Is Shame Invisible?

Is Shame Unspeakable ?

What do you think is the most forbidden word in the English language? *uck may have been a contender a hundred years ago, but it could have lost first place to another word, shame. During that period of time, the possibility of talking openly about sexuality has increased to some degree, while mentioning shame has become more forbidden. Today people seem to be less ashamed of their sexuality but more ashamed of their shame. Shame about shame has increased: people, even professional researchers, are reluctant to talk about it directly (more about this below).

We can use the word shame openly, as long as it is not referring to the actual emotion. The comment What a shame! has the same meaning as What a pity! So it doesn't refer directly to the actual emotion. Similarly the word fuck can be used more freely (What the fuck?) when it doesn't refer to sex.

One way of hiding shame is to use terms that only imply it. For example, "I feel foolish, silly, unworthy, inadequate, etc." (Retzinger 1995, lists hundreds of these substitutes). Some of the maneuvers we use to avoid the S-word are complex. Instead of "I was embarrassed," we might say "It was an awkward moment for me." It was not me that was embarrassed (denial), but the moment that was awkward (projection).

The earlier complete taboo on sexuality had consequences in the real world. Many parents and other guardians of the young dared not tell children about the birds and the bees. One result was unwanted pregnancies. Similarly the taboo on shame has consequences in the real world, but I will come back to those in the next installment.

Hiding Shame in the World of Research

A taboo is implied in the many studies of shame that do not use the forbidden word at all. One way of hiding shame is to behaviorize it: there are many studies of feelings of rejection, loss of social status or, as in two of the titles below, search for recognition. For example, Rosen's 2005 book on the causes of war mentions anger and fear, but not shame. As a substitute, "status attainment" is suggested as a cause of war.

There is also a hiding that involves only the title of a volume: shame/humilitation is clearly the central thesis in the actual texts, but it does not appear in the title: The title that Dennis Smith submitted to the publisher for his 2006 study of how globalization leads to humiliation in Third World countries used the word humiliation in the title, but the publisher refused it. Lindemann's 2010 study of the causes of war and his edited volume (2011, with Ringmar) on this topic use the politics of recognition in the titles. Publishers are loath to use a word in the title that might hurt sales.

The sociologist Norbert Elias (1939) published a monumental study of etiquette and educational manuals in five languages over hundreds of years of European history. It shows that shame was becoming increasingly important in modernity, but, paradoxically, it was also becoming invisible. Apparently Elias's description of the invisibility of shame was all too accurate, even when applied to his own work. In the 72 years since the publication of The Civilizing Process, there have been few responses to his hidden shame thesis. Most researchers, including Elias's large band of followers, just ignore that part of the book.

Over the years, colleagues have questioned my interest in shame. They have said to me, in effect, that they don't understand because they themselves are never ashamed. My reply: Shame in modern societies has become virtually invisible. But this response doesn't satisfy them. Perhaps someone one may come up with a response that is more understandable to them than the one I have been using.

Please let me know if you think shame, the emotion, has gotten more and more unspeakable.