joy and exploration are crowded out of society and the individual. In all things balance. And whatever our society is in 2016, it's most definitely unbalanced.
1
I must be missing something here in his distinction between the good old guilt culture and current shame culture "social media has created." Have these guys never heard of exile, banishment, and Hester Prynne?
Greets Mr. Brooks,
Agree about atomization. Think that's part of the physics description of complex systems: Variation, Interaction, Selection, Repeat. But yes, we do need cultural infrastructure that allows the whole to retain its structural, functional integrity.
Re moral code, going bigger picture, to the function of code in a physics / evolution context.
“The story of human intelligence starts with a universe that is capable of encoding information.” Ray Kurzweil – How to Create a Mind
So shame culture? K, one variation.
Here's some culture code variation for movement along the eusocial spectrum, i.e., some infrastructure for our transition to the global super organism that's in process, and as big as the transition from hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of AGRI-culture, cities, city-states, etc.
Here's a fractal-based econ app:
http://ow.ly/Zny2a
This could be part of its info processing infrastructure?
http://ow.ly/ZttJY
Agree about atomization. Think that's part of the physics description of complex systems: Variation, Interaction, Selection, Repeat. But yes, we do need cultural infrastructure that allows the whole to retain its structural, functional integrity.
Re moral code, going bigger picture, to the function of code in a physics / evolution context.
“The story of human intelligence starts with a universe that is capable of encoding information.” Ray Kurzweil – How to Create a Mind
So shame culture? K, one variation.
Here's some culture code variation for movement along the eusocial spectrum, i.e., some infrastructure for our transition to the global super organism that's in process, and as big as the transition from hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of AGRI-culture, cities, city-states, etc.
Here's a fractal-based econ app:
http://ow.ly/Zny2a
This could be part of its info processing infrastructure?
http://ow.ly/ZttJY
1
We have always lived in a shame culture. The Pilgrims were apparently very good at as were "Whites"and anti-semites. Try being fat in middle school in any era. Or a pregnant teen regardless of the "how".
Yes, two thing has changed: The SEEMING pervasiveness on even traditionally liberal college campuses. And the quikness with which news reports have made national a llocalized instance of stupidity on the part of administrators or a group of students, or more commonly, both.
This is not to minimize the problem, much less excuse it. However, keeping in mind the historical context may help point to both better placement of the shame and of steps to aleviate the problem.
Yes, two thing has changed: The SEEMING pervasiveness on even traditionally liberal college campuses. And the quikness with which news reports have made national a llocalized instance of stupidity on the part of administrators or a group of students, or more commonly, both.
This is not to minimize the problem, much less excuse it. However, keeping in mind the historical context may help point to both better placement of the shame and of steps to aleviate the problem.
1
America has a long history with "shame culture". I think of the Puritans and their stocks in the public square. Salem witch trials come to mind. Especially the First Great Awakening and the effect of Jonathon Edwards sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Since the Confederacy felt no guilt regarding the institution of slavery, did the Civil War arise out of a clash of opposing "shame cultures"? American authors have given voice to our "shame cultures"; e.g. Nathaniel Hawthorne, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Faulkner to name a few. In the 20th century we had Prohibition and its ending, the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Civil Rights Movement which gained momentum by shaming segregationists before the nation in the media. This history makes one wonder if Americans, especially our leaders feel guilt, can repent and move in a new direction (without violence), and give and receive grace.
Contemporary social media shaming is just one manifestation of an intellectual Great Leap Backward. The less well-educated the citizens and the more nannyish the government, the less their economic opportunity, the poorer their achievement and self-confidence, and the greater the role of the collective. Social media is a natural platform for culture-wide conversations, perfect for revealing our national state of arrested philosophical development. Rap? Poseurs as artists? Trump? Safe spaces? Personal moral codes enshrined as law because one's gang won an election? I agree with Brooks about guilt vs shame, but the pressing issue is: Why a shame culture?
1
My millennial daughter is acutely sensitive to racial undertones, political correctedness, which were further sharpened attending a liberal arts college in SoCal where most of her classmates seemed to be left of left. Coming from the east coast state of MA, a liberal and progressive state, but growing up in a mostly lily white wealthy suburb, she found herself shockingly naive and unexposed to the kind of diversity she found on campuses on the west coast. She is outspoken, prolific in her exchanges with her fellow like minded folks, donating to Black Lives Matter, organization for black struggle, and to the causes of Farm workers in CA and Fl. We often tease her that she lives in an alternate universe, but are amazed at how well represented and nuanced and diverse that universe is. We are dumbfounded, and according to her, our education has not even begun.
51
David you seem to put a lot of power behind this movement - barely 5 years old, and mostly existing only in college campuses. Of course Christianity Today is worried - that periodical is worried any time religion generally and Christianity in particular loses its grip on power in our country. If you really think social media is going to dramatically alter human morality, I think you may be confused.
Poppycock. Mr. Brooks offers little evidence that such cultures, which he describes in his usual Manichean way, exist to any significant degree. The do not on my Facebook account. Possibly on Donald Trump's Tweets? Bloom's book on the closing American mind offered a similar anecdotal social commentary and was soon forgotten. Mr. Brooks will soon right another column about how some latest headline shows liberalism is taking us down the road to perdition.
I am only reasonably conversant with social media, but your column certainly resonates with me. I have two daughters attending college at a national university known for its excellence. Every comment seems to be judged by a uniform standard of acceptability. Those who disagree are persecuted and excluded in a way far more extreme than campuses during the Vietnam war. As if this were not enough, the concept of academic debate and free exchange of ideas seem foreign on campus. Slogans have replaced analysis and nuance. I am sad.
2
Mr. Brooks, you must now apply your point to the political morass we and especially your party birthed. Shame culture has dragged Republican politicians and cam
paigns increasingly towards an unforgiving right wing. The party's inability to distinguish and speak to guilt has created a black hole of shame which has enveloped constituents in a bizarre political correctness that extolls the virtue of values that are far from virtuous. So as you watch your party drift rightward and embrace Trump and Cruz and Rubio do you feel guilt for having been a facilitator or shame because there is a sufficient cohort of moderate Republicans still willing to stand up to the worst Trump excesses while preserving the myth of a responsible compassionate GoP? For shame....
paigns increasingly towards an unforgiving right wing. The party's inability to distinguish and speak to guilt has created a black hole of shame which has enveloped constituents in a bizarre political correctness that extolls the virtue of values that are far from virtuous. So as you watch your party drift rightward and embrace Trump and Cruz and Rubio do you feel guilt for having been a facilitator or shame because there is a sufficient cohort of moderate Republicans still willing to stand up to the worst Trump excesses while preserving the myth of a responsible compassionate GoP? For shame....
Your own commitment to a personal moral life should be your guiding light.
The idea of being a member of a group of thinkers, believing otherwise, would only undermine your own values when you discover they are wrong.
The idea of being a member of a group of thinkers, believing otherwise, would only undermine your own values when you discover they are wrong.
You know what helps? Not giving a hoot about what other people think about you. I've lived most of my life that way and it is really refreshing. I know I am a decent human being. I do treat people the way I would like to be treated. And I absolutely abhorr people who exhude moral superiority. All that 'Morality' out there is just a thinly veiled attempt to control people. I don't buy into that nonsense that the religions spout. They're soley in business to control people, women in particular. I reject the guilt culture of the religious establishments, as well as the shame culture of whataever social media is used to shame people. Just remember, nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission.
3
While there may be some universal 'truths' In the static world of 2000 or even 5000 year old ideas, it is not hard to see the erosion around the edges.
The difference now is that humans have transitioned to build machines that can not only lift and carry more deeper and further, but to build electronic machines that can sense, calculate, remember, and 'think' well beyond the speeds, capacities, and distance limits of our biological envelope.
Morality is fungible, and as with all things in nature, it will adapt or perish.
The difference now is that humans have transitioned to build machines that can not only lift and carry more deeper and further, but to build electronic machines that can sense, calculate, remember, and 'think' well beyond the speeds, capacities, and distance limits of our biological envelope.
Morality is fungible, and as with all things in nature, it will adapt or perish.
The absolute best concise essay on this ballooning problem I have read to date. A complete shift in behaviors and expectations. Thank you!
The current shame culture on campuses seems devoted to protecting extreme language and behavior outside the norm rather than encouraging behavior that supports community. That's the disturbing difference.
1
Where social media has destroyed the social structure -- no one has as many friends as they think they have, they aren't the friends people once had, and true friends, true friendships, are rarely if ever established anymore because they aren't given the time; they aren't forged through the hardship and errors and experiences, the misunderstandings and forgiveness, that make true and lasting friendships. Before it ever gets that far, you just dump that "friend" for someone else -- someone, no doubt, who thinks you look great, I mean: do you even age?
1
I have long believed that shame is the cruelest of actions. Pushed to the extremes it can only lead to suicide or homicide. Shame has never rehabilitated anyone only left them with seething anger and pushed some of them to strike out at others.
Free trade was supposed to make China more like us, and probably it has to some extent.
So why didn't it dawn on these prognosticators that free trade and globalization might also make us more like them?
Consider the falling wages and the articles in recent days about the rise of an authoritarian strain in American socio-politics.
And now this article, in which David posits a virtual Cultural Revolution based on the Eastern concept of shame and using social media instead of struggle sessions.
Yes, maybe we are becoming more like them too.
So why didn't it dawn on these prognosticators that free trade and globalization might also make us more like them?
Consider the falling wages and the articles in recent days about the rise of an authoritarian strain in American socio-politics.
And now this article, in which David posits a virtual Cultural Revolution based on the Eastern concept of shame and using social media instead of struggle sessions.
Yes, maybe we are becoming more like them too.
I found this column to be a little scattered, but the subject is kind of confusing and can't be simplified. (Can any subject?--but it's what so many try to do.)
We all want to be accepted by some group - could be a small group - as we are social creatures with an inborn need to belong. This is why ostracizing, shunning, solitary confinement, bullying especially in the form of exclusion, can drive someone to suicide. This is powerful stuff, not academic theory.
I think the parents of these young people grew up and raised their kids in a Sesame Street world, where everyone should love everyone, be nice all the time, and hug a lot. Perhaps they weren't taught how to argue, even fight, and come out of it okay. Now there is real fear of identity loss when faced with the other, because one hasn't learned to live with the other.
This is where the rage against political correctness comes in, where Trump's supporters like that he says what he thinks. They are sick and tired of watching every word they say - as am I (I'm a Hilary fanatic, by the way.) I too would like the freedom to say some things in anger, and then perhaps backtrack, or perhaps not. I would like the freedom to not only have, but express some possibly unpopular views. I think this is the largest reason Trump has garnered such huge support.
We all want to be accepted by some group - could be a small group - as we are social creatures with an inborn need to belong. This is why ostracizing, shunning, solitary confinement, bullying especially in the form of exclusion, can drive someone to suicide. This is powerful stuff, not academic theory.
I think the parents of these young people grew up and raised their kids in a Sesame Street world, where everyone should love everyone, be nice all the time, and hug a lot. Perhaps they weren't taught how to argue, even fight, and come out of it okay. Now there is real fear of identity loss when faced with the other, because one hasn't learned to live with the other.
This is where the rage against political correctness comes in, where Trump's supporters like that he says what he thinks. They are sick and tired of watching every word they say - as am I (I'm a Hilary fanatic, by the way.) I too would like the freedom to say some things in anger, and then perhaps backtrack, or perhaps not. I would like the freedom to not only have, but express some possibly unpopular views. I think this is the largest reason Trump has garnered such huge support.
Bloom was accurate that: "Subjective personal values had replaced universal moral principles."
Universal moral principals are the polar opposite of self-righteous moral judgment. The former unites and fosters civility. The latter divides and incites violence.
Bloom also pointed out how closed the American mind would be come intellectually. So we have no common universal moral principles and a very limited capacity to assimilate facts, analyze them and reason. What a striking resemblance to the GOP and its followers.
The combination is lethal poison for democracy and civil society. Witness the
"stand-your-ground" vigilantism, "got-to-have-my own-gun" culture, and the subjective vitriolic fabrications all over the campaign trail.
This “closed-shut” mind set has also allowed for the GOP’s over-promotion of the self and use of demagogic-like, feel-good specious sound bites – all of which began in earnest with Reagan's jingoism and the "there-you-go-again" denigration of the collective, and it has now culminated into the closed-minded frenzy we witness at Trump rallies.
Universal moral principals are the polar opposite of self-righteous moral judgment. The former unites and fosters civility. The latter divides and incites violence.
Bloom also pointed out how closed the American mind would be come intellectually. So we have no common universal moral principles and a very limited capacity to assimilate facts, analyze them and reason. What a striking resemblance to the GOP and its followers.
The combination is lethal poison for democracy and civil society. Witness the
"stand-your-ground" vigilantism, "got-to-have-my own-gun" culture, and the subjective vitriolic fabrications all over the campaign trail.
This “closed-shut” mind set has also allowed for the GOP’s over-promotion of the self and use of demagogic-like, feel-good specious sound bites – all of which began in earnest with Reagan's jingoism and the "there-you-go-again" denigration of the collective, and it has now culminated into the closed-minded frenzy we witness at Trump rallies.
1
The shame culture resides squarely and deeply within the Republican Party: a member of the Congress calling the President a liar during the State of the Union Address; the most popular Republican presidential candidate essentially carding the President for ID - not unlike the universal practice of requesting "working papers" from southern Blacks who ended up in chain gangs for being unemployed; the cordons of shame outside abortion clinics, not to mention forced ultrasounds of pregnant women; etc. And then the shameless discourse between Rubio and Trump over one another’s manhood.
College students may overreact to so-called micro-aggressions that occur on campus, but the hyper shaming, shameful and shameless bully racism, xenophobia and misogyny characterizing the current Republican Party is a macro aggression upon the entire country that cannot be shamed enough.
College students may overreact to so-called micro-aggressions that occur on campus, but the hyper shaming, shameful and shameless bully racism, xenophobia and misogyny characterizing the current Republican Party is a macro aggression upon the entire country that cannot be shamed enough.
2
This essay--which seems (I am not theologian or psychologist) seems remarkably on target. Relying on public, civic, behavior as a check on behavior is a valuable way to remind people that they are not relativistic monads. In 1974 Richard Sennett wrote similarly but without the religious overtones in "The Fall of Public Man." Put simply, we no longer know how to behave in public because boundaries between private and public were blurring. For that generation, it seemed more authentic to express an inward self no matter how corrosive it was to our social fabric. More than ever we need to be civil in our treat of and discourse with others. Few of our leaders on either side are good role models. Above all else, and this is just my own thinking, social media allow a new type of cruelty and piling on to occur. The great Canadian communication theorist, Harold Innis, noted more than a half a century ago that mechanical communication can be very, very cruel. We don't "see" those we hurt.
Interesting column, Mr. Brooks. I wonder what your True North, your vision of ultimate good is. The one worth defending at risk of ridicule and exclusion from the avatar of the shame culture, the Republican Party. You know, the ones for whom you have been carrying water for decades.
This is rich. Usually David Brooks bemoans the fact that Americans are increasingly rejecting organized religion. He often warns of the moral decay individuals face when they don't have the community to enforce their moral code. He pines for the days when people knew right from wrong and strove for a greater moral purpose as defined by the religious sect that claimed them as members.
Today he is unhappy with the idea of a community enforcing moral norms through shame. He claims it's because he doesn't like the shame. But really it's because he doesn't like the community.
Social norms have always been enforced in a community by shame, by exclusion. And though they may seem foreign to Brooks, the new norms are based on deep standards of justice and virtue. Primarily the Golden Rule.
Today he is unhappy with the idea of a community enforcing moral norms through shame. He claims it's because he doesn't like the shame. But really it's because he doesn't like the community.
Social norms have always been enforced in a community by shame, by exclusion. And though they may seem foreign to Brooks, the new norms are based on deep standards of justice and virtue. Primarily the Golden Rule.
1
There's nothing novel about this "culture". It's called "high school".
2
Generally I am on the side of progress, particularly technological change, which I believe has made our lives so much more liveable. Having said that, I have avoided membership in any form of social media, which, from what I can gather from listening to my children talk and almost everyone around me, was a wise decision.
1
The culture is dictated by public responsibility. Is the public responsible for assisting in a national disaster, education, and domestic abuse. The jerks that are amusing until they need to discuss an issue, where they burst into mob violence, are not concerned about shame or guilt. They are from the church of the man, where they have long ruled through isolation, abuse, poor law enforcement and lack of oversight.
These are the guys that will go home tonight and abuse their families. This is common and we have been blinded to bad behavior. They are the product of a feudal system that wants to reassert itself. It would be nice if they had a public policy, but they don't.
These are the guys that will go home tonight and abuse their families. This is common and we have been blinded to bad behavior. They are the product of a feudal system that wants to reassert itself. It would be nice if they had a public policy, but they don't.
Amen, David.
We live in a moment when culture has embraced "The Scarlet Tweet."
We live in a moment when culture has embraced "The Scarlet Tweet."
It is an accurate description of the Republican party since the Reagan administration. What the activity on the internet is, due to its speed and connectivity of the masses, is that it happens with the involvement of many people in a short amount of time. What is known as "viral" in the parlance of the day.
The Republicans have been using the inclusion exclusion in extreme since Nixon, Atwater, Rove, Gingrich and of course the mighty Tea Partyers. Oh where oh where are the moderate Republicans? There have been periods of time that the Congress acted in bad manners, physical assaults, guns in their pockets, violent verbal exchanges.
Your comment that this current behavior includes responses of the most violent without any reference as to what is the character and nature of this violence, is, in itself, a most violent statement presented with no authenticity.
I find your assumption that the moral life of those participating is based on inclusion and exclusion with no continuum of right and wrong yet another violent attack from you without example or antidotal presentation of evidence. You are presenting your unsubstantiated beliefs. You are focusing on a broad band of people with your fallacy that the judgement of their inclusive or exclusive culture is not based on right and wrong.
I believe their decisions are based on a right and wrong sense of the world. You may not agree of their point of view.
The GOP has been acting with no sense of right or wrong for decades.
The Republicans have been using the inclusion exclusion in extreme since Nixon, Atwater, Rove, Gingrich and of course the mighty Tea Partyers. Oh where oh where are the moderate Republicans? There have been periods of time that the Congress acted in bad manners, physical assaults, guns in their pockets, violent verbal exchanges.
Your comment that this current behavior includes responses of the most violent without any reference as to what is the character and nature of this violence, is, in itself, a most violent statement presented with no authenticity.
I find your assumption that the moral life of those participating is based on inclusion and exclusion with no continuum of right and wrong yet another violent attack from you without example or antidotal presentation of evidence. You are presenting your unsubstantiated beliefs. You are focusing on a broad band of people with your fallacy that the judgement of their inclusive or exclusive culture is not based on right and wrong.
I believe their decisions are based on a right and wrong sense of the world. You may not agree of their point of view.
The GOP has been acting with no sense of right or wrong for decades.
Right and wrong are cultural creations, as the culture changes, so do the rules. Adapt or go extinct.
This column is really a conservative diatribe disguised as objective sociology. Brooks makes no effort to hide the fact that he is for old-fashioned "morality" that knows its "right" from its "wrong." The problem is he doesn't mention how class-protective, race-protective and gender-protective that old duality could be. "Poor" meant unwashed and lazy. Black meant childlike and primitive. Female meant subordinate to what males said was best. You were on some level shameful because of an accident of birth. I've noticed that some of the commenters here assign their usual blame for our present "culture of shame" to those dreaded creatures called "liberals." They have understood the implications of Brooks' screed.
2
David does a fine job of highlighting a phenomenon on some college campuses and other specialized spaces. Of course, as with most of his social science lectures, it's overly simplistic. The right has always assumed that the moral values it possess and espouses are good, true and have God's favor. As a result, those on the left were not advocating a "system" as such, but rather a deviation; "subjective personal values" designed to justify anything. Now we see the backlash: a different set of universal moral principles just as non-negotiable as the ones they replaced and, ironically, it's those on the right who have suddenly discovered mercy, tolerance and inclusion. What goes around comes around.
1
"The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree..."
if you disagree with inclusion and tolerance, then you are wrong! So much of the backlash against "pc culture" just looks to me like people missing their "right" to look down on people of color or lgbt folks or whoever. Just because your backwards ideas are mostly rejected on college campuses (and even more in the workplace) doesn't mean you are being denied your right to be heard, it means your ideas are flawed. Nobody has an obligation to indulge wrong headed ideas - tolerance and inclusion don't need to extend that far.
if you disagree with inclusion and tolerance, then you are wrong! So much of the backlash against "pc culture" just looks to me like people missing their "right" to look down on people of color or lgbt folks or whoever. Just because your backwards ideas are mostly rejected on college campuses (and even more in the workplace) doesn't mean you are being denied your right to be heard, it means your ideas are flawed. Nobody has an obligation to indulge wrong headed ideas - tolerance and inclusion don't need to extend that far.
53
What he is referring to is inclusion and tolerance have seemingly disappeared not when it comes to race / sexual orientation but those with thoughts different than the majority, especially on social media.
This comment is a superb example of what Brooks is talking about--the self-righteous belief that your beliefs are true and correct, and anyone who disagrees should be shamed, without discussion, or, as in your comment, thru ad hominem or straw man fallacies. Obviously you're ignorant of the events taking place on campus, where even a question about the content of one's beliefs, or using a word like "American", or "melting pot," are construed as a "microaggression."
What new moral system? All I see is the same old game being played out in a more public arena. When people didn't have the means to communicate things as quickly as they do now there was room for forgiveness, starting over, understanding that people grow and change. Now all we here about is a person's immature actions when they were a young adult or a teenager and how they can't change because that's what's online about them. Politicians accuse each other of flip flops on opinions without realizing that they, just like normal Americans, do grow and change. People can't outrun their own bad publicity.
As far as attention getting behavior goes, have you looked at how much is ignored until it's too late? People in America are angry that they work hard and get nowhere. People are running out of patience while the GOP runs its collective mouth off about nonsense and does nothing. In fact Lord Brooks, you have shilled for this party. You are one of the ones who ought to be very, very ashamed of yourself. You have done quite well out of your advertising for the GOP. Now you're trying to ignore the fact that your support has led to the quite viable candidacy of a Donald Trump. The GOP has come too late to the emotion of shame. The GOP has been and continues to be a party of bullies, liars, narcissists, popinjays, misanthropes, misogynists, and bigots. Nothing you write can hide the fact that you are part and parcel of this whole thing.
As far as attention getting behavior goes, have you looked at how much is ignored until it's too late? People in America are angry that they work hard and get nowhere. People are running out of patience while the GOP runs its collective mouth off about nonsense and does nothing. In fact Lord Brooks, you have shilled for this party. You are one of the ones who ought to be very, very ashamed of yourself. You have done quite well out of your advertising for the GOP. Now you're trying to ignore the fact that your support has led to the quite viable candidacy of a Donald Trump. The GOP has come too late to the emotion of shame. The GOP has been and continues to be a party of bullies, liars, narcissists, popinjays, misanthropes, misogynists, and bigots. Nothing you write can hide the fact that you are part and parcel of this whole thing.
3
People are too quick to jump on the bandwagon and make public their thoughts before they have had a chance to fully develop them. They follow the herd as a matter of expedience and to provide cover for their haste.
Privacy, intimacy and introspection will make a comeback.
And you don't need an app for that.
1
Are you certain that the shame culture is a real thing?
I'm somewhat persuaded that we live in an era characterized by glamorization of violating group norms, even resistance to the notion of group norms themselves.
In the aftermath of a generation of endless, pointless Middle East wars -- sold to Americans as some sort of moral imperative -- perhaps US society has merely embraced the notion of vigorously challenging any and all thinking. Perhaps Brooks is mistaking challenge itself for suppression of speech?
I'm somewhat persuaded that we live in an era characterized by glamorization of violating group norms, even resistance to the notion of group norms themselves.
In the aftermath of a generation of endless, pointless Middle East wars -- sold to Americans as some sort of moral imperative -- perhaps US society has merely embraced the notion of vigorously challenging any and all thinking. Perhaps Brooks is mistaking challenge itself for suppression of speech?
"College campuses are today awash in moral judgment" - Is this a very subtle call to "these college kids are too damn politically correct these days"? I can't think of any other reason why Brooks would try to make this article specific to college campuses, besides the possibility that he believes college campuses are the best indicator of where morality stands in the rest of the country (they're not). Or it could be that this article isn't that specific to college campuses at all, given that he says the word "college" once in the entire article and provides no specific examples of social media moral shaming that has affected actual students.
More troubling is Brooks' references to the Crouch article - in one sentence, he describes the online attacks on "mostly women" by video game fans as vicious in order to fit them in to his characterization of social media as a shame culture. The events he is describing are called Gamergate and they had nothing to do with shame - the "vicious attacks" were literally terrorist threats against these women. To compare actual terrorism to the effects of social media on campus, which he does - vaguely - in the next sentence is a gross mis-characterization.
Brooks demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding of the role that internet conversations (not just "social media") play in our society as a whole, and his ultimate point rings hollow as yet another degrading, nearly anthropological judgment of kids these days.
More troubling is Brooks' references to the Crouch article - in one sentence, he describes the online attacks on "mostly women" by video game fans as vicious in order to fit them in to his characterization of social media as a shame culture. The events he is describing are called Gamergate and they had nothing to do with shame - the "vicious attacks" were literally terrorist threats against these women. To compare actual terrorism to the effects of social media on campus, which he does - vaguely - in the next sentence is a gross mis-characterization.
Brooks demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding of the role that internet conversations (not just "social media") play in our society as a whole, and his ultimate point rings hollow as yet another degrading, nearly anthropological judgment of kids these days.
I basically agree Brooks' observation, and have enormous respect for the youth I encounter who reject the demands of social media by not participating in its rituals. It requires serious individualistic thought and moral courage to become and remain an "outlier" not subject to the "shame" of a some digital hierarchy.
This new shame culture is part of the reason Bernie Sanders is so popular on college campuses and among young voters. The increased desire to "fit in" described in this column is the same desire that promotes the shaming of those who don't agree with the majority. Often without engaging in much worthwhile discussion, political outsiders of college campuses - many of them young republicans - are labeled as wrong on social media platforms. Many young and undecided voters are encouraged to fall in line with the majority instead of thinking it out and forming their own opinion. Although it is truly an effective tool of that the youth is using to politicize their friends, and turn them into supporters of their chosen candidate, but this use of the shame culture is deteriorating one of the most important pillars of our democracy - independent thought.
Social media is amusing, it can on occasion be thought provoking and informational. But in the end its a scatter diagram of opinion, and if we remember that everyone has one, and keep a skeptical eye out while avoiding a suspension of disbelief, we'll all be safe and happy.
Unfortunately that doesn't always happen and too often social media are where we validate our own world views (however right or wrong) and then we are no more than a MOB. Its not a shame culture, its an ignorant destructive culture.
David forgets that its the teaching of the Liberal Arts & Sciences that keep us from this error. Its not political correctness - its political awareness constructed within an awareness of self in the company of others, e.g. society
Margaret Thatcher was wrong when she said there is no society only individuals. The Donald is providing an object lesson on how well that works.
Unfortunately that doesn't always happen and too often social media are where we validate our own world views (however right or wrong) and then we are no more than a MOB. Its not a shame culture, its an ignorant destructive culture.
David forgets that its the teaching of the Liberal Arts & Sciences that keep us from this error. Its not political correctness - its political awareness constructed within an awareness of self in the company of others, e.g. society
Margaret Thatcher was wrong when she said there is no society only individuals. The Donald is providing an object lesson on how well that works.
2
This seems like a fairly ridiculous, unsubstantiated, load of drivel. There have always been college kids who get sucked into an all consuming moral cause whether it be, Save the Whales, Free Tibet, occupy Wall Street or protesting the war in Vietnam. The only difference with social media in the modern age is the relative ease of becoming involved. It's a heck of a lot simpler to send a tweet, and earn a sense of belonging, than it is to occupy an administrative building or burn a draft card. Furthermore, because social media is significantly less effective and less subtle than in person dialogue, every communique requires an exclamation mark! Anything less than a shrill scream would likely be ignored.
The real question is do the majority of the students that become involved with these movements de jour "really" feel shame if they don't send a tweet... my guess is they don't, at least not really, it's too easy to be group promiscuous or transient to ever really capture shame. True shame culture requires a longevity and a persistence and a fear of disappointing the defined collective. None of these groups can dream of aspiring to that. Instilling shame requires long memory.... which has seemingly ceased to exist in our current culture. If a group becomes inconvenient or a student is shunned; well, there are hundreds of more groups to turn to without even having to leave the comfort of your dorm room. That's not shame culture. It's something else entirely.
The real question is do the majority of the students that become involved with these movements de jour "really" feel shame if they don't send a tweet... my guess is they don't, at least not really, it's too easy to be group promiscuous or transient to ever really capture shame. True shame culture requires a longevity and a persistence and a fear of disappointing the defined collective. None of these groups can dream of aspiring to that. Instilling shame requires long memory.... which has seemingly ceased to exist in our current culture. If a group becomes inconvenient or a student is shunned; well, there are hundreds of more groups to turn to without even having to leave the comfort of your dorm room. That's not shame culture. It's something else entirely.
40
I think there is an important point that you overlook here. Namely, the influence of social media in directing the chosen moral cause. Say, for example, a person with 200 facebook friends posts about how she recently joined the Save the Whales campaign. If this post receives no likes, that is likely to influence subsequent participation. This kind of exertion of power through silence is very interesting, at least to me. It actually thrives on short memory, and it is probably more effective than in- person dialog because the approval of the social organism is now more important than the opinion of any one individual.
12
I actually wrote a philosophical rebuttal on Bloom's book at the book but I don't know where it is now. Perhaps I was a bit bias by then when I was knee deep in social trenches - I was a hotline volunteer and trainer - and I got to see what could happen to people when misfortunes happened.
I have no changed my mind. Circumstances can do strange things to people, even when they are mature enough to withstand the shock. So a lot of times right and wrong is circumstantial.
That said, while I abhor the shame culture and the mob mentality - there are a lot of social media lynching going on on Facebook and Twitter - there are also a lot of sanctioned conventionality disguised as morality and they mustn't be tolerated. You don't fight right wing extremists with left wing extremists. You banish them both with compassion and empathy; but if they don't listen, then pragmatism and the rule of laws must follow to they logical end. That is why SCOTUS is so important and mustn't be controlled or influenced by the extremists
I have no changed my mind. Circumstances can do strange things to people, even when they are mature enough to withstand the shock. So a lot of times right and wrong is circumstantial.
That said, while I abhor the shame culture and the mob mentality - there are a lot of social media lynching going on on Facebook and Twitter - there are also a lot of sanctioned conventionality disguised as morality and they mustn't be tolerated. You don't fight right wing extremists with left wing extremists. You banish them both with compassion and empathy; but if they don't listen, then pragmatism and the rule of laws must follow to they logical end. That is why SCOTUS is so important and mustn't be controlled or influenced by the extremists
2
The author gives too much dignity for what passes for "new morality" on college campuses.
A simpler explanation is "self-righteousness".
There is nothing new about that.
A simpler explanation is "self-righteousness".
There is nothing new about that.
3
I'm strictly a 'guilt culture' type. The 'shame culture' is populated by people who feel they don't exist unless someone's looking at them, bear cubs to be licked by whoever wanders by. The problems of shame culture would take more room than I have here to discuss, but, a few observations:
It's an inevitable product of democracy, the rule of the largest number and the lowest common denominator.
Religion is more compatible with shame culture, because the entire raison d'etre of religion is the assumption a power outside your own conscience and reason is required to dictate morality (the frequent argument of theists that 'without God, anything is permitted'). At the same time, a shame culture combined with absolutist belief is best suited to committing the worst atrocities (whether 'Deus lo vult' or 'the Fuehrer commands' - the 'god' need not be supernatural, just worshipped). Book burning and 'thoughtcrime' are inevitable attributes of shame culture.
Bloom was half right. He got the psychology of college students down - the tendency to jump on bandwagons, arrogance, 'end of discussion!' smug certainty combined with proud ignorance. Whereas Socrates claimed the oracle proclaimed him the wisest man in Athens because he alone admitted how little he knew (the first 'humblebrag'?). Especially now that we postpone adulthood as long as possible, they're overgrown teenagers in an intellectual cafeteria. Bloom just didn't foresee the change in intellectual fashions, is all.
It's an inevitable product of democracy, the rule of the largest number and the lowest common denominator.
Religion is more compatible with shame culture, because the entire raison d'etre of religion is the assumption a power outside your own conscience and reason is required to dictate morality (the frequent argument of theists that 'without God, anything is permitted'). At the same time, a shame culture combined with absolutist belief is best suited to committing the worst atrocities (whether 'Deus lo vult' or 'the Fuehrer commands' - the 'god' need not be supernatural, just worshipped). Book burning and 'thoughtcrime' are inevitable attributes of shame culture.
Bloom was half right. He got the psychology of college students down - the tendency to jump on bandwagons, arrogance, 'end of discussion!' smug certainty combined with proud ignorance. Whereas Socrates claimed the oracle proclaimed him the wisest man in Athens because he alone admitted how little he knew (the first 'humblebrag'?). Especially now that we postpone adulthood as long as possible, they're overgrown teenagers in an intellectual cafeteria. Bloom just didn't foresee the change in intellectual fashions, is all.
1
Rationializing the demise of th GOP? Actually David, it's possible to be both guilty and shameful.
4
Like most current media contributors, the author treats "social media" as a culture in which we are inevitably involved. One of the central challenges in our lives is to deal with their approval or condemnation.
But the social media consist of a gigantic mob of usually anonymous and often hysterical voices, many of whom are incoherent or obviously dysfunctional. I cannot think of a similar arena which would attract such attention from serious people. The conventional media must accept much of the blame as they devote so much scrutiny to the ebb and flow of intemperate cyber-opinions.
There is a famous New Yorker cartoon which shows two dogs in front of a computer. One is saying to the other: "On the internet no one knows you are a dog." We read a great deal of agonizing about outbursts in the social media, which are just as likely to have come from emotionally disturbed 13-year-olds.
We could save ourselves a great deal of anxiety by awarding social media the consideration which they deserve; that is, almost none. One need not be disturbed by the social media if one ignores them. And what would it matter?
But the social media consist of a gigantic mob of usually anonymous and often hysterical voices, many of whom are incoherent or obviously dysfunctional. I cannot think of a similar arena which would attract such attention from serious people. The conventional media must accept much of the blame as they devote so much scrutiny to the ebb and flow of intemperate cyber-opinions.
There is a famous New Yorker cartoon which shows two dogs in front of a computer. One is saying to the other: "On the internet no one knows you are a dog." We read a great deal of agonizing about outbursts in the social media, which are just as likely to have come from emotionally disturbed 13-year-olds.
We could save ourselves a great deal of anxiety by awarding social media the consideration which they deserve; that is, almost none. One need not be disturbed by the social media if one ignores them. And what would it matter?
10
Mr. Brooks,
Please consult someone who understands what relativism truly argues. In simple terms, Allan Bloom does not get it. Relativism stands opposed to absolutism. Moral relativism stands opposed to the notion that absolute rights and wrongs exist, independent of any individual or society. Perhaps you did not mean 'absolute' when you wrote 'universal,' but in either case your argument fails. If you believe in universal morals, then it is empirically wrong. If you believe in absolute morals, then it is epistemically wrong.
Absolute morals would have to supersede any morals defined by a society. Where exactly would these rest? Religion argues that they exist by way of a god or gods. If we were to accept that argument, then whose god or gods? If the basis is a particular set of beliefs that we now have, then the morals are by definition not absolute. The question becomes: whose morals will be chosen to be 'universal,' and who gets to make that choice?
Moral relativism does not argue that there are no rights and wrongs. Of course there are rights and wrongs. They are simply not absolute. They are contingent, and it's fortunate that they are. We have the ability to argue for some and against others, and we have the power to develop them to serve our societies best.
A final thought: believing that there are absolutes of this kind is cowardly. Relativism entails responsibility, because we make our morals. We don't get them fed to us by a superior entity.
Please consult someone who understands what relativism truly argues. In simple terms, Allan Bloom does not get it. Relativism stands opposed to absolutism. Moral relativism stands opposed to the notion that absolute rights and wrongs exist, independent of any individual or society. Perhaps you did not mean 'absolute' when you wrote 'universal,' but in either case your argument fails. If you believe in universal morals, then it is empirically wrong. If you believe in absolute morals, then it is epistemically wrong.
Absolute morals would have to supersede any morals defined by a society. Where exactly would these rest? Religion argues that they exist by way of a god or gods. If we were to accept that argument, then whose god or gods? If the basis is a particular set of beliefs that we now have, then the morals are by definition not absolute. The question becomes: whose morals will be chosen to be 'universal,' and who gets to make that choice?
Moral relativism does not argue that there are no rights and wrongs. Of course there are rights and wrongs. They are simply not absolute. They are contingent, and it's fortunate that they are. We have the ability to argue for some and against others, and we have the power to develop them to serve our societies best.
A final thought: believing that there are absolutes of this kind is cowardly. Relativism entails responsibility, because we make our morals. We don't get them fed to us by a superior entity.
12
Pablo seems to think courage and responsibility are universal/absolutes.
Touched on here but not elaborated upon is the ease with which individuals and even groups are so easily shunted to pariah status in a shame-based culture. When a counter-prevailing position is taken those taking it are ridiculed, bullied, and immediately excluded. These used to be considered anti-social behaviors, which is ironic given they have taken such strong hold in a so-called 'social' media driven world.
3
One can be "holier than thou" or remember that "there, but for the grace of God, go I." Compassion before criticism goes a long way.
3
Social media is not really social or media and it includes many of the same characteristics usually found in a mob.
2
One thing is for certain, David. There is no political True North.
2
What does all of this say about people who chose not to participate in most or any social media?
2
The "shame culture" really stems from our ancient tribal nature where there were members and non-members. The latter were enemies to be fought and killed. Even within a specific tribe so-called "free-riders" (today we call them criminals) were expelled from the tribe or killed. The famous trial of Socrates is an example of that very practice of "moral relativism" in civilized, democratic Athens where the choice was either exile or death. So, what we see in youth culture is just a re-enactment of our very tribal roots. But, then we come up against the absolute moral principle of most religions that, as Pope Francis reminded Congress, that must recognize "the transcendent dignity of the human being." Unfortunately, as we see in our culture and politics today, it is our tribal nature with it's "shame culture" of "moral relativism" that still rules whether it be the use of the death penalty or constantly blaming "the other" whether it be illegal immigrants, gays, pro-choice women, free-rider "takers" or foreigners (other tribes) for our problems. All I can say after 75 years, is "Shame on all of us."
3
Agree completely. We are living in a middle school culture of conformity and bullies with an Orwellian streak. It is frightening. Actually Lord of the Flies may be the best literary analogy
1
Very reminiscent of the "self-criticism" of the Red Guards during Mao's Cultural Revolution. At least they're not lynching people and burning books (yet).
In comparison with other columnists (say, Krugman who is merely a cheerleader and whose op-ed pieces serve only the purpose of rallying the faithful) Brooks’s pieces are thought provoking even when you disagree with him. However, he does tend to think “inside the box” so to say. Let’s take this column, for example. Both the guilt and the shame culture are about controlling the individual one way or another. They are not about freedom. Freedom does not have to end in moral relativism. On the contrary, freedom is closely related to ethical values and moral behavior. Our freedom involves affirmation of our autonomy and creative agency. And exercising one’s own creative agency requires the recognition of the autonomy and creative agency of others. This is the basis of moral behavior.
55
I find the proposition that there was a time when we were not a shame culture ridiculous. When was this? During the time of the House Un-American Activities Committee? Perhaps when the Lovings were sentenced to a year in prison for being an inter-racial couple? Or when folks with differing abilities were institutionalized? How about when Ivy League Universities crafted admissions policies to exclude undesirable groups? "http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/061877..." Was there a glorious time when LGBT folks didn't worry about how they were going to be judged by their communities?
I think Mr. Brooks is voicing a fear felt by the class that, historically, got to determine what got shamed and what didn't. Shaming is now being turned on its head; turned toward those who engage in hateful, repressive speech; we have begun to shame this divisive tool that shamers once found so powerful.
I have little sympathy for politicians who complain about being expected to be politically correct after they are called out for their inability to resist their natural inclination toward being uncivil. If it takes work on your part not to by misogynistic, racist, or homophobic, you probably shouldn't hold public office.
I think Mr. Brooks is voicing a fear felt by the class that, historically, got to determine what got shamed and what didn't. Shaming is now being turned on its head; turned toward those who engage in hateful, repressive speech; we have begun to shame this divisive tool that shamers once found so powerful.
I have little sympathy for politicians who complain about being expected to be politically correct after they are called out for their inability to resist their natural inclination toward being uncivil. If it takes work on your part not to by misogynistic, racist, or homophobic, you probably shouldn't hold public office.
171
To address only two portions of your comment (not enough room for a full essay):
1. 'Was there a glorious time when LGBT folks didn't worry about how they were going to be judged by their communities?'
That might depend on individuals. Yes, there was a closet with a lot of people in it. There was always a subculture of openly gay men and women, though. I don't think Allan Ginsberg gave a flip about how the conventional community judged him - at least, not on the basis of his sexuality; he might have cared about dismissive judgements of his literary efforts (or not).
The shame culture works only when you care what others think of you.
2. With regard to 'shaming turned on its head': Learned Hand famously said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. That spirit, if it is not completely dead in today's so-called left, is cowering in a corner. Calling someone out is one thing; trying to shut them up is another, the mark of a sloganeer whose arguments don't stand up to challenge.
1. 'Was there a glorious time when LGBT folks didn't worry about how they were going to be judged by their communities?'
That might depend on individuals. Yes, there was a closet with a lot of people in it. There was always a subculture of openly gay men and women, though. I don't think Allan Ginsberg gave a flip about how the conventional community judged him - at least, not on the basis of his sexuality; he might have cared about dismissive judgements of his literary efforts (or not).
The shame culture works only when you care what others think of you.
2. With regard to 'shaming turned on its head': Learned Hand famously said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. That spirit, if it is not completely dead in today's so-called left, is cowering in a corner. Calling someone out is one thing; trying to shut them up is another, the mark of a sloganeer whose arguments don't stand up to challenge.
"IV leagues crafting admission policies"... Here's what is also shameful. Universities are behind the scenes starting to accept boys at a lower GPA compared to girls' GPA. Girls now outnumber boys in most co-ed (non-engineering) colleges and universities. No surprise, girls may want an equal # of boys to select from, so another form of fixing is playing out in our universities.
One question that this essay doesn't touch on is where are the moral guidelines of the larger culture? Campus life is simply an offshoot of society as a whole. Traditionally religion and religious institutions established basic moral guidelines that were at least recognized if not emulated. But these institutions have broken down from their many internal contradictions, leaving even those who still profess some allegiance to religious teaching to personalize it and either to follow its guide only for themselves, or seek some absolution, again only for themselves. The idea that we can or do have some collective moral base and responsibility seems to have been lost.
Our public institutions are failing to reflect the standards of justice and virtue at every turn. We don't know if our endless wars are just, or merely state sponsored violence for economic gain? We starve our judicial system of resources and then question its failures. Our public figures seem unable to engage in civil discourse because winning is more important than setting a high minded tone.
If our campuses are struggling to find a new moral culture it is because the guardians of public morality have left them adrift. While there is much to be concerned with in the new social media milieu, we have to realize that these are very young people experimenting with their place in the world. A place made more precarious and uncertain by their elders.
Our public institutions are failing to reflect the standards of justice and virtue at every turn. We don't know if our endless wars are just, or merely state sponsored violence for economic gain? We starve our judicial system of resources and then question its failures. Our public figures seem unable to engage in civil discourse because winning is more important than setting a high minded tone.
If our campuses are struggling to find a new moral culture it is because the guardians of public morality have left them adrift. While there is much to be concerned with in the new social media milieu, we have to realize that these are very young people experimenting with their place in the world. A place made more precarious and uncertain by their elders.
53
So after a divergence in the 80's, universal moral principals is what once again shapes us as humans? Generation X, my generation, may not be small in numbers, but we clearly were and are the most unique!
1
I'll take both the guilt culture and the shame culture over the conservative hate culture.
11
These distinctions aren't so cut and dried. Homo Sapiens are a social species, and we internalize the feedback we receive from our communities, more than we even consciously perceive. Public shame can be internalized as feelings of guilt, especially among children.
1
Scholars explain that Greco-Roman culture was an honor-shame culture. However, I have had a hard time feeling how it worked because it was so different from our own culture. I think that this article is helpful I that it shows us how such a culture can work and express itself in our daily experience.
Cultural norms are so deep seated, taking centuries to establish, that I don"t believe a cultural change is happening. I suppose it could be. By the year 2500, we'll know for sure.
In the meantime, this article was helpful to me.
Cultural norms are so deep seated, taking centuries to establish, that I don"t believe a cultural change is happening. I suppose it could be. By the year 2500, we'll know for sure.
In the meantime, this article was helpful to me.
2
David is definitely on to something about how social media and communications technologies more generally are changing how we experience and manage our personhood. Inclusion, exclusion, guilt, shame, I think are too fuzzy to describe what's going on, but they're on the right track. I look to something from the neuro family of sciences, maybe neurosociology, to help sort this out. But it's amazing to think that, sort of in parallel to climate change, emerging technologies are creating the conditions for major and rapid shifts in human interaction patterns. Scary!
Of course, all of this is utterly irrelevant to anyone beyond adolescence.
3
I have actually been astonished in recent years by the lack of shame evinced by so many, from financial industry executives proud of their ability to enrich themselves by destroying other peoples lives, politicians and talk show hosts spewing hate, self-described 'Christians' shamelessly displaying their utter lack of compassion, and 'values voters' promoting their idea of freedom as the freedom to 'beggar thy neighbor”. The internet has enabled these people to find each other, and to avoid suffering any shame or feeling social exclusion, because they are able assure each other of their right to be proud of their selfishness, their ignorance of history, economics. or science, and their scorn for public goods or social justice.
21
Brooks is so close and yet so far. Apart from the references to social media, much of this piece on the "new" shame culture accurately describes my experience with the political correctness of the eighties. Also, I've somehow overlooked "the individualistic, atomizing thrust of the past 50 years"; if anything, this period has been one of ever increasing emphasis on identity categories.
2
I'll take both the guilt culture and the shame culture over the current GOP hate culture. But thank you for your little contribution to the arsenal of all those who like to sugar-coat their bigotry as opposition top "political correctness".
16
With columns like this one, I sense that David Brooks is running from his own shame...the shame of his personal failure as a respected voice of the right to expose and condemn the fringe elements of conservative America over the last number of years for what they really are: radical, self-centered, and dangerous. Brooks, like other conservatives, has accepted the support of these elements without accepting any responsibility for their rise in approval by the public. Ironically, on the day when 5 key States hold the primaries that may well position Donald Trump as the inevitable winner of the Republican candidacy for President of the United State, Brooks is writing of shame and moral relativism. Does this strike anyone else as odd?
12
It's not a matter of guilt vs. shame. Those are but two sides of the same coin. One feels a conscience because of the mores that have been reflected from the community since early childhood. One shames others fearing that they had not internalized community mores the way they had as children, forming a conscience.
Having watched this set of issues since well before Murray wrote his book, I think it's a process. It is going from one moral regime that held social structures in place, but asked many individuals to pay very high prices. The whole well known list of types - gays, minorities, women, certainly had lives constrained by strictures so tight many had no chance to be happy. But individuals who were out of the mainstream too - the man who wanted to be a caretaker for his own children, the family scion who wanted to be an artist instead of a priest or doctor.
There is no set process, so it proceeds firstly through a general libertine impulse that allowed the deleterious (like the community-destroying individualist business models that culminated in the 2008 crisis) along with the liberating.
The pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction, but it is largely reacting against the reactionary. It is not the end. The remedy is to move towards an equilibrium that creates the stabilizing structures applying mores where necessary, but without binding individuals into stifling roles.
Having watched this set of issues since well before Murray wrote his book, I think it's a process. It is going from one moral regime that held social structures in place, but asked many individuals to pay very high prices. The whole well known list of types - gays, minorities, women, certainly had lives constrained by strictures so tight many had no chance to be happy. But individuals who were out of the mainstream too - the man who wanted to be a caretaker for his own children, the family scion who wanted to be an artist instead of a priest or doctor.
There is no set process, so it proceeds firstly through a general libertine impulse that allowed the deleterious (like the community-destroying individualist business models that culminated in the 2008 crisis) along with the liberating.
The pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction, but it is largely reacting against the reactionary. It is not the end. The remedy is to move towards an equilibrium that creates the stabilizing structures applying mores where necessary, but without binding individuals into stifling roles.
1
First, as Jonathan Haidt points out, it isn't really a shame culture that's arising. While shame cultures do focus on inclusion and exclusion, they also require that you personally address slights against you, and exclude those members who can't or won't confront others directly. In a shame culture you can't restore your honor by appealing to higher authorities. But the new campus callout culture demands that people appeal to the authority of crowds--effectively, callout culture includes or excludes based on who can marshal a bigger, more vocal posse. That's not the same thing.
Second, Crouch mischaracterizes what GamerGate was really about. You write:
"Crouch describes how video gamers viciously went after journalists, mostly women, who had criticized the misogyny of their games. Campus controversies get so hot so fast because even a minor slight to a group is perceived as a basic identity threat."
GamerGate was not a campus controversy (it didn't start on campuses, nor was it primarily a campus phenomenon), nor was it trying to defend misogyny in video games. It was a consumer revolt against corruption in games journalism that insisted games journalists should adhere to the same Society of Professional Journalists professional ethical standards that other journalists--yourself included--adhere to when reporting.
Second, Crouch mischaracterizes what GamerGate was really about. You write:
"Crouch describes how video gamers viciously went after journalists, mostly women, who had criticized the misogyny of their games. Campus controversies get so hot so fast because even a minor slight to a group is perceived as a basic identity threat."
GamerGate was not a campus controversy (it didn't start on campuses, nor was it primarily a campus phenomenon), nor was it trying to defend misogyny in video games. It was a consumer revolt against corruption in games journalism that insisted games journalists should adhere to the same Society of Professional Journalists professional ethical standards that other journalists--yourself included--adhere to when reporting.
22
Thank you, Andrew.
I can't be the only NYTimes reader who cringed when he or she read _yet another_ journo totally misunderstand GamerGate and the circumstances behind and around it.
I can't be the only NYTimes reader who cringed when he or she read _yet another_ journo totally misunderstand GamerGate and the circumstances behind and around it.
Has Mr. Brooks not been paying attention to this year's political cycle? It seems columnist after columnist has spent the past few weeks adamantly criticizing a potential demagogue while Mr. Brooks appeals to the Trumpian ideology which has hijacked "shame culture" and turned it into a valuable asset in creating unity at the core of the base.
If the Donald's first move when confronted about violence at his rallies is to pivot and blame the protestors, its hard to overlook a sense of... what's the word? "Shaming".
While American society lacks the social unification of previous eras, assuming the culture is the problem disregards the fact that cultural norms still lead to widespread and hidden bigotry. Without a culture of shaming, hate festers isolationism. One need look no further than the Trump base who's world view appears to have been exclusively cobbled together to accommodate the key place of his prejudices in American life.
Ultimately, the United States is defined by the multitude of its people and opinions, yet that does not mean that it is impossible to clearly differentiate opinion from bigotry. Trump acolytes appear not to make such a distinction.
Trump's campaign of backwards white-reemergence hidden under the guise of helping the working class voter while chastising the others is also a "shaming culture" of sorts.
Has social justice warrior behavior gone too far in certain instances? Perhaps. But the actions of a few should not permit for bigotry.
If the Donald's first move when confronted about violence at his rallies is to pivot and blame the protestors, its hard to overlook a sense of... what's the word? "Shaming".
While American society lacks the social unification of previous eras, assuming the culture is the problem disregards the fact that cultural norms still lead to widespread and hidden bigotry. Without a culture of shaming, hate festers isolationism. One need look no further than the Trump base who's world view appears to have been exclusively cobbled together to accommodate the key place of his prejudices in American life.
Ultimately, the United States is defined by the multitude of its people and opinions, yet that does not mean that it is impossible to clearly differentiate opinion from bigotry. Trump acolytes appear not to make such a distinction.
Trump's campaign of backwards white-reemergence hidden under the guise of helping the working class voter while chastising the others is also a "shaming culture" of sorts.
Has social justice warrior behavior gone too far in certain instances? Perhaps. But the actions of a few should not permit for bigotry.
Extremism breeds an opposing extremism in reaction. Certainly both the Trumpians on the right and the thought police on the left believe that they are defending the culture against the evil and excess of the other team. In truth, each stimulates the other and both are caught up in an intensifying cycle of discord. Those who resist the certitude and belonging of groupthink can only look at both sides in dismay.
The republican party sure makes me ashamed to be an American.
6
This is another attempt by the NYT to avoid discussions about the real issues
facing our country, specifically:
income disparity and a working wage
jobs going overseas, climate change,
tax dodges for the wealthy, national debt,
rampant military spending,
education.. including the obscene college debt,
corporate corruption and lobbying.
healh care and drug overpricing,
The are but a few of the wrongs of which we should be ashamed and feel guilty enough to begin to change them. Discuss issues, not platitudes.
THis shame should lead us to constructive corrective action for the good of
our nation.
facing our country, specifically:
income disparity and a working wage
jobs going overseas, climate change,
tax dodges for the wealthy, national debt,
rampant military spending,
education.. including the obscene college debt,
corporate corruption and lobbying.
healh care and drug overpricing,
The are but a few of the wrongs of which we should be ashamed and feel guilty enough to begin to change them. Discuss issues, not platitudes.
THis shame should lead us to constructive corrective action for the good of
our nation.
8
Despite weirdos who think Ayn Rand ever had any useful ideas, the human is a social animal, a herd creature, contributing to but dependent on the herd, with all that that portends. Well-balanced levels of co-operation and competition within, between and among concentric and adjacent organisational hierarchies ensure optimum material and intellectual cultural development, AND inter-generational transfer.
Imbalanced levels? This means WAR!!
There is no animal less wild and more domesticated than the naturally self-domesticating one, man. Its whole life and purpose is bent toward further domesticating itself, and refining its situation. Are you wearing shoes? Do you sleep under a roof? Do you cook your food? Can you read? If not, would you like to?
Every group and every culture, every hierarchy contains "mechanisms" to stimulate behaviour by exciting feelings of guilt and shame, just as they also advertise means to encourage, via praise and reward. You are not discussing two separate, irreconcilable and/or un-joined entities, Mr. David. You are talking about the distinguishably different motivating forces that dynamise a single, functional "holarchy"
The column reminds me of Arthur Koestler's The Ghost In the Machine (1967), which identifies and defines the role of "holons" in hierarchies (inventing 'holistic'). It also calls to mind his contrasted exclamations of Artist, Sage and Jester.
http://www.wyrdology.com/mind/creativity/koestler.html
Imbalanced levels? This means WAR!!
There is no animal less wild and more domesticated than the naturally self-domesticating one, man. Its whole life and purpose is bent toward further domesticating itself, and refining its situation. Are you wearing shoes? Do you sleep under a roof? Do you cook your food? Can you read? If not, would you like to?
Every group and every culture, every hierarchy contains "mechanisms" to stimulate behaviour by exciting feelings of guilt and shame, just as they also advertise means to encourage, via praise and reward. You are not discussing two separate, irreconcilable and/or un-joined entities, Mr. David. You are talking about the distinguishably different motivating forces that dynamise a single, functional "holarchy"
The column reminds me of Arthur Koestler's The Ghost In the Machine (1967), which identifies and defines the role of "holons" in hierarchies (inventing 'holistic'). It also calls to mind his contrasted exclamations of Artist, Sage and Jester.
http://www.wyrdology.com/mind/creativity/koestler.html
2
Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and her philosophy is so flawed that like a net, there are far more holes than solid spaces in it. But she did get one thing right: that there is a subcategory of the human race who make a profession of victimhood, hangers-on and parasites. She was certainly wrong in casting her argument so strictly in terms of capitalist economics, and undermined it through sheer talentless, with impossible plots and cardboard characters spouting dialectics (endurance medals should be given for reading Galt's 'A is A' speech; it's like running a marathon in quicksand). But she was onto something there. Unfortunately she had neither the insight nor the talent to pursue that tiny grain of gold in the mudslide of prose she produced. Better writers - Balzac, George Eliot - have dealt with the manipulative personality who exploits his or her dependence to induce guilt and enforce a tyranny of the weak over the strong.
Although not intended as such, this piece is a great argument in defense of the few who stay away from social media and all of the unintended negative outcomes that make it burdensome, intrusive, and hyper judgmental for many.
Also, how many reputations have been ruined through less than thoughtful postings and how many innocent people have been harassed and/or threatened or worse?
The solution to the problem Mr. Brooks presents is to not allow oneself to become part of the problem.
Also, how many reputations have been ruined through less than thoughtful postings and how many innocent people have been harassed and/or threatened or worse?
The solution to the problem Mr. Brooks presents is to not allow oneself to become part of the problem.
6
I have a friend with whom I have always liked discussing politics. She is a Facebook nut, and presently her side of the conversation relies almost exclusively on what somebody posted and what she posted back. Not what she read, or watched-- what has been posted. Needless to say, the quality of our discussions has declined. Social media is NOT a way of enhancing our thinking nor our social interaction. That is why I do not partake; I wish others would also unplug.
I believe the current "shame" culture is tied to a twisted ideology in modern feminism that felt cornered by globalization and the place of women. The current state of insecurity over what women want, who they are can not be coincidental. With more women in higher education, a certain cut and paste application of right and wrong, a yearning for black and white, at times an imbalanced, illogical formula on morality simply for one side to win, their side, as they have divided everything into categories, men, women, gay, straight, us, them, "trigger points" "safe places". All have been pulled into a broad anti-masculinization of the culture. Young men don't have an identity to be proud of, they've been so maligned. That is where shame is most evident. In polar fear of sons being "gay" or "brutal", mothers and fathers have gone along with this trend, abandoning healthy self idealizations amongst smart men. Say that and accusations of roving gangs of predators is thrown at you. I guess no one loves their sons anymore. Much of the current state of society's shame culture can be traced to this movement. I'm all for equality, feminism was interesting when people like Camille Paglia had something to say. She's been drowned out by a pathetic new legacy invested deeply in self victimization. There's a villain behind every perceived feeling of slight in life, even who gets proper "emojis" as The Times saw fit to print last week is an issue of inequality.
7
I, an old American woman, am sitting here stunned. You want to blame feminists for the macho, sporty, vicious, divisive, SuperBowl shouts, the violence and obscenities of the Christian/misogynist guys who've come to lead the Republican Party? Are you kidding me? I love my grown sons. They don't often listen to me, but they know I'm here, and that's OK. And if you, MCS, fail to look around the world and recognize that women controlled by so-called religious men are subtly or actively, massively, enslaved, then you're just a little silly. I suppose that's comfortable, for you. But it's not comfortable for the women you've demeaned.
"Subjective personal values had replaced universal moral principles."
What are universal moral principles but an earlier generation's subjective personal values writ into stone?
"In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad."
How else would you describe much religious culture than behavior conformed to the values writ into stone by previous generations?
We are all injured by the failings and barbarity of our forebears. Making it to adulthood through all the lies and distortions perpetrated on us by the previous generations is a feat in itself. Many don't make it unscathed and so need the guilt culture and/or the shame culture. Just as they were judged as nine-year-olds, they long to be acknowledged as forty-year-olds.
It turns out that life is far more anarchic than we were told. It turns out that there is no heavenly net that will catch us at the end of the journey, that today will consist of our decisions and the decisions of those around us whom we cannot control. In my mind, that's the way things should be. Always root for reality because you'll end up cheering for the winning team.
Self-hypnosis in the form of one belief system or another is the choice that some people make. I don't fault them because life is tough, and facing it with the realization that you really don't know anything and that you're unlikely to find out what you need to know until it's too late is daunting.
What are universal moral principles but an earlier generation's subjective personal values writ into stone?
"In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad."
How else would you describe much religious culture than behavior conformed to the values writ into stone by previous generations?
We are all injured by the failings and barbarity of our forebears. Making it to adulthood through all the lies and distortions perpetrated on us by the previous generations is a feat in itself. Many don't make it unscathed and so need the guilt culture and/or the shame culture. Just as they were judged as nine-year-olds, they long to be acknowledged as forty-year-olds.
It turns out that life is far more anarchic than we were told. It turns out that there is no heavenly net that will catch us at the end of the journey, that today will consist of our decisions and the decisions of those around us whom we cannot control. In my mind, that's the way things should be. Always root for reality because you'll end up cheering for the winning team.
Self-hypnosis in the form of one belief system or another is the choice that some people make. I don't fault them because life is tough, and facing it with the realization that you really don't know anything and that you're unlikely to find out what you need to know until it's too late is daunting.
95
Great comment. Thank you.
1
@Jack
I trust, then, that we are thrusting the same misjudgments, lies, and distortions on the next generation.
Or are you under the Liberal conceit that our generation has arrived at total consciousness and greater wisdom?
I believe that you do feel that way, and it makes all of your declarations no more than equal to those before them to which you draw such bright contrast. Would that your values endure for more than the few minutes of fame before the next Progressive wave sweeps them aside.
I trust, then, that we are thrusting the same misjudgments, lies, and distortions on the next generation.
Or are you under the Liberal conceit that our generation has arrived at total consciousness and greater wisdom?
I believe that you do feel that way, and it makes all of your declarations no more than equal to those before them to which you draw such bright contrast. Would that your values endure for more than the few minutes of fame before the next Progressive wave sweeps them aside.
1
Universal moral values" are more than those of the previous generation. They are present in philosophic and religious traditions as far back as we have records. They are present in all world traditions: do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, etc. The heart of ancient Greek philosophy was always ethics, how one acts in life to bring about personal wisdom and the common good. That was so much the case that Marcus Aurelius recommend for his readers who found Stoic theory difficult that they bypass it to get to wht was most important: the path of ethical virtue.
There is a gulf between civility and the perception of political correctness that is unanswered in the column. Most conservatives I know conflate the two and claim all too often that their speech is being inhibited by political correctness when in fact, all most people are asking for is some civility and politeness rather than ad hominem attacks. Statements that support either bigotry or racism have no place in a supposedly advanced society. There is a vast difference between guarding one's words and being civil. I would also posit that most of the current crop of political rallies as well as the protests are increasingly uncivil. As to moral relativism, Mr. Bloom overstated the case and personal values had not replaced universal moral principles. What students and campuses were experiencing was an understanding that like life, most issues are not black and white but rather a continuum.
1
The remedies are simple, the wise choose them: ignore Facebook and Twitter, get a life. Have real friends. Do something worthwhile.
17
Amen and amen.
Not sure how much time you spend on college campuses these days, David. Speaking as one who does, I can tell you that most of the students I encounter are maddeningly non-judgmental. They may be different, however, on Facebook, which I avoid. That has got to be the most conformity ridden place on the planet.
80
Really -- I thought campuses were awash in micro-aggressions . . . . .
Political Correctness, with the concomitant shaming of those who do not practice it, is reaching epidemic and dangerous levels among middle and upper-middle class youth. Donald John Trump is the visible backlash. The Politically Correct mantras of inclusion hypocritically exclude and shame anybody who does not march in lockstep.
Dan Kravitz
Dan Kravitz
5
No one wants to acknowledge the role played by the PC left in creating Trump. A big part of his appeal to his followers is how he makes 'liberals or progressives or whatever they're calling themselves today' froth at the mouth simply by his mere existence. Many hands made this Frankenstein's monster.
shame is a popular tool in many cultures
in th philippines, corporal punishment is seldom used on kids, theyre shamed instead
th mother says , see how you are
and thats usually enough to stop th behavior
in th philippines, corporal punishment is seldom used on kids, theyre shamed instead
th mother says , see how you are
and thats usually enough to stop th behavior
1
"Many people carefully guard their words, afraid they might transgress one of the norms that have come into existence. Those accused of incorrect thought face ruinous consequences. When a moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes. If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned."
How fascinating, Mr. Brooks, that you can write this paragraph and not mention "political correctness."
This is one of the main appeals of Trump to Republicans, that he speaks his mind and isn't politically correct. His Republican supporters cheer his insults and his denigrations.
But then again, the Right laid the groundwork by not guarding their words for 7 years with Obama. They have shown no shame at the outrageous disrespect they've shown him, even in his very first State of the Union address where one of them yelled at Obama, "You lie." By doing so, they have also shown disrespect for the very institution of the Presidency.
The Right also has no shame in telling lies about the climate, or blaming Freddie and Fannie for the meltdown in 2008 or not doing their jobs and trying to shut down the government, or even refusing to "advise and consent" on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
But, there are consequences to this shameful behavior. And so now you have the rise of Trump.
How fascinating, Mr. Brooks, that you can write this paragraph and not mention "political correctness."
This is one of the main appeals of Trump to Republicans, that he speaks his mind and isn't politically correct. His Republican supporters cheer his insults and his denigrations.
But then again, the Right laid the groundwork by not guarding their words for 7 years with Obama. They have shown no shame at the outrageous disrespect they've shown him, even in his very first State of the Union address where one of them yelled at Obama, "You lie." By doing so, they have also shown disrespect for the very institution of the Presidency.
The Right also has no shame in telling lies about the climate, or blaming Freddie and Fannie for the meltdown in 2008 or not doing their jobs and trying to shut down the government, or even refusing to "advise and consent" on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
But, there are consequences to this shameful behavior. And so now you have the rise of Trump.
11
Sounds like you're describing the Republican party and Fox News
8
Ironically for Brooks, the present-day GOP would seem to be the perfect allegory for what he describes as our “modern shame culture.” Every phrase he offers seems to pertain to how the party’s unforgiving culture enforces adherence to dogma on pain of banishment. It’s that “continuum of inclusion and exclusion.” Tom Delay was the enforcer “within the [GOP] who build… personal power and reputation by policing the group and condemning those who break the group code.” He was known as the Hammer, and rightly so.
For existing office holders, that enforcement is felt via the threat of primary challenges and, of course, through controlled access to campaign funds and patronage. Both means are made doubly effective by “the omnipresence of social media.” No GOP politician dares criticize or question policy or the means to an end, for “those accused of incorrect thought face ruinous consequences.” Everyone stays on message. That is today’s GOP.
Brooks claims that “this new shame culture might rebind the social and communal fabric,” yet seems unaware of the greater irony of how today’s GOP shame culture has resulted in a dense, coarse fabric that is coming apart at the seams, as some of those smothered by its blanket conformity seek release “even at the cost of unpopularity and exclusion.”
Today’s GOP is the allegory for “The modern shame culture [that] allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but [is] strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”
For existing office holders, that enforcement is felt via the threat of primary challenges and, of course, through controlled access to campaign funds and patronage. Both means are made doubly effective by “the omnipresence of social media.” No GOP politician dares criticize or question policy or the means to an end, for “those accused of incorrect thought face ruinous consequences.” Everyone stays on message. That is today’s GOP.
Brooks claims that “this new shame culture might rebind the social and communal fabric,” yet seems unaware of the greater irony of how today’s GOP shame culture has resulted in a dense, coarse fabric that is coming apart at the seams, as some of those smothered by its blanket conformity seek release “even at the cost of unpopularity and exclusion.”
Today’s GOP is the allegory for “The modern shame culture [that] allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but [is] strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”
5
"Moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion." You think this is new? The only thing new about this is the speed that gossip, accusation, lies and (the one good thing about it) TRUTH can spread. Oh, and how expert one must become at weighing which it is one is reading/hearing. Obviously, I'm too dense to figure out what precisely brought all this blather up.
1
Your comments about “moral relativism” brought a nostalgic smile to my face. When I was an undergraduate at a snobby ivy-league university in the 1970’s, the reactionary alumni were always complaining about the immorality of left-wing, hippie students. “Moral relativism” was a disparaging concept that came up frequently when campus drug use and sexuality were disapprovingly discussed. But, over the years, I began to notice that conservatives were using this phrase less and less. Why? Because they need the concept for their own defense. Every time a republican congressman is discovered having an affair with a staffer or an “inappropriate encounter” in a public restroom, the conservative response is the same: “Yes, but didn’t some democrat do the same thing a few years ago?” The message is clear: your man’s sin makes mine OK. I see this message broadcast frequently from the right, rarely from the left. Like the “culture of victimhood”, “moral relativism” has been transformed by the right wing from a hammer into a shield.
8
Technology getting ahead of evolution will be a continuing problem the way things are going. I think it was Erici Schmidt, CEO at Google, who warned teens that they had to behave perfectly because any small deviation recorded on the internet was forever and could be used against them when they wanted a job.
1
What's a real shame is this column vis a vis previous prevarications. (Ok, it ain't Martin Shkreli lecturing on business ethics (HIV drug from $13 to $750)). But ain't you the guy who "circled the wagons for Gov. Christie" on PBS with Mark Shields and told us people "want to send a bully to Washington". Now that's a shame. A few inches to the left you say “Talk of right and wrong is troubling when it is accompanied by seeming indifference to the experience of shame that accompanies judgments of ‘immorality.’” Potential Pres. Christie was immoral, good at ducking it, and not just an inconvenient truth. Look, you started it.
To reduce this discussion to its simplest or most absurd nugget, our angst might be described either as "I screwed up" or "I am a screw-up." One you can fix; the other depends on forgiveness from legions of folks who don't even know you. One is worthy of your attention; the other should be ignored.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
Oh, for goodness sakes! Shame as an issue transcends and is endemic in many cultures. Ours is tiny in comparison to Japan, for example. Or Arab countries. Spain, too, which was long under Muslim rule.
What a waste of a column!
What a waste of a column!
3
There's probably a lot to be said for Virtue, and its rediscovery . . .
2
I thought you were going somewhere with this, David. But it kind of a woolly and contradictory piece.
2
Sounds like the baying crowd in the French revolution - Off with his Head!
Does (almost) every article need to be about morals??
2
Examples please. What are you talking about? Or did you not mention it for fear of being shamed?
13
Excellent point Corrinne
1
Examples you want? Here in sunny, drought-scarred California, a number of residents who have been using rather more than their fair share of water have been shamed into conservation; just yesterday the LA Times offered an article crowing over the success of the policy. Or how about the whole Sex Offender Registry (which no, I am not on!) system? Yes, yes, it's supposed to tip off neighbors of any potential dangers among them, but come on, we all know that shame is the real purpose.
Certainly you've read about parents punishing their children by making them stand on street corners holding signs: I DIDN'T DO MY HOMEWORK or whatever. Or adolescent meanies launching unflattering photos of unfortunate classmates into cyberspace.
Even the current culture of conspicuous virtue is a de facto shaming: "You spent your vacation on selfish, indulgent pleasure? I spent MY vacation volunteering at the homeless shelter!"
And those are just for starters. Now aren't you ashamed, Corinne?
Certainly you've read about parents punishing their children by making them stand on street corners holding signs: I DIDN'T DO MY HOMEWORK or whatever. Or adolescent meanies launching unflattering photos of unfortunate classmates into cyberspace.
Even the current culture of conspicuous virtue is a de facto shaming: "You spent your vacation on selfish, indulgent pleasure? I spent MY vacation volunteering at the homeless shelter!"
And those are just for starters. Now aren't you ashamed, Corinne?
There are no rules, just same old, same old spectrum of human behavior with a twist.........currently a twist of instant information and enlightenment. It's the way that we evolve.
.......whether or not the sheep among us elect to herd, the species itself will "out" itself.
.......whether or not the sheep among us elect to herd, the species itself will "out" itself.
Bravo, David Brooks.
......and "shunning" is also as old as humankind.
......and "shunning" is also as old as humankind.
5
it appears the Social Media could be the path to Fascism ( mass conformity!}
10
An unusual subject here, but very thought-provoking.
Shame is so intensely personal that it does not necessarily involve rejection by the group. It can be the most unforgettable, and punishing of reactive emotions, staying suspended in the memory, ready at the slightest prick of recall to drop one back in the box of self-torment, and obsession, and often in the mind of the sufferer alone. It is hard for me to imagine that the social media has changed that landscape. But not being of that generation, one must consider it. A social media record may take a punishing priority.
The exact quote is beyond citation, but Faulkner said something regarding the painful endurance of shame in the human condition, giving it an existential priority. And Twain sort of unplugged the shame reaction when he gave us that quote of how we would not worry so much about what others thought of us, if you only knew how little they really do.
And here again, we are still belaboring the old conundrum of how to find morality without religion, without injecting fear into the mix. Don't forget about fear.
It may be naive, but when right or wrong is placed within a framework of humanistic values- loving ourselves because of and in spite of our bestial nature- it gives us permission to come down off of the pillory, and view good and bad in a different, practical way.
Walking the path of Buddhism we find mostly suffering, but at the end of the path we finally see all men as ourselves.
Shame is so intensely personal that it does not necessarily involve rejection by the group. It can be the most unforgettable, and punishing of reactive emotions, staying suspended in the memory, ready at the slightest prick of recall to drop one back in the box of self-torment, and obsession, and often in the mind of the sufferer alone. It is hard for me to imagine that the social media has changed that landscape. But not being of that generation, one must consider it. A social media record may take a punishing priority.
The exact quote is beyond citation, but Faulkner said something regarding the painful endurance of shame in the human condition, giving it an existential priority. And Twain sort of unplugged the shame reaction when he gave us that quote of how we would not worry so much about what others thought of us, if you only knew how little they really do.
And here again, we are still belaboring the old conundrum of how to find morality without religion, without injecting fear into the mix. Don't forget about fear.
It may be naive, but when right or wrong is placed within a framework of humanistic values- loving ourselves because of and in spite of our bestial nature- it gives us permission to come down off of the pillory, and view good and bad in a different, practical way.
Walking the path of Buddhism we find mostly suffering, but at the end of the path we finally see all men as ourselves.
3
What Allan Bloom misses, in his book, "The Closing of the American Mind" is the same thing David Brooks misses in his column: an awareness that they are making formal, sober, abstract judgements about kids. Yup, young students, a few years, if at all, away from home for the first time. Isn't this the time of our lucky lives to cling to Black & White, and to fling our often misplaced, youthful passions into each other's faces? And into the faces of our parents? So yesterday it was moral relativism, today it's group shame. So what? There's plenty of time ahead for those more subtle, complex, satisfying and, yes, more boring shades of gray to enter the bloodstream and souls of youth. Has it ever been different? The trick, in fact, is to keep enough of our passion and early world view in play throughout our lives, so that it always remains alive within the grind of longer lived experience.
9
I find the distinctions here bizarre. I am 60, and there was certainly a culture of exclusion for not fitting in when I grew up. That was usually based on your social status, looks, clothes, popularity. Persons who learned differently or looked different were also excluded. The implication, both in the 1980 discussion and here, that moral fabric was somehow the rule of culture is little more than wishful thinking. As is so often the case, conservatives wish to return to a past that never existed.
14
Political Correctness is the major purveyor of Guilt and Shame, because to adhere to its unwritten code of behavior causes individuals and groups to be dishonest to themselves and others. The Culture that Bloom longed for then is long gone now. Trumpism is the backlash to being lied to from every quarter of society. Until people can speak freely, without guilt or shame, even if wrong, things will only get worse. Soviet Communism proved how bad it could get to perpetuate falsity for the common good. Fascism etched that same message, but not deep enough it seems.
40
If your free speech is judgy and hateful, it should be shamed. That is what political correctness does. You are sick of being judged for judging, for being racist, bigoted, selfish, egocentric, lazy in thought, unimaginative -- life in the big city. I am sick of awful people whining about political correctness. It is like some blog wiping his greasy mouth on his shirt and farting aloud lamenting the constriction manners and a little consideration for someone other than yourself.
1
Your connection to Trumpism is good, but I'd say that Trump is the natural end point of our decades-long trashing of morality. No longer could Joe Welch look McCarthy (or Trump) in the eye and end the madness by saying "at long last, have you no decency?".
1
So, is not calling a black person the n...word a courtesy? Or politically correct?
In the world of the republican, and nobody misuses the idea of political correctness quite as well as a republican, T rump calling bush ii's wars of choice a bad thing was seen as "politically incorrect" in their little bubble world.
Republicans, and not just T rump, have gotten so used to lying they can't tell when a lie leaves their mouth.
I can, however, just by noticing if their lips are moving.
In the world of the republican, and nobody misuses the idea of political correctness quite as well as a republican, T rump calling bush ii's wars of choice a bad thing was seen as "politically incorrect" in their little bubble world.
Republicans, and not just T rump, have gotten so used to lying they can't tell when a lie leaves their mouth.
I can, however, just by noticing if their lips are moving.
Crouch's notion that fame is the opposite of shame makes no sense to me. Supposed "shaming" through social media is actually humiliation—not the same thing as shame. Often the victim of these attacks has done nothing to be ashamed of—a socially awkward and unfashionable high school student; a woman whose vengeful ex-boyfriend posts intimate photos of her. Both these attacks are meant to bolster the social power of the attacker.
Crouch states "The remedy for shame is not becoming famous," but that isn't true. Donald Trump, Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian are surely shameless, in the sense in which that word is usually used, and their celebrity is a kind of armor.
The correct dichotomy for our culture is power-humiliation—if moral relativity rules the day, there can be neither shame nor guilt. The pop culture moment that captures this is Cersei's walk of shame (so-called) on "Game of Thrones": immense power shown in its opposite of utter humiliation.
Identity politics arose to redistribute power to groups vulnerable to victimization. The campus cult of victimhood (as the National Review would call it) has to do with transforming humiliation into power. "Political correctness" asserts that these groups can't be used for routine humiliation in order to make ourselves feel more powerful. That's why Trump supporters hate PC: suffering real loss of political and economic power, they have a psychological need to take it out on on somebody.
Crouch states "The remedy for shame is not becoming famous," but that isn't true. Donald Trump, Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian are surely shameless, in the sense in which that word is usually used, and their celebrity is a kind of armor.
The correct dichotomy for our culture is power-humiliation—if moral relativity rules the day, there can be neither shame nor guilt. The pop culture moment that captures this is Cersei's walk of shame (so-called) on "Game of Thrones": immense power shown in its opposite of utter humiliation.
Identity politics arose to redistribute power to groups vulnerable to victimization. The campus cult of victimhood (as the National Review would call it) has to do with transforming humiliation into power. "Political correctness" asserts that these groups can't be used for routine humiliation in order to make ourselves feel more powerful. That's why Trump supporters hate PC: suffering real loss of political and economic power, they have a psychological need to take it out on on somebody.
5
Mr. Brooks might also consider the differences between the traditional guilt culture in Judeo-Christian parts of the world and the shame culture in Middle Eastern Muslim cultures, also emphasized by Ruth Benedict. The guilt based cultures are typically more compassionate than the shame based cultures.
2
There was a shame culture in the eighties. Being gay, or having aids. The shame culture hasn't changed, just who it targets.
1
Mr. Brooks:
Your support for the Shame culture brings shame on you and your supports.
Do you not realize that such an approach seeps down to int immature where it is very very dangerous?
A young woman I know was a victum of such a culture. She was 20, beautiful, and smart enough to get a Florida "bright futures" scholarship. She was studying aeronautical engineering and astro phyics so she could help build space ships.
At 15 she had made some relationship mistakes that were , unbeknownst to her, videoed.
When 20, that video was sent to you tube and emailed to all her professors.
30 days later she was found dead from suicide.
Shame sure is a great moral code you creep!
Your support for the Shame culture brings shame on you and your supports.
Do you not realize that such an approach seeps down to int immature where it is very very dangerous?
A young woman I know was a victum of such a culture. She was 20, beautiful, and smart enough to get a Florida "bright futures" scholarship. She was studying aeronautical engineering and astro phyics so she could help build space ships.
At 15 she had made some relationship mistakes that were , unbeknownst to her, videoed.
When 20, that video was sent to you tube and emailed to all her professors.
30 days later she was found dead from suicide.
Shame sure is a great moral code you creep!
4
Too simple. The so-called guilt and shame cultures were here long before the internet. The only difference between then and now is that social media allows instant guilt and shame.
2
Mr. Brooks is asking for the impossible--an immutable set of standards by which we judge.
Consider two turn-arounds since the 1960's. There was a time when interracial marriages were condemned as absolutely wrong and the same for homosexuality.
Today, not only are there interracial marriages, but there are gay interracial marriages! What has changed? We have, and therefore too the precepts by which we live.
Consider two turn-arounds since the 1960's. There was a time when interracial marriages were condemned as absolutely wrong and the same for homosexuality.
Today, not only are there interracial marriages, but there are gay interracial marriages! What has changed? We have, and therefore too the precepts by which we live.
Shame or guilt? No, I think what we are witnessing is basic survival. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. First and foremost, are basic physical requirements. Too many in this country, have been challenged, to meet even basic needs. The working class and middle class, are hanging on by their fingertips, to pay for housing, food, educate their children, fund retirement, and keep a job they loath, with no increase in wages, for almost 35 years. Let's save the philosophical, academic musings, after the majority of Americans, can once again, by working hard, ensure a secure, hopeful life for themselves, and their families.
3
"The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner."
Hmmm -- as I recall that is the attitude of the Catholic church in regard to homosexuals -- hate the "sin"(of loving someone!), love the sinner -- which it has used for centuries to beat down gay people because the church sets the rules in regard to "guilt" and determines what is a sin and who are the sinners. Meanwhile -- legions of priests and their bishops, archbishops, cardinals etc. ignored the actual "sin" (criminality) of molesting and raping children and continued to "love" the sinners and foist them on unsuspecting communities while covering not just the "sin" but the criminal behavior of the criminal who was committing the crime.
Mr. Brooks -- I'm amazed that your choice of words was so utterly clueless.
Hmmm -- as I recall that is the attitude of the Catholic church in regard to homosexuals -- hate the "sin"(of loving someone!), love the sinner -- which it has used for centuries to beat down gay people because the church sets the rules in regard to "guilt" and determines what is a sin and who are the sinners. Meanwhile -- legions of priests and their bishops, archbishops, cardinals etc. ignored the actual "sin" (criminality) of molesting and raping children and continued to "love" the sinners and foist them on unsuspecting communities while covering not just the "sin" but the criminal behavior of the criminal who was committing the crime.
Mr. Brooks -- I'm amazed that your choice of words was so utterly clueless.
4
I think what David is ultimately saying is that we need to get back to a religiously based morality, a capitalized "True North," where the rules of proper behavior are made by a force greater than ourselves, and our sins, or the breaking of those rules, can be forgiven and forgotten once we pay our dues. David seems to mourn the fact that such absolutism is vanishing and relativism makes shaming ineffective in shaping proper behavior and relieving our free floating anxiety. I think the current proliferation of global conflicts proves otherwise. Those cultures where absolutism reigns supreme are by their nature compelled to conquer and control the rest of humanity, always for humanity’s own sake. Personally I would rather be excluded from a group that doesn’t want me than forced to stay in a group that controls me by its beliefs and rules based on ancient superstitions and power hungry elites. It seems that humanity is undergoing a long, slow and painful process of moving away from absolutism, in the form of God-given laws, and reactionary wars are part of that process. While we may need “standards of virtue and justice” they will never be permanent. Anxiety may just be the price we pay for claiming responsibility for our actions.
99
I think Brooks' "true north" isn't about absolutism at all. Rather, it is a call for a personal honesty that has to work out a personal worldview, even if that is skepticism or atheism, and then say in public where one stands. One might then encourage discussion between grounded people. Atheist generally are quite moral people, so there is a broad area for furthering the common good. The alternative is not to stand anywhere and just follow the madding crowd.
The easiest way to understand what is happening, is that society, or certain parts of it, is trying to replace religion with politics.
Justice is the new holiness. The various rights and civil entitlements are the new liturgy. The schools are the new catechism classes. And atop it all, many faculty fancy themselves -- most likely subconsconsciously -- the new priests.
People rarely learn much from the past; they just shift how they clothe its predictable events. So we move from the witch hunts at Salem to the bro hunts at fraternities. The rigid sexual mores of the Puritans turn into the rigid sexual policies of campuses and workplaces.
But yet we think we are enlightened. We think we are different. We are not that different, and we are not that enlightened. Moral panics existed then, and now.
Perhaps Emile Durkheim's old idea of anomie is the clue. The absence of norms terrifies some people. Some crave norms, even rigid norms, as a way of securing the world and their own always-fragile sense of themselves.
This is as true now as it was during the days of the Puritans, who, landed in a new world full of too much openness, and tried to establish an island of orthodoxy. For many, even though they would protest being merely new puritans, modern secular society is too open, too unleashed. And they aim to give it new leashes.
New shames. New confessions. Same old, same old.
Justice is the new holiness. The various rights and civil entitlements are the new liturgy. The schools are the new catechism classes. And atop it all, many faculty fancy themselves -- most likely subconsconsciously -- the new priests.
People rarely learn much from the past; they just shift how they clothe its predictable events. So we move from the witch hunts at Salem to the bro hunts at fraternities. The rigid sexual mores of the Puritans turn into the rigid sexual policies of campuses and workplaces.
But yet we think we are enlightened. We think we are different. We are not that different, and we are not that enlightened. Moral panics existed then, and now.
Perhaps Emile Durkheim's old idea of anomie is the clue. The absence of norms terrifies some people. Some crave norms, even rigid norms, as a way of securing the world and their own always-fragile sense of themselves.
This is as true now as it was during the days of the Puritans, who, landed in a new world full of too much openness, and tried to establish an island of orthodoxy. For many, even though they would protest being merely new puritans, modern secular society is too open, too unleashed. And they aim to give it new leashes.
New shames. New confessions. Same old, same old.
128
Justice is holy on the model of Plato's "Republic," and it's not political, though the entire work has that appearance. The reality is stated in book IX. It doesn't matter to Socrates whether such a state he just created in words will ever be realized in fact. What is essential is possessing the principles of the just state within ourselves, adhering to that and nothing else. In my understanding, that is true justice, the justice of one man. As it points to the highest good, so to is it divine.
Maybe the reason people are shunning religion is because religion (especially evangelical) have intruded way too far into our politics. We don't have a freedom of religion problem we have a freedom from religion problem in America and I think this is causing most of the problems.
Except that witch hunts stemmed from misogyny and religious zealotry...the so-called bro hunts at fraternities are a response to an actual series of crimes committed...not somebody allegedly selling their soul to Satan.
Actually, we have always had a shame culture. Scarlet Letter, anybody?
5
Mr. Brooks,
"...but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner."
Never happened then and definitely doesn't happen now.
Please!
"...but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner."
Never happened then and definitely doesn't happen now.
Please!
8
"If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned". Is there any evidence to back up that broad statement, or is it just a surmise portrayed as factual?
9
Give me a guilt culture over a shame culture any day. I would rather trust my inner compass than rely on the direction the social winds may blow.
198
Obviously you do not understand that there is no escaping from guilt culture which is a far superior form of social enslavement.
Shame culture as soon as you remove yourself from the perception of the oppressive milieu you are home free. Both shame and guilt are external social control mechanism used for subjugation.
The alternative to guilt or shame is your inner moral compass. You can shame someone to go to war or use guilt but a strong inner moral compass will tell you War is NOT the Answer.
Shame culture as soon as you remove yourself from the perception of the oppressive milieu you are home free. Both shame and guilt are external social control mechanism used for subjugation.
The alternative to guilt or shame is your inner moral compass. You can shame someone to go to war or use guilt but a strong inner moral compass will tell you War is NOT the Answer.
Facebook is so 2009. These kids should be ashamed of themselves for still being on social media. More than anything, they should feel guilty for failing to find new avenues of expression.
8
Could this really be about the Republican Party?
Consider the consequences of the Presidential candidates condemning Trump as a liar, a braggart, dangerous and unfit for office and then swearing to support Trump should he win. Is it guilt or shame that compels Republicans to conform to the rule of their culture? Can Republicans acknowledge anything Obama has done well? Can a Republican examine the Affordable Care Act and acknowledge the features in it that were clearly Republican proposals? Where does the "moral rectitude" on campuses originate? Could the rigid compliance to the Republican Party line have influenced discourse on campus?
Fear of being "primaried" has shaped the Republican monolith. Unlike the behavior on campus that is framed by social media, the behavior and policies of the Republican Party is shaped by extremely wealthy potentates who, through the Tea Party, which they created and fund, dictate what all Republicans must say and do, but not through guilt and shame alone. No, Republicans face being thrown out when they don't comply, like Eric Cantor was.
Republicans have sworn fealty to Grover Norquist subverting their oath of office to hold the common good above all else. Republicans dare not agree with our President, ever. Republicans must believe that fetuses and corporations are people with certain rights that subordinate all women and the First Amendment. Republicans must believe that money is speech and that voter suppression is fair.
Consider the consequences of the Presidential candidates condemning Trump as a liar, a braggart, dangerous and unfit for office and then swearing to support Trump should he win. Is it guilt or shame that compels Republicans to conform to the rule of their culture? Can Republicans acknowledge anything Obama has done well? Can a Republican examine the Affordable Care Act and acknowledge the features in it that were clearly Republican proposals? Where does the "moral rectitude" on campuses originate? Could the rigid compliance to the Republican Party line have influenced discourse on campus?
Fear of being "primaried" has shaped the Republican monolith. Unlike the behavior on campus that is framed by social media, the behavior and policies of the Republican Party is shaped by extremely wealthy potentates who, through the Tea Party, which they created and fund, dictate what all Republicans must say and do, but not through guilt and shame alone. No, Republicans face being thrown out when they don't comply, like Eric Cantor was.
Republicans have sworn fealty to Grover Norquist subverting their oath of office to hold the common good above all else. Republicans dare not agree with our President, ever. Republicans must believe that fetuses and corporations are people with certain rights that subordinate all women and the First Amendment. Republicans must believe that money is speech and that voter suppression is fair.
9
This happens on a few campuses. It is certainly a gross exaggeration to say college campuses today are awash in moral judgment. But if it feeds your point - what the heck - go for it.
3
You are as radical and may I add as repugnant as Trump and no different, in your attack on political correctness!
To attack political correctness is to license the undermining of hard won victories of social equality against misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia that are no longer normal.
Speech or jokes with hints of misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are not acceptable because they lead to reprehensible acts of violence. Their only purpose is to undermine social cohesion and hard won new norms.
This kind of subtle propaganda writing is an old dirty Brooks' trick when before Obama's election Brooks published a column casting Obama as "different" some kind of an alien. Hidden in polite language was the same old coarse message of the birther strategy employed by Trump to delegitimize and undermine the president.
Despite his public protestations against Trump, Brooks can see Trump when he stands in front of the mirror. And it appears David is not ashamed nor does he feel guilty.
To attack political correctness is to license the undermining of hard won victories of social equality against misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia that are no longer normal.
Speech or jokes with hints of misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are not acceptable because they lead to reprehensible acts of violence. Their only purpose is to undermine social cohesion and hard won new norms.
This kind of subtle propaganda writing is an old dirty Brooks' trick when before Obama's election Brooks published a column casting Obama as "different" some kind of an alien. Hidden in polite language was the same old coarse message of the birther strategy employed by Trump to delegitimize and undermine the president.
Despite his public protestations against Trump, Brooks can see Trump when he stands in front of the mirror. And it appears David is not ashamed nor does he feel guilty.
8
Yes, grandmothers are no longer permitted to come anywhere near saying "Shame on you." We would be leaving a lifetime curse on our grandchildren.
Imagine that!
Imagine that!
2
Another Brooks straw man column. Bloom was largely wrong in 1987 (although his thesis was more nuanced than Brooks says). Colleges were just as awash in moralizing in 1987 as they are today. I aught to know. Two of my kids were in college at the time. Moralizing is the abiding sin of the young. It's why many of them are attracted to the empty platitudes of Sanders, why many of them joined the communist party in the 30's, and at it's most extreme today go off to join ISIS. They have not yet learned that there is no millennium, values collide and there is no final answer. You can only gain one value at the expense of another. My college tutor was teaching me this in the early 60's. In short Brooks is describing an age old phenomenon as something new. It's not.
5
Names like “guilt culture” and “shame culture” are simply handy, shorthand ways to express how people react to disagreement. The way groups punish dissenters or people giving less-than-enthusiastic responses in the age of social media is interesting. It is, however, far less interesting than understanding why individuals – whether the punished outliers or the group members meting out punishment – behave as they do.
The key is the difference between individuals with self-confidence and courage and those plagued by insecurity and cowardice.
Without using the politically loaded descriptors of individualism and collectivism, some men and women have the ability to lead – whether or not they choose to lead. That ability carries with it the mettle to resist becoming followers.
What apparently is happening on our campuses, accelerated by social media, is the exploitation of the kind of person – the young man or woman who is terrified of being on the outside.
Isn’t this just the old schoolyard need of some kids to be popular? On that schoolyard there always was a leader. Sometimes it was a benign leader and sometimes a bully.
The shame culture emphasizes how a person is perceived by his or her peers. It is inferior to the guilt culture, which looked to how someone behaved by a moral or ethical standard.
The key is the difference between individuals with self-confidence and courage and those plagued by insecurity and cowardice.
Without using the politically loaded descriptors of individualism and collectivism, some men and women have the ability to lead – whether or not they choose to lead. That ability carries with it the mettle to resist becoming followers.
What apparently is happening on our campuses, accelerated by social media, is the exploitation of the kind of person – the young man or woman who is terrified of being on the outside.
Isn’t this just the old schoolyard need of some kids to be popular? On that schoolyard there always was a leader. Sometimes it was a benign leader and sometimes a bully.
The shame culture emphasizes how a person is perceived by his or her peers. It is inferior to the guilt culture, which looked to how someone behaved by a moral or ethical standard.
64
All this is fine as general observation but it conspicuously lacks examples. Not feeling ready to be shamed and ostracized this Tuesday morning, David? Well, I don't blame you.
1
Mr. Brooks, you sound suspiciously like Mr. Trump as you mourn all this icky political correctness. Imagine, groups that once were regarded with absolute moral certainty as "bad" now having to be treated with respect and recognition! Wasn't it easier when gays were "sinful", when working mothers were "selfish," when birth control was safely illegal, or reserved only for married couples?
The problem with yearning for the good old days of a guilt culture is that there were no good old days.
The problem with yearning for the good old days of a guilt culture is that there were no good old days.
3
M.r Brooks, what you've described as the "shame culture" is simply the culture of junior high and high school sticking around a bit longer and surfacing on college campuses. For example: "This creates a set of common behavior patterns." "In a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad." "People dread being exiled and condemned. "...everybody is perpetually insecure..." "...it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in."
It's a product of how a generation raised on social media behaves. This behavior used to disappear in college. Now it's sticking around for a few more years. Relax, it isn't some sea-change. It's just the new normal.
It's a product of how a generation raised on social media behaves. This behavior used to disappear in college. Now it's sticking around for a few more years. Relax, it isn't some sea-change. It's just the new normal.
4
The Donald's got you down, eh, David? You thought another essay about the sorry state of Republican politics would be doing something into the wind, so instead you decided you'd take a break from what passes as original thought in your column and rehash an argument published by another writer and while you're at it, get a few shots in on the Facebook generation who, as you well know, also happens to be the Bernie Sanders generation?
It's funny, the standard Times response to the Sanders phenomenon, whose strength and staying power quite obviously caught the paper off guard, is to characterize the movement's supporters as callow, brittle and exclusionary. Without mentioning Sanders even once, this column plays a similar tune. Here's the thing, though, you generational scolds never produce any evidence other than the occasional anecdote. Today's essay even fell short of that.
I was in the exactly generation of undergraduates pilloried in Bloom's Closing of the American Mind. I read the book. It proved two things and two things only: A) Students in the 1980s thought and acted different from students in the 1950s (Go figure!) and B) Alan Bloom was completely at a loss to understand how and why students of the 1980s thought and acted the way they did.
So maybe the millennials are too ready to shame and exclude anyone who deviates from righteousness as they define it, but I'm not about to take either your or Andy Crouch's word for it.
It's funny, the standard Times response to the Sanders phenomenon, whose strength and staying power quite obviously caught the paper off guard, is to characterize the movement's supporters as callow, brittle and exclusionary. Without mentioning Sanders even once, this column plays a similar tune. Here's the thing, though, you generational scolds never produce any evidence other than the occasional anecdote. Today's essay even fell short of that.
I was in the exactly generation of undergraduates pilloried in Bloom's Closing of the American Mind. I read the book. It proved two things and two things only: A) Students in the 1980s thought and acted different from students in the 1950s (Go figure!) and B) Alan Bloom was completely at a loss to understand how and why students of the 1980s thought and acted the way they did.
So maybe the millennials are too ready to shame and exclude anyone who deviates from righteousness as they define it, but I'm not about to take either your or Andy Crouch's word for it.
2
Reading this column, I had an image in my head of Donald Trump wagging his finger as protesters were led out of a rally, and he was saying, "These are not good people, not good people." The crowd roared its approval. He meant it as a moral judgment.
In its essentials, the shaming culture Mr Brooks describes is the same as mean girl culture. If it seems new to him, that's just because he was never a 7th grade girl. Donald Trump was never a 7th grade girl either, but he seems to have perfected his mean girl techniques, to our detriment.
In its essentials, the shaming culture Mr Brooks describes is the same as mean girl culture. If it seems new to him, that's just because he was never a 7th grade girl. Donald Trump was never a 7th grade girl either, but he seems to have perfected his mean girl techniques, to our detriment.
293
The impact of a shame culture depends on its underlying values. The honor culture of the antebellum South inspired elite whites to react violently against personal insults, but also against any challenge to the institution (slavery) that defined their society. Personal disrespect could provoke a duel, but the perceived contempt of Abolitionists and Republicans for a society based on slavery, triggered a civil war.
In 1950, David Riesman ("The Lonely Crowd") described a different kind of shame culture. In a rapidly changing social and cultural environment, Americans tended to abandon the older, parent-taught, values in favor of the standards adopted by their peers. Unlike the touchy, easily-insulted whites of the antebellum South, however, this postwar generation excelled at 'updating' their values to match the current standards. Thus, in the 1950s, dread of shame was replaced by an anxiety not to alienate one's peers.
If Brooks correctly identifies the rage for 'political correctness' as evidence of the rebirth of a shame culture, then the Trump phenomenon represents an attack on that culture. But Trump's penchant for abusive language doesn't stem from a principled rejection of cultural standards. His comments reflect a self-indulgent, immature individual's determination to defy any rules that restrict his personal freedom. The rejection of any standards, rather than dislike of a particular set of rules, brands Trump a threat to the well-being of our society.
In 1950, David Riesman ("The Lonely Crowd") described a different kind of shame culture. In a rapidly changing social and cultural environment, Americans tended to abandon the older, parent-taught, values in favor of the standards adopted by their peers. Unlike the touchy, easily-insulted whites of the antebellum South, however, this postwar generation excelled at 'updating' their values to match the current standards. Thus, in the 1950s, dread of shame was replaced by an anxiety not to alienate one's peers.
If Brooks correctly identifies the rage for 'political correctness' as evidence of the rebirth of a shame culture, then the Trump phenomenon represents an attack on that culture. But Trump's penchant for abusive language doesn't stem from a principled rejection of cultural standards. His comments reflect a self-indulgent, immature individual's determination to defy any rules that restrict his personal freedom. The rejection of any standards, rather than dislike of a particular set of rules, brands Trump a threat to the well-being of our society.
215
Trump is simply a narcissist and egoist that would be uncomfortable in any society that is not built to reflect his individual needs. That is - in any society. Unless he can warp it around himself.
That's the threat he poses, and it's an old one. It has little to do with the nature and details of the society itself. It's a personal pathology that occurs to some degree in any society.
That's the threat he poses, and it's an old one. It has little to do with the nature and details of the society itself. It's a personal pathology that occurs to some degree in any society.
1
The horror of it is that Trump says that in rejecting political correctness he "tells it like it is", i.e., unmasks hypocrisy, but in reality, truth has nothing to do with it. It is domination, not truth that he's after.
1
Really good. I like that last paragraph.
1
Shame? The great American mind Eric Hoffer writes that there is no such thing as collaborative shame. We gather behind the Leader, become a mob and wait for a sign from the above, before picking up the first stone and letting the fun begin. Shirley Jackson of 'The Lottery', the cause of an uproar in 1948, was to take up this theme in some of her novels, glee and cruelty in a mass gathering, and perhaps wrote of it best in 'I have always lived in The Castle'.
A video exposed for us to ponder as to whether Trump has a way of inciting violence? At my age, long past the Age of Reason, I am going to question my motive and deem it unhealthy on my part to watch without feeling self-righteous about it.
The nuns at school had an affinity it seems for "The Harder they Fall' and in a young uninformed mind, I thought they might be slightly blood-thirsty. How about 'one can always do better' instead of glowering or waving to Trump, the King in his Castle?. Do I want to watch should he fall, and The Media shreds him to pieces, the hounds after a hare? Perhaps you have seen this on the hunting field? Always late for the Party, I have heard the horns going off in the distance, hoping without a feeling of shame that the prey got away.
A video exposed for us to ponder as to whether Trump has a way of inciting violence? At my age, long past the Age of Reason, I am going to question my motive and deem it unhealthy on my part to watch without feeling self-righteous about it.
The nuns at school had an affinity it seems for "The Harder they Fall' and in a young uninformed mind, I thought they might be slightly blood-thirsty. How about 'one can always do better' instead of glowering or waving to Trump, the King in his Castle?. Do I want to watch should he fall, and The Media shreds him to pieces, the hounds after a hare? Perhaps you have seen this on the hunting field? Always late for the Party, I have heard the horns going off in the distance, hoping without a feeling of shame that the prey got away.
You could also call it the new Mcarthyism. I've watched students in my writing classes go from participatory and reasonably conversant to silent since the arrival of (anti) social media. The reason is they're afraid to get outed on Facebook or Twitter as an interested - or interesting - student, and so they just sit there waiting to be entertained or waiting for the prof to slip up to write about him on Facebook or Twitter or whatever. The result is a falsely sanitized cultural landscape where no one says anything - or anything interesting - and as a result we all suffer.
5
David, you shot way over the head of a number of commenters. Many of the comments are a parody of your essay. You have to live in a what has been a long-time shame culture or know people who grew up in a shame culture to fully appreciate what David is talking about.
3
There's nothing new under the sun.
When I grew up in the 1960s, the phenomenon was called "high school" and eventually one outgrew it.
When I grew up in the 1960s, the phenomenon was called "high school" and eventually one outgrew it.
5
Alan Bloom was to moral values what Antonin Scalia was to jurisprudence: a hollow man who mistook prejudice for wisdom, sanctimony for authority, arrogance for legitimacy, hypocrisy for authenticity. Bloom was never accurate, not then, not now.
Bertrand Russell famously said existentialism is the systematic abuse of the verb "to be." Your column, Mr. Brooks, is the glowing red sand carpet bombing of vocabulary. In the first graph you drop: "Amid a wave of rampant nonjudgmentalism, life was flatter and emptier." That didn't trigger the siren and flashing red light of your employer's style book? Has The Times just given up editing your odd musings? University of Chicago call you yet about rescinding your degree unless you attend remedial writing?
I'm wondering if the tsunami that devastated Fukushima qualifies as a "wave of rampant nonjudgmentalism that left Japan flatter and emptier? Rendering the Japanese amoral conformists without face? And unable to contain radioactive contamination after five years?
How hard was it to write this column without words like alienation, authenticity, identity, significance. purpose, meaning, conviction, conformity, colonization, hegemony, dominance, bad faith, ethnocentrism, privilege, anomie? Ever think what you call "the shame culture" is just a facet of the commodification of human experience inherent in the capitalist worldview? And social media is just the carnival barker for the mass market?
David, Chicago's on the line.
Bertrand Russell famously said existentialism is the systematic abuse of the verb "to be." Your column, Mr. Brooks, is the glowing red sand carpet bombing of vocabulary. In the first graph you drop: "Amid a wave of rampant nonjudgmentalism, life was flatter and emptier." That didn't trigger the siren and flashing red light of your employer's style book? Has The Times just given up editing your odd musings? University of Chicago call you yet about rescinding your degree unless you attend remedial writing?
I'm wondering if the tsunami that devastated Fukushima qualifies as a "wave of rampant nonjudgmentalism that left Japan flatter and emptier? Rendering the Japanese amoral conformists without face? And unable to contain radioactive contamination after five years?
How hard was it to write this column without words like alienation, authenticity, identity, significance. purpose, meaning, conviction, conformity, colonization, hegemony, dominance, bad faith, ethnocentrism, privilege, anomie? Ever think what you call "the shame culture" is just a facet of the commodification of human experience inherent in the capitalist worldview? And social media is just the carnival barker for the mass market?
David, Chicago's on the line.
9
What is this comment about?
Brooks has been doing this so long perhaps he doesn't appreciate the privilege he enjoys.
LBJ called on the Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago today and five months later he signed it into law. The definition of ''We the people'' expanded again, recognizing in law that our country is, and will be even more, diverse.
Contrary to Justice Roberts, who convinced a majority of the SCOTUS to gut the VRA, the job of expanding the true meaning of ''we'' is unfinished and has taken on new urgency. Whatever the excesses on campus and in social media, the fact is that in our society, politics and culture, exclusionary language and habits have no place. This is notably hard for the privileged to accept.
Brooks's book reports are generally tilted toward a ''conservative'' past that probably never was. Look to the future David--it is nearly here.
LBJ called on the Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago today and five months later he signed it into law. The definition of ''We the people'' expanded again, recognizing in law that our country is, and will be even more, diverse.
Contrary to Justice Roberts, who convinced a majority of the SCOTUS to gut the VRA, the job of expanding the true meaning of ''we'' is unfinished and has taken on new urgency. Whatever the excesses on campus and in social media, the fact is that in our society, politics and culture, exclusionary language and habits have no place. This is notably hard for the privileged to accept.
Brooks's book reports are generally tilted toward a ''conservative'' past that probably never was. Look to the future David--it is nearly here.
5
Correction. LBJ called for the VRA 51 years ago, on March 15, 1965. Apologies.
1
What Mr. Brooks refers to as the "shame culture" is the mechanism that has been used by human societies to enforce behavior since we organized into hunter gatherer groups. Before there were laws, before government, and before religion, ostracism and inclusion were the means of enforcing codes of behavior. There is security from the group. If one was kicked out, the chances of survival go way down. Just as importantly, we are an intensely social species. We need each other.
Where does guilt culture come from? If comes from the group and its culture. That's where our values originate. Some cultures in the past have practiced human sacrifice. Some today practice female genital mutilation. Horrible barbarity still exists in the world.
As human societies evolved and the concepts of universal human rights spread, all enforced by the rule of law and some religious doctrines (when convenient), relativism became subordinate to our enlightened state. Hence, the concept of barbarism arose.
This is how human societies have always worked. Guilt is formed from shame. The two are inseparable. I believe then that this essay is a circular argument that goes nowhere.
Where does guilt culture come from? If comes from the group and its culture. That's where our values originate. Some cultures in the past have practiced human sacrifice. Some today practice female genital mutilation. Horrible barbarity still exists in the world.
As human societies evolved and the concepts of universal human rights spread, all enforced by the rule of law and some religious doctrines (when convenient), relativism became subordinate to our enlightened state. Hence, the concept of barbarism arose.
This is how human societies have always worked. Guilt is formed from shame. The two are inseparable. I believe then that this essay is a circular argument that goes nowhere.
17
No, guilt is personal. While a defendant can be judged to be guilty by a selection of her/his peers that does not verify guilt at a personal level of the defendant. That is public shaming/blaming/retaliation/revenge of the group. One of the symptoms that are indicative of a sociopath is the inability to feel guilt for what they have done. All of the public shaming in the world is never going to convince them to feel guilt. It's very much the way my mother's neural tube defect would never allow her to experience any feeling from the pelvis down to her toes or a person without vision to see the light filtering through the canopy of the forest in springtime.
Shaming is peer pressure. That's all it is. I am now strong enough not to give peer pressure more than a passing thought and then move on my own selected path. However, when I experience guilt I know I have made a mistake and it is a personal mistake for which I have accepted the guilt. It is that I know I have caused harm to something or someone who has the same rights as I do. Let me make this clearer, the reason that democracy works, when it works, is because it is built upon and thrives on the empathy of its participants. The reason ISIL, Nazi, Reigious Crusade, or any other type of repressive system operate on inclusion or exile beginning with shaming.
Shaming is peer pressure. That's all it is. I am now strong enough not to give peer pressure more than a passing thought and then move on my own selected path. However, when I experience guilt I know I have made a mistake and it is a personal mistake for which I have accepted the guilt. It is that I know I have caused harm to something or someone who has the same rights as I do. Let me make this clearer, the reason that democracy works, when it works, is because it is built upon and thrives on the empathy of its participants. The reason ISIL, Nazi, Reigious Crusade, or any other type of repressive system operate on inclusion or exile beginning with shaming.
Groupthink is a synonym for brainwashing--one that sounds a little nicer, but really isn't. And both of them started with the primitive concept of religion, a strong leader trying to get everyone in a group to adhere to some primitive beliefs on the threat of some horrible death. PLease note that this still exists after thousands of years. This is why people like me have absolutely no respect for religion of any kind. I was lucky enough to have parents who emphasized to me at an early age that I was always to think for myself and not let me be coerced into thinking/doing anything I didn't think was right. I will always be grateful for that, even though it means that I might not have as many friends as others. But I have always been a somewhat solitary person, so it doesn't bother me. It is actually fun on an intellectual level to think for yourself.
1
There will always be groupthink in humanity.
Groupthink - as the subset of human behavior it is - can be spectacularly good - like the American civil rights movement - or spectacularly bad, like the Islamic women's rights movement that keeps hundreds of millions of women trapped in 4th century burqas and abayas and misogynistic misery ... and the Christian women's rights movement that keeps powerfully corrupted older, white men pervertedly in charge of much younger female body parts.
Thankfully, groupthink is subject to evolution, and evolution is what pushes society to reach greater heights.
Allan Bloom's book 'The Closing of the American Mind' was subject to its own groupthink stereotyping of the day, complimented by book critics, but shamed into oblivion by the liberal wing.
David Rieff called Alan Bloom "an academic version of Oliver North: vengeful, reactionary, antidemocratic".
Reiff said the book was one that "decent people would be ashamed of having written."
Despite the modern shame culture you write about, Lord Brooks, the American right remains a shameless animal.
Sure the left is intolerant, but it is mostly intolerant of intolerance.
The right on the other hand, breeds intolerance of non-whites, homosexuals, contraception, science, evolution, critical thinking and modernity.
Facebook and twitter provide a public service when they shame.
It is evolutionary society's duty to provide the right with the sense of shame it lacks but so richly deserves.
Groupthink - as the subset of human behavior it is - can be spectacularly good - like the American civil rights movement - or spectacularly bad, like the Islamic women's rights movement that keeps hundreds of millions of women trapped in 4th century burqas and abayas and misogynistic misery ... and the Christian women's rights movement that keeps powerfully corrupted older, white men pervertedly in charge of much younger female body parts.
Thankfully, groupthink is subject to evolution, and evolution is what pushes society to reach greater heights.
Allan Bloom's book 'The Closing of the American Mind' was subject to its own groupthink stereotyping of the day, complimented by book critics, but shamed into oblivion by the liberal wing.
David Rieff called Alan Bloom "an academic version of Oliver North: vengeful, reactionary, antidemocratic".
Reiff said the book was one that "decent people would be ashamed of having written."
Despite the modern shame culture you write about, Lord Brooks, the American right remains a shameless animal.
Sure the left is intolerant, but it is mostly intolerant of intolerance.
The right on the other hand, breeds intolerance of non-whites, homosexuals, contraception, science, evolution, critical thinking and modernity.
Facebook and twitter provide a public service when they shame.
It is evolutionary society's duty to provide the right with the sense of shame it lacks but so richly deserves.
218
If everyone simply argues that my intolerance is better than your intolerance, in the end there is no genuine tolerance (or understanding) at all.
1
The moral vigilantism and policing promoted by the social media is nothing but forced surrender of an individual judgment to the arrogant and irrational demands of an amorphous crowd.
58
David,
Are you converting?
Are you converting?
3
Spare me the pop sociology. Bloom was wrong in 1987, but it was great propaganda for the right wing to pretend the kids were being taught by "Marxist" professors.
125
And still are.
If a culture ceases to believe in God and believes that the Bible is a book of myths then there is no such thing as sin. Without the possibility of one sinning against God, there is no guilt. Not having to fear the judgement of God leaves only the fear of the judgement of others. Of course, without God, there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. The opinions of a culture are constantly evolving so words or actions that do not offend today may offend tomorrow. As a result one has to always be on guard or risk the shame that comes from saying or doing the, currently, wrong thing.
13
I just want you to know that your kind of thinking is not shared by all church-going people. Some of us, like non-believers, don't behave the way we do because of a fear of God's judgment, but because of our wish to do good in the world. I don't ever think about my personal salvation; I think about trying to save the world from hatred and destruction. One doesn't have to believe in an anthropomorphic God or to be religious in order to be passionate about that.
I support the idea of religion because I don't see very many other institutions that reach large numbers of people and concern themselves with asking questions about what it means to be a decent human being and offering praise and thanksgiving for what is good and beautiful in this world through art and music.
Religion that focuses on dividing us and them, believers and nonbelievers, that prescribes absolute, unchanging standards, that does not allow for evolution of thought, that focuses on fear and personal salvation instead of a larger vision, is not the sort of religion some of us espouse.
I support the idea of religion because I don't see very many other institutions that reach large numbers of people and concern themselves with asking questions about what it means to be a decent human being and offering praise and thanksgiving for what is good and beautiful in this world through art and music.
Religion that focuses on dividing us and them, believers and nonbelievers, that prescribes absolute, unchanging standards, that does not allow for evolution of thought, that focuses on fear and personal salvation instead of a larger vision, is not the sort of religion some of us espouse.
82
Everyone knows what sin is, and the Bible and God have nothing to do with it. Your mother told you what sin was when you were five.
"How would you like it if Suzie did that to you," she said. Guilt is the result of our recognition that we failed to follow Mother's Rule.
N.B. Hester Prynne wasn't guilty, and she knew it.
"How would you like it if Suzie did that to you," she said. Guilt is the result of our recognition that we failed to follow Mother's Rule.
N.B. Hester Prynne wasn't guilty, and she knew it.
5
God isn't necessary for right and wrong. If fear of god or society is the only thing driving you to be a decent human being, then I tend to think you either lack the ability to think for yourself or you lack a conscience.
5
Looking for easy explanations of a simplistic view of the world is a fool's errand. Shame and guilt, just as relativism and absolutism, are complex concepts -- not some simple criteria for describing entire large-scale societies and moral systems of today.
As different populations came into frequent contact -- populations from across the world and across class, gender, and ethnic identities -- people became aware of others' different and yet reasonable perspectives. This paralleled the maturing of science away from positivism and towards a richer understanding of the approach of scientists, their cultural presuppositions, their conceptual baggage, and their field of study. Some call the result "relativism." That too is a simplistic description.
To bring this to the culture on college campuses and to explain the varied uses of "political correctness" requires a lot more than definitions or a couple of dualistic terms.
Add the impact of the digital world, where lies spread as fast as truths, misunderstandings are rife, and thoughtless comments are taken as personal challenges, and we have a very complex messy social scene.
There is no easy return to some fantasy of a small town altruistic community of like-minded folks just "doing business" in a "traditional" way, where father knows best, and answers are found in the holy book.
To deal with the troubling matters of concern to David Brooks we need a deeper understanding of what is going on and what are the problems.
As different populations came into frequent contact -- populations from across the world and across class, gender, and ethnic identities -- people became aware of others' different and yet reasonable perspectives. This paralleled the maturing of science away from positivism and towards a richer understanding of the approach of scientists, their cultural presuppositions, their conceptual baggage, and their field of study. Some call the result "relativism." That too is a simplistic description.
To bring this to the culture on college campuses and to explain the varied uses of "political correctness" requires a lot more than definitions or a couple of dualistic terms.
Add the impact of the digital world, where lies spread as fast as truths, misunderstandings are rife, and thoughtless comments are taken as personal challenges, and we have a very complex messy social scene.
There is no easy return to some fantasy of a small town altruistic community of like-minded folks just "doing business" in a "traditional" way, where father knows best, and answers are found in the holy book.
To deal with the troubling matters of concern to David Brooks we need a deeper understanding of what is going on and what are the problems.
18
I would note, JustThinkin, that an observation made by Mark Twain in regards to truth and lies over a century ago is as valid today as it was then: A lie will be half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Why is this? Because a lie doesn't have to wait for, or carry the extra baggage of, confirmation.
Of all the tripe that the NY Times and other prominent media organizations are presently putting out about the presidential race, by far the silliest is that Sen. Sanders is doing some great thing by attracting hordes of young people to his side.
There are many exceptions, of course, but the present generation of young Americans is, by and large, among the most spoiled-rotten group of people that has ever existed on the face of the earth. They have their doting parents and grandparents, their cowed and fawning A-giving professors, their credit cards, their devices, their big screen TVs, their fancy college dormitories and student centers, their gourmet college dining halls, their college loans and scholarships, their internships, their social media, their music, their video games, their social causes, their Bernie posters and, of course, their pot.
Getting the support of these kids is like shooting fish in a barrel for any politician cynical enough to suggest that everything they want will be free in his administration. Pandering is
pandering, whether it is for the votes of spoiled kids or the money of hedge fund operators.
There are many exceptions, of course, but the present generation of young Americans is, by and large, among the most spoiled-rotten group of people that has ever existed on the face of the earth. They have their doting parents and grandparents, their cowed and fawning A-giving professors, their credit cards, their devices, their big screen TVs, their fancy college dormitories and student centers, their gourmet college dining halls, their college loans and scholarships, their internships, their social media, their music, their video games, their social causes, their Bernie posters and, of course, their pot.
Getting the support of these kids is like shooting fish in a barrel for any politician cynical enough to suggest that everything they want will be free in his administration. Pandering is
pandering, whether it is for the votes of spoiled kids or the money of hedge fund operators.
25
Spoiled? Many maybe. But many also are young parents trying to make
ends meet. Working two jobs to do it. Many belong to a group you yourself
have lauded in these pages: military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
A few served two tours and a few smoke pot. Hard for me to call them
spoiled.
ends meet. Working two jobs to do it. Many belong to a group you yourself
have lauded in these pages: military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
A few served two tours and a few smoke pot. Hard for me to call them
spoiled.
2
Absolutely true. Spend a day on a college campus. If you're over fifty, you'll blink and walk and listen and wonder what the name of the planet is.
1
Sorry, all I hear was "Get off my lawn!"
1
So, what Brooks is saying is that American culture is a lot like high school.
99
More like middle school than high school
Society is falling apart and David blames political correctness. He's just not that smart.
20
The known dimensions of the debate over the sources of morality, as discussed by Mr. Brooks, are sufficient to fuel long and fervent discussions. However, to broaden the discussion just for the fun of it, I introduce the fact that the shame vs. guilt division has been alive and well in the Islamic world since the days of Muhammad. As that culture gained more and more attention in the post-WW II era, Westerners and Christians were astounded to observe that, say, members of the Saudi Royal family, who adhered to rigorous standards of sexual propriety and abstention from alcohol in their own country, could fly to a European capital and engage rather brazenly in a lifestyle in which prostitutes and alcohol flowed freely.
You have to understand, the experts explained. A Muslim violating the basic precepts of his religion in his homeland would be the target of ridicule and scorn. But no problem, as long as the behavior was hidden from his fellow Muslims, particularly the religious authorities. The degree of public censure, not the act itself, determined the extent of Muslim guilt. Apparently, Muslim and Christian cultures are beginning to merge.
You have to understand, the experts explained. A Muslim violating the basic precepts of his religion in his homeland would be the target of ridicule and scorn. But no problem, as long as the behavior was hidden from his fellow Muslims, particularly the religious authorities. The degree of public censure, not the act itself, determined the extent of Muslim guilt. Apparently, Muslim and Christian cultures are beginning to merge.
14
Christianity as practiced in America is the ultimate Shame Culture.
or have you forgotten the Scarlet Letter? The Catholic Church's actions of the last 20 years? The persecution of gays? Fred Phelps?
The hypocrisy of this article is breathtaking
or have you forgotten the Scarlet Letter? The Catholic Church's actions of the last 20 years? The persecution of gays? Fred Phelps?
The hypocrisy of this article is breathtaking
111
So in today's world I should be upset by what the vaporish voice of social media and such says and dictates? Really? I should let such an ephemeral voice stand in judgement of me? Yeah? Well....let me be clear on this matter. There's not a chance in hell of me being concerned over such a gossamer "threat" as what someone on a social media platform stuck out in cyberspace has to say. But that's just me. I'm old school like that....
John~
American Net'Zen
John~
American Net'Zen
22
I'm confused David.
Are you talking about the young, on college campuses, with their social media obsession, or the non-forgiving "who's more conservative" than I am GOP?
Shaming? Guilt? Inclusion versus exclusion? Us versus them? Unmerciful to those who don't agree? I am right and if you disagree you are not a patriot, not even an American - maybe literally?
Carefully guarded words? Abortion? Same sex marriage? Immigration?
The clamber to the right. The lock step of the conservative GOP.
"Afraid they might transgress one of the norms" - and not get the nomination.
Rather than being enlightened, Mr. Brooks, which is the goal of a pundit it is not, I am more confused than ever.
Are you talking about the young, on college campuses, with their social media obsession, or the non-forgiving "who's more conservative" than I am GOP?
Shaming? Guilt? Inclusion versus exclusion? Us versus them? Unmerciful to those who don't agree? I am right and if you disagree you are not a patriot, not even an American - maybe literally?
Carefully guarded words? Abortion? Same sex marriage? Immigration?
The clamber to the right. The lock step of the conservative GOP.
"Afraid they might transgress one of the norms" - and not get the nomination.
Rather than being enlightened, Mr. Brooks, which is the goal of a pundit it is not, I am more confused than ever.
43
I believe what Mr. Brooks is saying is this:
What appears to be a culture of shame and exclusion within the GOP is actually just a lot of people agreeing with each other, and those who don't agree suffer the natural consequences, and it has nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter. Thus, it is not worth being concerned about. What we need to be concerned about is college kids using social media to complain about video games.
I hope that helps.
What appears to be a culture of shame and exclusion within the GOP is actually just a lot of people agreeing with each other, and those who don't agree suffer the natural consequences, and it has nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter. Thus, it is not worth being concerned about. What we need to be concerned about is college kids using social media to complain about video games.
I hope that helps.
Yes, take politics for example....please!
4
This piece is perceptive. We are not only living in a shame culture but also a conformist one. Many years ago, social psychologists, particularly Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgrim, showed how a person's attitudes and behavior could be markedly affected if only seven or eight of his peers or an authority figure disagreed with him, even though his judgment was correct! And this could have very bad consequences.
Around the same time, in a landmark book, David Riesman with Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denny convincingly argued that most Americans were "other directed", which roughly means that if you want get along, you should go along.
You can see this in the attitudes and behavior of a fair number of Bernie and Trump supporters. They are manichaean in their political values: it's my way or the highway--or if you're not with us, you're against us.
Around the same time, in a landmark book, David Riesman with Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denny convincingly argued that most Americans were "other directed", which roughly means that if you want get along, you should go along.
You can see this in the attitudes and behavior of a fair number of Bernie and Trump supporters. They are manichaean in their political values: it's my way or the highway--or if you're not with us, you're against us.
11
Except in our politics if you are not with us you are against us.
A self-exemplifying claim. Thanks!
Outside of business and law schools, universities are basically moncultural. In any discussion, the default position is left or far left. Taking any other stance simply dumbfounds people. "Shaming" here amounts to incredulity and eye-widening. A few "wows" will be uttered. No one will be immediately shunned, but word will get around. This kind of mild "shaming" is the way that a guilt culture punishes those who don't embrace guilt as the proper response to "injustice"--and in this culture practically every aspect of the outer culture and its history is an example of injustice. Self-reliance, independence, grit, and the rest of faculties of individualism are routinely dismissed as naive and ineffective responses. Guilt and shame work together in this little world.
8
I am less concerned about any alleged monoculture outside of the business and law schools than I am about the rapacious culture incubated inside those domains. Where is shame when we need it?
1
When I lived in France during my 20's, I was surprised to what extend my English friends seemed to be affected by the British caste system. It was a stigma to be "working class" and to have the accent. Working class Brits with college degrees seemed to think that it raised them to the middle class, or higher. There were always the put-downs up the French, and always "you lot," us Americans.
Thinking about it, I was also struck by the fact that us Americans were always making fine distinctions about each other. Generally about perceived class, the amount of money one's family had, or this or that. It has gotten worse. My experience in American private schools shocked me as I saw the extent that private school kids put each other down, put each other's families down, and fantasized about how "inferior" other kids were --- the Blacks, the immigrants, the public school kids.
Things have gotten worse now that money is tight. A lot of this election is really about class shame, lack of money (same thing), and difference. I think it has always been this way (at least in my lifetime --- I'm 68), but it has gotten worse, and different.
Thinking about it, I was also struck by the fact that us Americans were always making fine distinctions about each other. Generally about perceived class, the amount of money one's family had, or this or that. It has gotten worse. My experience in American private schools shocked me as I saw the extent that private school kids put each other down, put each other's families down, and fantasized about how "inferior" other kids were --- the Blacks, the immigrants, the public school kids.
Things have gotten worse now that money is tight. A lot of this election is really about class shame, lack of money (same thing), and difference. I think it has always been this way (at least in my lifetime --- I'm 68), but it has gotten worse, and different.
21
The modern shame culture is built on a form of Liberal piety that is, hold your breath gemli and Socrates, as offensive to many as the so-called repressive faith culture with which Progressives are daily obsessed.
The most pernicious attribute of the shame culture is that it lurches from one issue to another with no real map or compass. Once an aggrieved group has elevated its grievance to the high priests and priestesses of moral code, usually through social media, the guardians of correct thought take to email, Instagram, Facebook, and the campus coffee house to root out and destroy the offending parties with terms like sexist (or misogynist), racist, bigot...we all know the terms.
"We need some muscle over here." Who says that?
It is interesting that the most followed contributors in the NYTimes Comments sections are anonymous writers penning under assumed names that betray neither gender nor class. And we are offended at the thought that people will line up to see Trump and, yes, an aging White Socialist. Both men are preying on an upended social order. Yes, Socrates, a social order that is repressive, racist, sexist...I read the last five posts.
All you really know is that, if you disagree with the thought police, you are a low form of life, stupid, and worthy of shame.
I am a Progressive. Anything goes. No, not your views. Shut up, please.
Life in a Liberal world...
The most pernicious attribute of the shame culture is that it lurches from one issue to another with no real map or compass. Once an aggrieved group has elevated its grievance to the high priests and priestesses of moral code, usually through social media, the guardians of correct thought take to email, Instagram, Facebook, and the campus coffee house to root out and destroy the offending parties with terms like sexist (or misogynist), racist, bigot...we all know the terms.
"We need some muscle over here." Who says that?
It is interesting that the most followed contributors in the NYTimes Comments sections are anonymous writers penning under assumed names that betray neither gender nor class. And we are offended at the thought that people will line up to see Trump and, yes, an aging White Socialist. Both men are preying on an upended social order. Yes, Socrates, a social order that is repressive, racist, sexist...I read the last five posts.
All you really know is that, if you disagree with the thought police, you are a low form of life, stupid, and worthy of shame.
I am a Progressive. Anything goes. No, not your views. Shut up, please.
Life in a Liberal world...
12
In announcing that Ben Carson was endorsing him, Trump said something about Ben Carson having a major role in education in an eventual Trump presidency. Think about that.
22
College moralism can be tedious, but it is the development of heart, and the nation is not the worse for it. We are in a fairly heartless time. People on campuses are mostly young, and will come to see both sides of a moral dilemma soon enough.
What has been criticized as "moral relativism" is a broader acceptance of behavior that is not accepted within many religious communities - such as accepting sexual orientation, or personal decisions about abortion - and a rejection of things which the community overlooked, such as discrimination, down playing rape, and general insensitivity to other's cultures.
The role of social media is not all that new either - it is just more efficient. Princess phones and gossip were the old technology. Social media just makes communication - of moral judgements or of bullying - faster and more efficient. But the tendency for both is as old as humans.
We keep wringing our hands over our children, and their culture. Just like my parents did back in the 70s. But maybe, developing a sound social conscience in college will help the next generation more than it did mine. My generation came to the belief that everything is for sale, and sold it. I have some hope for my kids that they will be better.
What has been criticized as "moral relativism" is a broader acceptance of behavior that is not accepted within many religious communities - such as accepting sexual orientation, or personal decisions about abortion - and a rejection of things which the community overlooked, such as discrimination, down playing rape, and general insensitivity to other's cultures.
The role of social media is not all that new either - it is just more efficient. Princess phones and gossip were the old technology. Social media just makes communication - of moral judgements or of bullying - faster and more efficient. But the tendency for both is as old as humans.
We keep wringing our hands over our children, and their culture. Just like my parents did back in the 70s. But maybe, developing a sound social conscience in college will help the next generation more than it did mine. My generation came to the belief that everything is for sale, and sold it. I have some hope for my kids that they will be better.
14
Mr. Brooks here advocates a distinction for which there is scant difference. In guilt culture, sinners may be every bit as shunned by society as in shame culture, and the fear of it may be equally motivating for both. Moreover it is naive to maintain that conscience comes entirely form within the individual. The guilt culture typically has a vast apparatus, comprising the churches and the secular government, dedicated to telling the individual exactly what he should feel guilty about and how decent people should treat the transgressor.
the mechanism of inclusion and exclusion to enforce societal norms is clearly common to both And while the panjandrums of guilt culture maintain that their strictures are eternal and unchanging, this is an obvious historical falsehood.
To be sure, members of shame culture may fail practice the tolerance they preach. And while hating the sin but loving the sinner may be,like tolerance, a noble sentiment, it has historically been quite consistent with slaughtering people in vast numbers for their sinful embrace of erroneous theology.
The only truly new development is the speed, thanks to technology, with which transgressions can be publicized and opprobrium meted out. If the good citizens of Salem had had Facebook, they doubtless would have rushed to post denunciations of evil witches, lest they be thought of by their neighbors as soft on Satanism.
the mechanism of inclusion and exclusion to enforce societal norms is clearly common to both And while the panjandrums of guilt culture maintain that their strictures are eternal and unchanging, this is an obvious historical falsehood.
To be sure, members of shame culture may fail practice the tolerance they preach. And while hating the sin but loving the sinner may be,like tolerance, a noble sentiment, it has historically been quite consistent with slaughtering people in vast numbers for their sinful embrace of erroneous theology.
The only truly new development is the speed, thanks to technology, with which transgressions can be publicized and opprobrium meted out. If the good citizens of Salem had had Facebook, they doubtless would have rushed to post denunciations of evil witches, lest they be thought of by their neighbors as soft on Satanism.
6
Gee, when did Brooks grow up about shame? After his divorce? Shame used to be the way Republicans preferred to keep society cohesive, when those nasty liberals prefer to make laws or leave legal behaviors alone.
7
poppycock. Group dynamics have not changed. Look at fraternities and their culture. This has been going on a long time. It's just the new groups that are being singled out for attention - said to herald a new, dangerous trend.
7
If someone alerts me to something I mind find on Facebook, I'll look at it. Otherwise, I see no value in my time reading nonsense posts.
The people who benefit the most from Facebook use it to enrich their lives. Writing a note to a friend who lives far away can be uplifting, like a great conversation.
Guilt and shame do not necessarily be bad things if you are being raised to listen and respect that others have ideas. Then you can choose to respect that idea or not.
But if your self worth is being defined by a thought that pops into someone's head at three am and your parents who should be guiding you are too busy looking at their phones, you are sort of at a loss.
I thought it interesting that children were embarrassed and disliked their parents posting their pictures and talking about hem constantly on social media.
The people who benefit the most from Facebook use it to enrich their lives. Writing a note to a friend who lives far away can be uplifting, like a great conversation.
Guilt and shame do not necessarily be bad things if you are being raised to listen and respect that others have ideas. Then you can choose to respect that idea or not.
But if your self worth is being defined by a thought that pops into someone's head at three am and your parents who should be guiding you are too busy looking at their phones, you are sort of at a loss.
I thought it interesting that children were embarrassed and disliked their parents posting their pictures and talking about hem constantly on social media.
1
Brooks wrote:
"If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd."
Ethics are rarely enforced in most professions. Individual accountability and practiced standards of conduct have eroded, especially for the software technology that enables the "Shame Culture" to endure.
Free software routinely leaks and abuses personal identifying information; customers are treated like chumps. Organizations experience brand outrage, but the lesson goes unlearned; repeats are common.
Why? Most employees need a salary more than the self-satisfaction which ethical achievement promotes. The brave whistle blower who sacrifices a livelihood to promote justice and virtue is a black swan, and sadly not quotidian.
Darwin Awards await the next class of recipients.
"If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd."
Ethics are rarely enforced in most professions. Individual accountability and practiced standards of conduct have eroded, especially for the software technology that enables the "Shame Culture" to endure.
Free software routinely leaks and abuses personal identifying information; customers are treated like chumps. Organizations experience brand outrage, but the lesson goes unlearned; repeats are common.
Why? Most employees need a salary more than the self-satisfaction which ethical achievement promotes. The brave whistle blower who sacrifices a livelihood to promote justice and virtue is a black swan, and sadly not quotidian.
Darwin Awards await the next class of recipients.
2
My experience has been that in the Brooksian guilt culture, those in the system were in charge, while in this new Brooksian shame culture, youth are in charge. The system is broken, so I think it's great that the youth have a sword and I'm glad to hear that the system is afraid.
6
Shame is a feeling we have about our own actions. It is not brought about by discovery. I am ashamed about myself when I know I've done something wrong. One feels guilty when discovered.
3
Jon Ronson has written about the current form of public humiliation in a book reviewed in the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/books/review/jon-ronsons-so-youve-been...
Moral outrage and hysteria had New Englanders participate in 17th century (and later) witch hunts. Social media now allows for a courtroom with billions of anonymous (or not) observers and judges.
Moral outrage and hysteria had New Englanders participate in 17th century (and later) witch hunts. Social media now allows for a courtroom with billions of anonymous (or not) observers and judges.
4
"First members of a group lavish praise." This has been going on since at least the eighties when the message to children was "I am Special". It was promoted by parents, schools and church."
"Second enforcers within the group," commonly known as bullies. They have existed since time began.
Third, the idea of community or social acceptance has also occurred in the past 50 or so years. Team work concept is present at work, in schools and at church. No one has a sense of self without the community.
This is learned long before social media has an impact on a child. Social media just enhances it. Young adults (and maybe older adults) no longer have a sense of self.
"Second enforcers within the group," commonly known as bullies. They have existed since time began.
Third, the idea of community or social acceptance has also occurred in the past 50 or so years. Team work concept is present at work, in schools and at church. No one has a sense of self without the community.
This is learned long before social media has an impact on a child. Social media just enhances it. Young adults (and maybe older adults) no longer have a sense of self.
1
Is it really that difficult? I recall learning in kindergarten things that work pretty well even today. Actions, mostly... like share your stuff, don't hit, play fair, don't call people names, clean up your mess. Sometimes it sure seems like we overly complicate our lives.
12
One year ago, David Brooks claimed that "These [moral] norms ... were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another." ("The Cost of Relativism", 10 March 2015.)
Today, he writes the exact opposite: "College campuses are today awash in moral judgement."
It has long been clear that Mr. Brooks lacks nuance: things are either all black or all white. But now he's also claiming that things are all black, and all white, at the same time!
Today, he writes the exact opposite: "College campuses are today awash in moral judgement."
It has long been clear that Mr. Brooks lacks nuance: things are either all black or all white. But now he's also claiming that things are all black, and all white, at the same time!
7
"But now he's also claiming that things are all black, and all white, at the same time!"
David Brooks has achieved quantum punditry! Capable of complaining about everything at once, with his complaints existing in an entangled state.
David Brooks has achieved quantum punditry! Capable of complaining about everything at once, with his complaints existing in an entangled state.
8
Why the personal attack? I enjoyed reading his thoughtful essay.
As for his "claiming that thing are all black, and all white," seems to me you might be doing the same thing by holding him to a comment he wrote a year ago.
If he'd started his essay with, "A year or so ago, I did an essay in which I claimed that "These moral norms ... were were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism... But maybe I was wrong." would that have made you happy?
Besides, as Emerson quipped, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
As for his "claiming that thing are all black, and all white," seems to me you might be doing the same thing by holding him to a comment he wrote a year ago.
If he'd started his essay with, "A year or so ago, I did an essay in which I claimed that "These moral norms ... were were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism... But maybe I was wrong." would that have made you happy?
Besides, as Emerson quipped, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
1
What exactly IS political correctness but the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated and grant others the same rights you claim for yourself.
24
I've long had similar categories in my mind but the expression I use for shame culture is village culture because it seems to thrive in situations where people know most everything about their neighbors and are keeping score. This is probably the case in all traditional cultures where folks aren't mobile and families stay in place generationally.
I find the idea fascinating of the new internet culture morphing into something like village culture. It is also disturbing. Village culture is destructive to creative, individual thinking. There is also much more depth when one's sense of right and wrong is an internal equation.
If it is based on the perception of others and includes the ambition of celebrity, morality becomes a pose based on the principal of whatever you can get away with goes- just keep your "sins" secret and parade your accomplishments.
I begin to feel like the quintessential cranky old man- "the upcoming generations is going to hell".
I find the idea fascinating of the new internet culture morphing into something like village culture. It is also disturbing. Village culture is destructive to creative, individual thinking. There is also much more depth when one's sense of right and wrong is an internal equation.
If it is based on the perception of others and includes the ambition of celebrity, morality becomes a pose based on the principal of whatever you can get away with goes- just keep your "sins" secret and parade your accomplishments.
I begin to feel like the quintessential cranky old man- "the upcoming generations is going to hell".
4
Right, even in traditional community/family oriented Asian culture the plus is being surrounded by strong community; the minus is that the shame or loss of face is so overwhelming that it can lead to suicide.
It strikes me that there is a particularly adolescent quality to what you describe, i.e., strong desire to fit into the group and deep fear of being ostracized by that same group for being different or not going along. At its worst, a group can, through its leaders or loudest voices, become a bullying agent.
Oddly, the Trump campaign is, in a way, a voice of opposition to this development. While Trump's derision of "political correctness" goes further and is a not so subtle way to grant permission for bigotry and hate speech, it is also a denouncing of the hypersensitivity to individual offense which has become part of the academic and social culture on many college campuses.
It strikes me that there is a particularly adolescent quality to what you describe, i.e., strong desire to fit into the group and deep fear of being ostracized by that same group for being different or not going along. At its worst, a group can, through its leaders or loudest voices, become a bullying agent.
Oddly, the Trump campaign is, in a way, a voice of opposition to this development. While Trump's derision of "political correctness" goes further and is a not so subtle way to grant permission for bigotry and hate speech, it is also a denouncing of the hypersensitivity to individual offense which has become part of the academic and social culture on many college campuses.
3
People addicted to social media culture are the worst sorts of conformists and deserve no better.
7
Painting with an overly broad brush there!
"People dread being exiled and condemned." Yes they do, but many (most) that have feared alone-ness, and than have it foisted on them by turn of fortune, sickness, age, divorce, or distance, find that you are always you. In the end you learn that it's your assessment of you that counts. Once you go through the detox of your definition as a cog in some network, and stand up straight and alone, you begin to value that more than anything else in your life. Embrace it!
7
"Universal moral principles" can also be employed to leverage blind obedience to authoritarian forces, while "subjective personal values" can encourage a deeper awareness, such as Jesus promoted in his parables (as well as Buddha, for that matter).
3
This seems like a smokescreen, at least in the sense that Brooks focuses on something that is more often characterized as being limited to feedback that people might generally receive for bad behavior or off color comments due to electronic wizardry. More often than not, I find the people of my son's age to be honest, straightforward and socially responsible. Why they have to be lumped into categories due to their facile approach to integrating the wonders of electronic information in their lives seems less than fair.
Brooks could take his moral "guilt" lessons to people like Rupert Murdoch, who fathered the FOX empire of hate and bias, and its current purveyor, Trump. Or to people like Cruz, who proudly shut down the government and wants to nuke the Middle East. At least Brooks admits that Cruz is "too dark." Maybe Rubio could be taken to task about constantly slandering Obama on national TV - is he still talented? Those are some of the real crimes of electronic media that matter, not the ones Brooks cites. Most of us would be satisfied if the people mentioned in the above paragraph felt either guilt or shame.
Brooks could take his moral "guilt" lessons to people like Rupert Murdoch, who fathered the FOX empire of hate and bias, and its current purveyor, Trump. Or to people like Cruz, who proudly shut down the government and wants to nuke the Middle East. At least Brooks admits that Cruz is "too dark." Maybe Rubio could be taken to task about constantly slandering Obama on national TV - is he still talented? Those are some of the real crimes of electronic media that matter, not the ones Brooks cites. Most of us would be satisfied if the people mentioned in the above paragraph felt either guilt or shame.
14
Alan Bloom, 1987: These kids today are so non-judgmental!
David Brooks, 2016: These kids today are so judgmental!
Notice what's the common part between these two?
No, it's not the claim about being "non-judgmental" or "judgmental", those clearly contradict each other and are entirely subjective, not to mention over generalizations that were pretty much invented on the whim of the author.
If you said "These kids today!" is the common part, you're right!
You could add Alan Simpson's These kids today with their hippity hop and Snoopy Poopy Poop Dog *
I think it's very nice that the New York Times could devote such a prominent space on its editorial pages, week after week, to the equivalent of everyone's elderly, cranky uncle. You'd think it could be put to more intelligent, constructive use, but I suppose there's a market for this sort of thing.
*Actual quotes from Senator Alan Simpson
David Brooks, 2016: These kids today are so judgmental!
Notice what's the common part between these two?
No, it's not the claim about being "non-judgmental" or "judgmental", those clearly contradict each other and are entirely subjective, not to mention over generalizations that were pretty much invented on the whim of the author.
If you said "These kids today!" is the common part, you're right!
You could add Alan Simpson's These kids today with their hippity hop and Snoopy Poopy Poop Dog *
I think it's very nice that the New York Times could devote such a prominent space on its editorial pages, week after week, to the equivalent of everyone's elderly, cranky uncle. You'd think it could be put to more intelligent, constructive use, but I suppose there's a market for this sort of thing.
*Actual quotes from Senator Alan Simpson
42
In the past few decades, plutocrats like Charles and David Koch have spent millions of dollars bribing cash-strapped colleges and universities to set-up courses of study pushing right-wing economic propaganda.
An entire generation of college educated Americans have been brainwashed in the Austrian school of economics where only the free-market is acceptable and any government regulation of business is seen as a form of tyranny.
An entire generation of college educated Americans have been brainwashed in the Austrian school of economics where only the free-market is acceptable and any government regulation of business is seen as a form of tyranny.
140
In the season of Lent, as Christians approach the sacred event of Easter (a Savior risen from the dead), I remind all of the story of moral assistance along the dangerous, crime ridden, violence prone, difficult and steep 25 km of the ancient Jericho Road where travelers and pilgrims often journeyed in fear.
Recall the remarkable story of assistance rendered to one who had fallen prey to evil's troubles; for good reason, crime and fear are close mates!
But the story teaches us we can not eliminate the crime, the behaviors of violence, the moral breakdown of robbery, our civil dissolution--unless we first let go the fear!
The Jericho Road story is well-known: a man traveling the dangerous 17-mile passage between Jericho and Jerusalem is jumped by a gang and falls injured, unable to help himself. Several see him injured and ignore him. One thing is clear: the victim is not their neighbor; not only a person not of their community, but also in the sense of ethical action. Fear stops the willingness to offer a hand to someone in need in times when danger threatens even good intent. (David ignores the real presence of fear.)
Take courage, all!
Recall the remarkable story of assistance rendered to one who had fallen prey to evil's troubles; for good reason, crime and fear are close mates!
But the story teaches us we can not eliminate the crime, the behaviors of violence, the moral breakdown of robbery, our civil dissolution--unless we first let go the fear!
The Jericho Road story is well-known: a man traveling the dangerous 17-mile passage between Jericho and Jerusalem is jumped by a gang and falls injured, unable to help himself. Several see him injured and ignore him. One thing is clear: the victim is not their neighbor; not only a person not of their community, but also in the sense of ethical action. Fear stops the willingness to offer a hand to someone in need in times when danger threatens even good intent. (David ignores the real presence of fear.)
Take courage, all!
17
The politicalization of religion in the attempt to obliterate the separation between church and state is at the heart of the extremism, as it is in every other theocracy in the world. For decades now, the right wing in this country has been working assiduously to impose their power over our government and way of life. Read "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phllips for an excellent analysis of this phenomena.
88
Coupla thoughts.
The first is that to every generation’s identifying action there seems to grow the next generation’s reaction. We likely will see, soon enough, the emergence of a strong tendency to individualism and status accruing to those who forthrightly state their minds, simply to distinguish a new generation from the shame culture of the one now asserting itself.
The second is that whenever we tolerate the imposition of strong artificial standards of behavior by power groups we hand power to gatekeepers, those who point out violations and seek to impose penalties. The fact that such individuals rarely are the most agreeable sorts likely will hasten the waning of this phenomenon.
David argues for the guilt culture because he is a Christian who embraces absolutes and sees no salvation in a cultural relativity of shifting values and convictions. I support him for different, non-religious reasons. We have risen as a species immensely from feudal systems that reserved power and prosperity to few enjoying artificial distinctions such as birth to more open ones in which the ability and resolve of the individual to offer something of value to society allows him to rise; and he has risen in his many millions for the mere ability to do so and his resolve to put forth the required effort. Yet that rise requires a willingness to stand and declare oneself, and that stand sometimes will offend sensibilities that we need to be capable of and willing to put in perspective.
The first is that to every generation’s identifying action there seems to grow the next generation’s reaction. We likely will see, soon enough, the emergence of a strong tendency to individualism and status accruing to those who forthrightly state their minds, simply to distinguish a new generation from the shame culture of the one now asserting itself.
The second is that whenever we tolerate the imposition of strong artificial standards of behavior by power groups we hand power to gatekeepers, those who point out violations and seek to impose penalties. The fact that such individuals rarely are the most agreeable sorts likely will hasten the waning of this phenomenon.
David argues for the guilt culture because he is a Christian who embraces absolutes and sees no salvation in a cultural relativity of shifting values and convictions. I support him for different, non-religious reasons. We have risen as a species immensely from feudal systems that reserved power and prosperity to few enjoying artificial distinctions such as birth to more open ones in which the ability and resolve of the individual to offer something of value to society allows him to rise; and he has risen in his many millions for the mere ability to do so and his resolve to put forth the required effort. Yet that rise requires a willingness to stand and declare oneself, and that stand sometimes will offend sensibilities that we need to be capable of and willing to put in perspective.
5
Here's an example of a rush to judgement: "David argues for the guilt culture because he is a Christian who embraces absolutes..." In fact David Brooks is not a Christian. But why bother to check facts when you can shoot off a comment on the Internet?
3
Sorry Richard, David is Jewish.
4
Well Richard, you stepped into it this time. Brooks is not a Christian, but hey - don't let that stop you from forming an (uninformed) opinion (again).
The Jericho Road story is well-known: a man traveling the dangerous 17-mile passage between Jericho and Jerusalem is jumped by a gang and falls injured, unable to help himself. Several men see him and ignore him. One thing is clear: the victim is not their neighbor. Not only as a person not of their community, but also in the sense of ethical action—a willingness to offer a hand to someone in need in times when danger threatens even good intent.
Surprisingly, President Obama foresaw these choices. He
The President will be met by protests from those who seek a return of the old hegemony. But the President’s sense of “who” asks the right questions. What kind of group releases videos of its massacres and murder? Whose neighbors are these?
Surprisingly, President Obama foresaw these choices. He
The President will be met by protests from those who seek a return of the old hegemony. But the President’s sense of “who” asks the right questions. What kind of group releases videos of its massacres and murder? Whose neighbors are these?
1
Please, disregard the above! It is incomplete and incoherent! Somehow, I accidentally hit the send button inadvertently. My apologies to all! /wr
6
@Walter - send button
No reason for shame. Been there. Done that.
No reason for shame. Been there. Done that.
3
Much of this dynamic seems to reflect the broader societal trend toward extremism. And the dysfunction seems even more worrisome in the political arena than it is on the campus.
25
Funny how Brooks and Crouch focus only on the perceived transgressions of the left and not on the much larger and dangerous ones of the right. Any sane observer would say that the totally baseless ravings of the right regarding how Christianity is under attack, or the war on Christmas is infinitely worse than some teenager in his mom's basement tweeting some inane message on his iPhone.
The shame culture of the right is organized and funded by craven right wing billionaires who are trying to shape the political landscape while the shamers on the left are individuals who simply have too much time on their hands and will grow out of it when they graduate from college.
The shame culture of the right is organized and funded by craven right wing billionaires who are trying to shape the political landscape while the shamers on the left are individuals who simply have too much time on their hands and will grow out of it when they graduate from college.
403
With respect, there is nothing in this article that points right or left. David is here just talking human.
1
You only have to read these forums on the NYT on a regular basis, to read thousands of comments from people ridiculing religion, bashing Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church -- making fun of "the sky god" or "flying spaghetti monster" -- claiming that the US is a totally secular society, and that the Constitution says there must be separation of church and state (untrue, actually).
This is not about a teenager tweeting an inane message, but about colleges and universities demanding political correctness, censoring free speech, and getting their panties in a twist about things like "trigger warnings". These things actually affect real people, and their academic success, and future job possibilities -- while someone who thinks "there is a war on Christmas" harms nobody.
This is not about a teenager tweeting an inane message, but about colleges and universities demanding political correctness, censoring free speech, and getting their panties in a twist about things like "trigger warnings". These things actually affect real people, and their academic success, and future job possibilities -- while someone who thinks "there is a war on Christmas" harms nobody.
4
Commenters who go out of their way to insult people of faith I call fundamentalist atheists. Fie on fundamentalism.
1
There is not that much difference a between a guilt culture and a shame culture. I was brought up in a guilt Culture – a Roman Catholic church dominated Irish ‘Republic’. After I moved to Lithuania in 1994 my Lithuanian friends told me about life under Communism. Membership of the Pioneers etc. I said so you had your Communism; we in Ireland had our Roman Catholic Church. The systems were identical in many respects – the high degree of Social Control in particular. The Catholic Church in Ireland had its Gulags; the infamous Magdalene Laundries for example. “About 35,000 children and teenagers who were orphans, petty thieves, truants, unmarried mothers or from dysfunctional families were sent to Ireland's network of 250 Church-run industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages and hostels from the 1930s up until the early 1990s. I defy anybody to read the direct testimony of the children and the details of ruined lives in the Ryan Report without being reduced to tears. The ‘Ryan’ Report by Ireland's Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse found that 'a climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys'.
I tend to view ‘Shame’ culture ‘Guilt’ culture as basically semantic distinctions of most interest to well-endowed Academia but not of significant operational relevance to those at the sharp end of the experience.
I tend to view ‘Shame’ culture ‘Guilt’ culture as basically semantic distinctions of most interest to well-endowed Academia but not of significant operational relevance to those at the sharp end of the experience.
348
Go see "Philomena" and you'll never again view Ireland in the same light.
1
The fact is that morality is a product of the culture in which one dwells. In that sense it’s relative. We know that cultures have existed in which slavery was morally acceptable, as was torture of another human being, and women as chattel. The distinction that you make between shame and guilt is false. Guilt is the shame one feels about transgressing the moral code of one’s culture even when one doesn’t actually transgress or if the transgression is committed but not known by anyone else. Shame is the method that the culture uses to enforce the moral code when one actually does transgress. There are some transgressions that are so ingrained in culture that they seem absolute such as theft and murder. Yet even for these we culturally make exceptions such as in war. In war we have a clash of cultures, and breaking the morals of a culture in order to save it is always acceptable. So, what you are actually saying is that you don’t like the culture of certain colleges. Keep it simple, because it is.
34
Brooks is talking about an internalized standard which produces guilt while an externalized standard produces shame. The issue isn't that shame is guilt or guilt is shame but whether one has internalized a standard versus looking to an external standard based on what people think about you. Social media has us looking mainly at what others will think about what we say or do at the price of developing an internalized standard. I think that's his point.
3
So let me get this straight, forgive the investment banker for screwing millions of people and destroying their pensions, but forgive him and let him continue in his quest to get richer at our expense. I guess David is afraid to say it, both systems stink or are good depending upon the situation. In other words, morality is situational. Priests forgiven for ruining lives, youth jailed for stealing a CD. It has come back to the days of the golden rule.He who has the gold sets the rules.http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/Rigged_Justice_2016.pdf
126
Not sure he mentioned investment bankers. Or rapists. Or muggers. So we can't assume he is against disapproving them.
As a university student all I can say is... What? Never experienced nor witnessed any of these issues. If this gets us to a point where we can shame people out of saying ridiculous things, such as climate change denial, holocaust denial or racism, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing?
134
Except you can't really. It's called the first amendment. You do have the right to say anything back to those you disagree with but you don't have the right to make them go away. The rise of Trump is due directly to the left telling white people they can't criticize any non white person's speech or action.
The shame game of whites is effectively over if Trump wins.
Hopefully, the PC culture and its snowflakes will take a step back. The defiant and scared non pc culture will also come to its senses and everyone can hold hands and sing songs. Or not.
The shame game of whites is effectively over if Trump wins.
Hopefully, the PC culture and its snowflakes will take a step back. The defiant and scared non pc culture will also come to its senses and everyone can hold hands and sing songs. Or not.
1
I've watched this happen at two separate universities I attended. Try recognizing the dysfunction of the poor when discussing the structure of welfare and see how long the tenor stays civil. (Try working in a low income clinic and not recognize that dysfunction.)
I've watched intelligent speakers on the right get subjected to the hecklers veto. A few of my colleagues, who are now professors, have posted slides from their orientations where they were encouraged to avoid controversial topics which might frustrate or enrage students. The chilling effect is real.
Ideological suppression of ideas is a common sin of both the left and right. College campuses are leftist echo-chambers, which is sad because the right also has loving, dedicated and intelligent people. Try listening with an open mind sometime, it might open your heart as well.
I've watched intelligent speakers on the right get subjected to the hecklers veto. A few of my colleagues, who are now professors, have posted slides from their orientations where they were encouraged to avoid controversial topics which might frustrate or enrage students. The chilling effect is real.
Ideological suppression of ideas is a common sin of both the left and right. College campuses are leftist echo-chambers, which is sad because the right also has loving, dedicated and intelligent people. Try listening with an open mind sometime, it might open your heart as well.
2
Once you can shame people for the things YOU dislike or disagree with -- what stops them from shaming others for things you DO like or agree with? Who sets the parameters? Who says you can't disagree about climate change, without being labeled "stupid" or told you have no right to an opinion?
Things that are popular or widely accepted, quickly become orthodoxy and then the most powerful groups decide it is the "sole truth" and nobody dare to disagree, or they will be shamed -- or worse.
I think holocaust deniers are fools and idiots, but I will also defend to the death their right to believe in whatever they want.
Things that are popular or widely accepted, quickly become orthodoxy and then the most powerful groups decide it is the "sole truth" and nobody dare to disagree, or they will be shamed -- or worse.
I think holocaust deniers are fools and idiots, but I will also defend to the death their right to believe in whatever they want.
1
David your columns are so much better when you avoid the moral pontifications and stick to analysis. Your "pontificates"always have the same paradigm.You reference a book and then list the ideas the author advocates. You then make a tacit transition to treating the author's assertions as accurate generalizations and the column proceeds with the implicit assumption of that accuracy. Your historical and political knowledge base, intelligence, and experience makes you a brilliant analyst, and your columns are insightful whether I agree with you or not. However, when you engage in your subjective ruminations on guilt, shame, morality etc., you transition from a political expert to presumptuous psychological dilettante.
209
It's called sophistry - and your absolutely right.
4
Yes, but this is one of the better ones even if he did contradict himself again.
The most significant aspect of this column is that there are no specifics presented. It is rather obvious that Brooks is writing a column in defense of conservative opinions on college campuses. But every culture is created and maintained by the people, not by laws, So if the vast majority of the people decide that gays or women deserve to be treated the same as men or straight people, then a conservative who disagrees has to expect to be an outlier and disapproved of. His or her opinions are not worthy of equal treatment. Or if a conservative believes that blacks are mentally inferior to whites he has to accept the fact that he will be shunned and disagreed with. And if a conservative believes that most of the people on welfare are lazy and shiftless he has to live with the criticism he will get. Or if a conservative believes that Mexican immigrants are mostly criminals and rapists he can expect to be attacked as distorting the truth. But of course Brooks mentions no specifics like these.
1
Throughout this already too long political season, David Brooks has struggled with the rise of Donald Trump. After denial, bewilderment and anger, he seems to be reaching the final stage of grief: acceptance. What else could explain this column and these words: “The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.” This sounds rather like the political correctness that Trump insists he is fighting against. All those young people who disrupted his rally in Chicago last week were surely in thrall to the campus culture described in this column. The Trump campaign could use a high-minded rhetorician to sway the country club Republicans. In Mr. Brooks, I believe they’ve found their man.
12
One benefit, the acusation is now public!
Slime is a coward's game. The person being slimed is the last to know if they ever know about the calumny. The crowd takes the slander to be true, not because the person being slimed can't defend themselves. But but because they don't know to defend themselves, or what to defend themselves against.
In my years in the corporate world, I saw this many times. Some psychopaths actually make a career for themselves, by using the behind the back, slime job. In this regard, social media is an improvement!
Slime is a coward's game. The person being slimed is the last to know if they ever know about the calumny. The crowd takes the slander to be true, not because the person being slimed can't defend themselves. But but because they don't know to defend themselves, or what to defend themselves against.
In my years in the corporate world, I saw this many times. Some psychopaths actually make a career for themselves, by using the behind the back, slime job. In this regard, social media is an improvement!
9
This is all very interesting, however it is an analysis that does not account for an observer bias-- you cannot understand the trees by looking at the forest .
6
Of course you can: the health of the forest indicates the health of the individual trees.
1
This sounds like the pressure to conform to the social norms of the cliche to which one wishes to belong. Yes growing up and finding the confidence to identify and to assert ones own independence can be painful, but the greatest shame would be an America where such individualism is lost.
College is meant to enable this journey; you seem to be describing the process; the outcome is the test.
College is meant to enable this journey; you seem to be describing the process; the outcome is the test.
6
Obviously America allows free speech of all sorts of opinions, and rightly so. But ask yourself this: when people complain that their right wing views are not being allowed to be aired sufficiently because of supposedly rampant 'political correctness' -- are they actually asking for license to propagate hatred? Are they actually engaging in a power play to label all other opinions as 'political correctness' - ? Look at old German newspapers in the middle and late 1930s. There was certainly no 'guilt culture' in operation.
153
I suspect hat Mr. Brooks is not really talking about college culture, or social media, in this particular column.
1
Who gets to define "hatred" and then decide the people who are "hate-filled" don't deserve the right to a political opinion, or perhaps even to vote?
What happens when any minority opinion is automatically defined as "hatred" -- even if it espouses no hate at all? (For example: you oppose abortion, ergo you "must hate women" or you oppose gay marriage, and this means you are "homophobic"...you oppose illegal immigration, suddenly you are "a xenophobic racist".)
What happens when any minority opinion is automatically defined as "hatred" -- even if it espouses no hate at all? (For example: you oppose abortion, ergo you "must hate women" or you oppose gay marriage, and this means you are "homophobic"...you oppose illegal immigration, suddenly you are "a xenophobic racist".)
1
And look at Mao's culture with whom the left will readily identify.
The social media based shame culture as Mr. Brooks describes feeds on people having no moral backbone of their own. That is scary. Attending college once was the part of life where one found ones inner bearings for life, including the capacity to reflect and to adjust. However, if the only frame of reference is the fear of exclusion, there will be no inner compass. The only constant trait will be "Mitläufer" (follower) without any ideas of their own.
History has proven again and again that generations having a high percentage of unthinking followers are prone to fall for dangerous ideologues. The moral immune system of society is compromised. Another scary thing is that once this was something pupils were taught in school, whereas now it emerges as a result of unthinkingly used social media.
Let us hope that history keeps coming in waves, and another generation will learn to think for themselves again.
History has proven again and again that generations having a high percentage of unthinking followers are prone to fall for dangerous ideologues. The moral immune system of society is compromised. Another scary thing is that once this was something pupils were taught in school, whereas now it emerges as a result of unthinkingly used social media.
Let us hope that history keeps coming in waves, and another generation will learn to think for themselves again.
24
Per Bloom's moral relativism of the 1980s college campuses , yes and no. Having lived through the academic era I can assure you there were certain imperatives and even an Orwellian Groupthink that impeded liberty of expression. Faculty enjoy hiring people who think as they do. While diversity was and is pursued--rightly so for more inclusive representation of students and faculty , the reality is that a faculty csndudste who dared go against the grain of dominant thought would have small chance of being hired or retained. There are of course exceptions , but in the main deviation from progressive academic orthodoxy
was and remains both unpopular or a career crusher.
was and remains both unpopular or a career crusher.
13
In short, in academia, it is a real asset to be black, hispanic, gay, lesbian, transgender, any persecuted minority group, an illegal alien, victim of anything you can think of, etc. -- and you will be reverently respected and your slightest "triggers" delicately avoided.
But if you dare to deviate one iota from the "politically correct" -- if you are conservative -- if you support "the wrong political candidate" -- if you dare to have a differing opinion on Planned Parenthood or abortion --- then woe unto you. They will harass and name-call you, and ensure you have no career or future at that academic institution. If you are a teacher or professor, you will be censured, not get tenure, fired. If you are a student, you will be made as miserable as possible and certainly not get mentored, not get scholarships or letters of recommendation. Worst case, you might be harassed until you leave.
Diversity is fine -- except if you dare to hold a diverse opinion or idea.
But if you dare to deviate one iota from the "politically correct" -- if you are conservative -- if you support "the wrong political candidate" -- if you dare to have a differing opinion on Planned Parenthood or abortion --- then woe unto you. They will harass and name-call you, and ensure you have no career or future at that academic institution. If you are a teacher or professor, you will be censured, not get tenure, fired. If you are a student, you will be made as miserable as possible and certainly not get mentored, not get scholarships or letters of recommendation. Worst case, you might be harassed until you leave.
Diversity is fine -- except if you dare to hold a diverse opinion or idea.
6
That would explain the overwhelming number of minorities swelling the academic ranks, not.
Give some thought to the idea that the very discriminatory points you are trying to make might very well be deserved of condemnation. A liberal might suggest if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like Planned Parenthood, don't go. However, usually arguments against abortion, women's health care, socialized health care in general, welfare, taxation are inevitably followed by a "we need to make laws to forbid them" argument.
So you band together with other like-minded individuals to decry and act on the perceived mean-spirited actions of the other and morph into a right-wing version of the very ethos you seek to condemn.
Give some thought to the idea that the very discriminatory points you are trying to make might very well be deserved of condemnation. A liberal might suggest if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like Planned Parenthood, don't go. However, usually arguments against abortion, women's health care, socialized health care in general, welfare, taxation are inevitably followed by a "we need to make laws to forbid them" argument.
So you band together with other like-minded individuals to decry and act on the perceived mean-spirited actions of the other and morph into a right-wing version of the very ethos you seek to condemn.
3
You decry "the individualistic, atomizing thrust of the last 50 years," Mr. Brooks.
But two paragraphs later, you suggest that people need to think for themselves, and have the courage of their own convictions, and not worry about "the shifting fancy of the crowd."
So, which is it, Mr. Brooks?
"If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd. In an era of omnipresent social media, it’s probably doubly important to discover and name your own personal True North, vision of an ultimate good, which is worth defending even at the cost of unpopularity and exclusion."
I'll tell you where I come down on this. When I was still in elementary school, an environment characterized by childish shaming and guilt, I was certainly not ostracized, but I was often told by my classmates that I was weird. One day, it occurred to me that, because of this, I was free. I didn't have to think or act like others, or do what others did, "just because" that was what others were thinking, how they were acting, what they were doing. It gave me a quiet self-confidence, the kind that allowed me to ask myself questions, to keep learning.
I've been pretty comfortable with this self-conception for the past 60 years. It has its costs, of course. But knowing who I am, what my values are, is not so much of a problem. It's a decent trade off, I figure.
But two paragraphs later, you suggest that people need to think for themselves, and have the courage of their own convictions, and not worry about "the shifting fancy of the crowd."
So, which is it, Mr. Brooks?
"If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd. In an era of omnipresent social media, it’s probably doubly important to discover and name your own personal True North, vision of an ultimate good, which is worth defending even at the cost of unpopularity and exclusion."
I'll tell you where I come down on this. When I was still in elementary school, an environment characterized by childish shaming and guilt, I was certainly not ostracized, but I was often told by my classmates that I was weird. One day, it occurred to me that, because of this, I was free. I didn't have to think or act like others, or do what others did, "just because" that was what others were thinking, how they were acting, what they were doing. It gave me a quiet self-confidence, the kind that allowed me to ask myself questions, to keep learning.
I've been pretty comfortable with this self-conception for the past 60 years. It has its costs, of course. But knowing who I am, what my values are, is not so much of a problem. It's a decent trade off, I figure.
286
I'm not convinced that Allan Bloom's description of American campuses (or European universities, for that matter) has become inaccurate. What Mr. Brooks refers to as the "moral system" of contemporary universities has a great deal of logical continuity with the allegedly older mentality that prizes "subjective personal values" at the expense of "universal moral principles."
For example, Mr. Brooks correctly notes that the allegedly new "shame culture" involves "no permanent standards," but depends instead on "the shifting judgment of the crowd." Not uncommonly, today's Thought Police lament people's experiences of feeling excluded; feeling unwelcome; feeling offended; feeling victimized; feeling judged; feeling discrimination; feeling underrepresented; feeling inequity; etc.
The "shame culture" condemns those who would dare to question the validity of these feelings. Despite their talk of "justice" – which typically goes undefined – they seem uninterested in the notion of assessing feelings with reference to a gauge exterior to the individuals experiencing those feelings. It's no coincidence that the "shame culture" correlates with current demands for university "safe spaces" and protection from "micro-aggressions." Feelings and subjective experiences continue to reign supreme.
For example, Mr. Brooks correctly notes that the allegedly new "shame culture" involves "no permanent standards," but depends instead on "the shifting judgment of the crowd." Not uncommonly, today's Thought Police lament people's experiences of feeling excluded; feeling unwelcome; feeling offended; feeling victimized; feeling judged; feeling discrimination; feeling underrepresented; feeling inequity; etc.
The "shame culture" condemns those who would dare to question the validity of these feelings. Despite their talk of "justice" – which typically goes undefined – they seem uninterested in the notion of assessing feelings with reference to a gauge exterior to the individuals experiencing those feelings. It's no coincidence that the "shame culture" correlates with current demands for university "safe spaces" and protection from "micro-aggressions." Feelings and subjective experiences continue to reign supreme.
12
There is no lack of "permanent standards"; the ideal of inclusion and the importance of compassionate action (e.g., that drives the creation of safe spaces) are deeply held Although forgotten by the most strident so-called Christians today, Christ was a proponent of inclusion and compassionate action.
1
Maybe it’s because I grew up going to Catholic school that I learned early on to disregard a system that raised shame to a high art while it weaponized guilt. I never bought in to that hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense.
Mercifully, I was a misfit. I suppose it’s because I never truly fit in I really don’t care what a bunch of judgmental Faceboobs or Twitiots think of me.
In Brooks’ good old days of the guilt culture, you could feel guilty if you didn’t shame the right people. Those included gays, blacks and women who worked outside of the home. Guilt prevented us from talking honestly about sex. Shame ensured that women who needed an abortion did it in a back alley.
Morality is personal. You can’t set your moral compass surrounded by magnetic personalities. Donald Trump’s personality is measured in the millions of Gauss, and witness the result. People are drawn to him, raising their hands in a kind of salute that points the way to hell. It doesn’t help that the media that once steered us with the moral rudder of a Cronkite or a Murrow now flood us with coverage of idiots, morons and miscreants, and then wonder why so many are drawn to them.
Brooks is always going on about the scourge of individualism. But the way to avoid moral mistakes is not to give in to institutionalized shame or guilt, but to set your own course. Do unto others as you would be done by. The Trumps and Cruzes of the world would vanish in an instant.
Mercifully, I was a misfit. I suppose it’s because I never truly fit in I really don’t care what a bunch of judgmental Faceboobs or Twitiots think of me.
In Brooks’ good old days of the guilt culture, you could feel guilty if you didn’t shame the right people. Those included gays, blacks and women who worked outside of the home. Guilt prevented us from talking honestly about sex. Shame ensured that women who needed an abortion did it in a back alley.
Morality is personal. You can’t set your moral compass surrounded by magnetic personalities. Donald Trump’s personality is measured in the millions of Gauss, and witness the result. People are drawn to him, raising their hands in a kind of salute that points the way to hell. It doesn’t help that the media that once steered us with the moral rudder of a Cronkite or a Murrow now flood us with coverage of idiots, morons and miscreants, and then wonder why so many are drawn to them.
Brooks is always going on about the scourge of individualism. But the way to avoid moral mistakes is not to give in to institutionalized shame or guilt, but to set your own course. Do unto others as you would be done by. The Trumps and Cruzes of the world would vanish in an instant.
599
I love a guy who describes Trump's magnetic personality in Mega Gauss. Gemli you are my favorite NYTs commenter. Please look for me at Reason Rally. I haven't seen Larry's poems of late, I hope he's ok.
4
The thing about setting your own course without giving in to institutional guilt or shame is that that is the very thing so many sociopaths do.
If we are to live in functioning societies rather than lead separate lives, with separate goals, each following his own path, we need institutions that offer us a larger vision and maybe even guilt us into thinking how our goals may conflict with the greater good. Traditionally philosophy and religion have taken on that function. All of us owe a great deal to the thinkers who have come before us that have contributed to clearing the paths we choose to take. Anyone who thinks he has developed his own moral code independent from those philosophers and theologians is probably sorely mistaken.
What happens to the world if we dismiss them outright because of our dislike of what religion all too often is -- if we cease to consider the questions those thinkers have posed? Will a Kardashian type of wealth and fame be all that is left to aspire to? Polls of young people do seem to indicate that is exactly what a majority of them wants.
Instead of encouraging people to set their own paths, ought we not be doing more to make sure that institutions that enable us to consider a larger vision, that force us to question ourselves, continue to exist? Or that new and better ones be formed? Most of us won't research moral questions on our own when we could be watching television. Let's not throw institutions out with the bathwater.
If we are to live in functioning societies rather than lead separate lives, with separate goals, each following his own path, we need institutions that offer us a larger vision and maybe even guilt us into thinking how our goals may conflict with the greater good. Traditionally philosophy and religion have taken on that function. All of us owe a great deal to the thinkers who have come before us that have contributed to clearing the paths we choose to take. Anyone who thinks he has developed his own moral code independent from those philosophers and theologians is probably sorely mistaken.
What happens to the world if we dismiss them outright because of our dislike of what religion all too often is -- if we cease to consider the questions those thinkers have posed? Will a Kardashian type of wealth and fame be all that is left to aspire to? Polls of young people do seem to indicate that is exactly what a majority of them wants.
Instead of encouraging people to set their own paths, ought we not be doing more to make sure that institutions that enable us to consider a larger vision, that force us to question ourselves, continue to exist? Or that new and better ones be formed? Most of us won't research moral questions on our own when we could be watching television. Let's not throw institutions out with the bathwater.
2
@Elizabeth Fuller,
No doubt there are many good people of faith, but I suspect that most would be good people in spite of their religion. That said, I wouldn't trust a religious sociopath any more than I would trust a secular one. If religion is the only thing keeping someone from lying, stealing and murdering, I don't want to be anywhere near that person.
But for most people who don't live in the foothills of the normal curve, I doubt that religion is necessary or sufficient to form a moral philosophy. You've got to bring a fully-formed moral sense to the bible just to know to exclude the insane, cruel and destructive parts.
We're all born with an innate moral sense that long predated religion. We could not have survived as a species if we had thought murder, theft and perjury were OK. Some of us do have these tendencies, and religion is often used as justification for them. We say we hate killing, but we have whole institutions devoted to killing large numbers of people, and praise God for being on our side when we do it.
Empathy is far more important than religion, and underlies the golden rule. It seems to be in short supply at Trump rallies, and in the evangelical's paternalistic attitudes toward women and in their castigation of gay people. I think the bathwater is due for a change.
No doubt there are many good people of faith, but I suspect that most would be good people in spite of their religion. That said, I wouldn't trust a religious sociopath any more than I would trust a secular one. If religion is the only thing keeping someone from lying, stealing and murdering, I don't want to be anywhere near that person.
But for most people who don't live in the foothills of the normal curve, I doubt that religion is necessary or sufficient to form a moral philosophy. You've got to bring a fully-formed moral sense to the bible just to know to exclude the insane, cruel and destructive parts.
We're all born with an innate moral sense that long predated religion. We could not have survived as a species if we had thought murder, theft and perjury were OK. Some of us do have these tendencies, and religion is often used as justification for them. We say we hate killing, but we have whole institutions devoted to killing large numbers of people, and praise God for being on our side when we do it.
Empathy is far more important than religion, and underlies the golden rule. It seems to be in short supply at Trump rallies, and in the evangelical's paternalistic attitudes toward women and in their castigation of gay people. I think the bathwater is due for a change.
7
Our nonjudgmental collage days were not "flat and empty." Nonjudgmental opened highs and lows of new things that filled it. It was the guilt driven types who judged first and would not look who had flat and empty lives.
I've seen no flat and empty among my college age kids either. They nor their friends rush to Facebook to agree with the latest trend. They don't seem concerned in the least about "shame" as Brooks describes it. I don't know who Brooks knows who behaves this way, but I have not met any of them.
We don't need a return of closed minds and guilt. That was bad of itself. And anyway, the alternative evil Brooks offers of "shame" isn't real, not for anyone I've met.
I've seen no flat and empty among my college age kids either. They nor their friends rush to Facebook to agree with the latest trend. They don't seem concerned in the least about "shame" as Brooks describes it. I don't know who Brooks knows who behaves this way, but I have not met any of them.
We don't need a return of closed minds and guilt. That was bad of itself. And anyway, the alternative evil Brooks offers of "shame" isn't real, not for anyone I've met.
105
This description of the "new" US sounds a lot like the "old" Sweden. No wonder I feel out of place in both places these days. Shame on me?
4
American lefty-liberals take their moral guidance and goal posts from Scandinavia, especially Sweden and Denmark.
3
"On the positive side, this new shame culture might rebind the social and communal fabric. It might reverse, a bit, the individualistic, atomizing thrust of the past 50 years."
Do you think shame culture will work on conservatives, libertarians and Ayn Randian plutocrats, Mr. Brooks?
Speaking of the individualistic, atomiszing thrust of the past 50 years, as you are wont so often to do.
Do you think shame culture will work on conservatives, libertarians and Ayn Randian plutocrats, Mr. Brooks?
Speaking of the individualistic, atomiszing thrust of the past 50 years, as you are wont so often to do.
74
This is the new tribalism, is it not?
I largely agree with Mr. Brooks on this one. The social media scene doesn't seem to leave much room for people to have genuine disagreements or even allow a person to make a honest mistake. As Mr. Brooks pointed out, "There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd." I'm not sure if there have been any permanent standards aside from arbitrary ones like the Bible/Quran/etc. Nonetheless, the boundaries of the shame culture are indeed extremely fuzzy. A well meaning/intentioned person can misstep without knowing it and cause the next big social media stir.
I largely agree with Mr. Brooks on this one. The social media scene doesn't seem to leave much room for people to have genuine disagreements or even allow a person to make a honest mistake. As Mr. Brooks pointed out, "There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd." I'm not sure if there have been any permanent standards aside from arbitrary ones like the Bible/Quran/etc. Nonetheless, the boundaries of the shame culture are indeed extremely fuzzy. A well meaning/intentioned person can misstep without knowing it and cause the next big social media stir.
7
"...people are extremely anxious that their group might be condemned or denigrated. They demand instant respect and recognition for their group. They feel some moral wrong has been perpetrated when their group has been disrespected, and react with the most violent intensity."
I can't be the only one who this reminds of street gangs.
I can't be the only one who this reminds of street gangs.
48
"Many people carefully guard their words, afraid they might transgress one of the norms that have come into existence."
This is a problem with our society. People have such low self-esteem (blame their parents) in today's world, that words send them into a depression.
I say, buck up, grow some skin. I could care less what people think of me and I sleep very well at night.
This is a problem with our society. People have such low self-esteem (blame their parents) in today's world, that words send them into a depression.
I say, buck up, grow some skin. I could care less what people think of me and I sleep very well at night.
30
@Randy L.
"...blame their parents..."
You captured it perfectly. The STATE will inform you of your opinions.
China agrees. The Soviet Union certainly agreed.
Thank you for this distillation of Progressive theology.
We will disintermediate parents, move the children into daycare, and reeducate the next generation.
Do I have it correct?
"...blame their parents..."
You captured it perfectly. The STATE will inform you of your opinions.
China agrees. The Soviet Union certainly agreed.
Thank you for this distillation of Progressive theology.
We will disintermediate parents, move the children into daycare, and reeducate the next generation.
Do I have it correct?
3
Blame the parents? Maybe, but I'd also lay the blame at the feet of Mark Zuckerberg. Of course it takes a cultural in thrall to idiocy to empower him, but there it is. Isn't it ironic that so many using social media lack social skills needed to interact in person? The allusions in this column and the comments bring to mind "THX-1138" and "Brave New World". With all the shaming going on someone should start mass producing scarlet letters, they'd make a fortune. Are you listening, Mark?
I think the problem is ridiculously high self-esteem, blame the parents.
1
As Mr. Brooks writes, the shame culture is enabled by the internet culture, social media. But it is worse than what he describes: one mistake, one unguarded comment and one might be branded forever, subject to an eternity of shares and internet searches which will pop up as long as people are doing internet searches. (And that includes comments in the NYT).
There was a time that in order to shame someone in a serious manner, it was necessary to do research. Today it is just necessary to have a computer and know how to type (and to read somewhat; comprehension is not required).
Many of my generation (and ethnic and religious background) grew up in a guilt culture, orchestrated often by our (Jewish) mothers. They knew the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt produces doctors, lawyers, scientists and even historians. Shame produces nebechs (from the Yiddish) and provides a great income for the psychiatrists who grew up on guilt.
There was a time that in order to shame someone in a serious manner, it was necessary to do research. Today it is just necessary to have a computer and know how to type (and to read somewhat; comprehension is not required).
Many of my generation (and ethnic and religious background) grew up in a guilt culture, orchestrated often by our (Jewish) mothers. They knew the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt produces doctors, lawyers, scientists and even historians. Shame produces nebechs (from the Yiddish) and provides a great income for the psychiatrists who grew up on guilt.
22
I'd like to have a dollar for every Jewish doctor, lawyer, etc., who had to see the services of a psychiatrist (usually Jewish, as well) for the simple reason he or she was unhappy with their lives because their parents pushed them into seeking careers in their chosen fields only due to the prestige and wealth factor of those professions.
15
In a much broader sense David social interaction and exchange for adults who go to work each day including those teenage kids who are fortunate and find daily work have social affiliations that are far deeper and more meaningful than what passes for social interaction on Facebook-- which, for the most part, a sport and a pastime. Happily for most of us, we grow out of the adolescent machinations of grade school and college life and learn that there is "nothing more ethical than the work ethic" and ethical decision making is inextricably tied to our working lives.
5
It seems that groups now unify to hate, to exclude, and to punish. And this is egged on by any number of politicians and "officials," elected or otherwise.
This is as hostile as the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Ruling Council in Iran. Our politics have become exercises in hatred and demonization of "the other." And that other is anyone not like the right wing evangelicals who are now pledged to make this a Christian country. Or so they say.
Either we begin to show up at the polls to change it, or we learn to live in a tiered society where these truths are no longer self-evident, and where truth, justice, and the American are _not_ for all.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/