Abstract
AbstractThe notion that shame is a global emotion, one which takes the whole self as its focus, has long enjoyed a near consensus in both the psychological and philosophical literature. Recently, however, a number of philosophers have questioned this conventional wisdom: on their view, most everyday instances of shame are not global, but are instead limited to a specific aspect of one’s identity. I argue that this objection stems from an overemphasis on the cognitive dimension of shame. Its proponents cannot make sense of global shame because they only understand the emotion in terms of an intellectual self-evaluation, where I am ashamed upon assessing myself to have disappointed a particular standard or ideal. However, when shame is understood as arising early on in life from one’s threatened connection with others, and as having affective, embodied, and unconscious aspects alongside its later cognitive ones, the intuition that it feels all-encompassing makes more sense. Our earliest experiences of shame, which are largely devoid of complex cognitive content, are global because they are experienced as casting doubt upon our lovability in general. It is only later, as cognition develops, that we learn to hang this sense of overall defectiveness, which is reawakened in subsequent shame experiences, onto specific parts of the self. While this might lead us in adulthood to intellectually understand our shame as having a local basis, such as a failed norm or ideal, its global phenomenology will remain.
Funder
The University of Queensland
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. Archer, A., & Matheson, B. (2022). Honouring and admiring the immoral: An ethical guide. Routledge.
2. Assor, A., & Roth, G. (2007). The harmful effects of parental conditional regard. Scientific Annals of the Psychological Society of Northern Greece, 5, 17–34.
3. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression. Routledge.
4. Bell, M. (2011). Globalist attitudes and the fittingness objection. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(244), 449–472.
5. Bell, M. (2013). Hard feelings: The oral psychology of contempt. Oxford University Press.