Shameful or Shameless--If You Had to, Which Would You Choose

If you feel shameful--or have what's called a "shame-based identity"--you believe that your very essence is dishonorable, even disgraceful. And frankly, I can think of almost nothing more painful than to go through life harboring such censorious thoughts about oneself. So answering the question posed in the above title should be a no-brainer. Better shameless than shameful, right?

Well, maybe not. The connotations of both terms are so unambiguously negative that I myself would have to pause before choosing either. After all, there's much to be said for the maxim: "Of two evils, choose neither." What I'd like to address in this post are not only some crucial distinctions between "shameful" and "shameless," but also how the former can feed into the latter--how a person's shamelessness might actually be viewed as a curious "adaptation" to, or escape from, underlying feelings of shame.

Where does a shame-based identity come from anyway? The short answer here is that if, when you were growing up, your caretakers regularly criticized your behavior as shameful, it would be almost impossible not to internalize this unfavorable view of yourself. Unfortunately, as children--particularly young children--we can't help but accept our parents' authority to judge us. So if we're routinely evaluated negatively by them, we're extremely likely to adopt such a harsh evaluation as our own.

Hence the term "shame-based identity," meaning simply that we identify who we are in accordance with such detrimental parental messages. Having been invalidated or degraded by our caretakers, we'll feel unworthy, not good enough--that our words and deeds are almost inherently objectionable (though we may never be able to grasp exactly why). Coming to assume that we're somehow blameworthy at our core, we may be doomed to spend the majority of our lives struggling to justify our existence. Or to drown out our shame through some mind- or mood-altering addiction. Or "externalize" our feelings of inadequacy by constantly being angry with, or finding fault with, others. Or, hopelessly resigned to our shame, passively sink into the morass of chronic depression. . . . Or, we may become shameless.

So just what is "shamelessness"? And how do we distinguish it from shamefulness? Some people, confusedly, believe the two concepts are really identical, that a shameful act and a shameless one are basically the same thing. And as these two words relate to behavior--rather than to personality or character--they are roughly synonymous. To say one's behavior is "shameful" is to say that it's base, contemptible, corrupt, ignominious, immoral, indecent, scandalous--even diabolical. Similarly, to call behavior "shameless" is to attack it as audacious, brassy, indecent, depraved, improper, outrageous, profligate, wanton--and downright sinful. In complementary ways, both terms would seem to represent the opposite of all that's good, decent, and principled.

But on the other hand, what are we to make of the fact that shameful plainly means "full of shame," whereas shameless clearly denotes "less" shame (or in fact no shame at all--as in "thoughtless" or "emotionless)? What I'd like to suggest--and it's something I've yet to see addressed in the literature--is that certain individuals who are full of shame because they grew up with parents who routinely discredited and reproached them (maybe even by repeatedly telling them: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself!") can get into the habit of acting shamelessly so as, quite literally, to experience less shame. In fact, I regard most shameless behavior as a cover-up for deeper feelings of shame, which the individual is either too scared or too defended to confront.

All this is similar to pathological narcissism in which the individual, though still saddled with deep feelings of self-doubt and unworthiness, nonetheless displays rampant arrogance and a sense of entitlement. I once worked with a classic narcissist who experienced great difficulty in sustaining healthy relationships. At one point, he proclaimed (and proudly, at that!): "In this world, there are two kinds of people--‘givers' and ‘takers.' And I'm a ‘taker.'" I remember my immediate reaction at the time, thinking: "How can he say this? If I felt this way, I certainly wouldn't want anybody to know about it."

But this is simply how shameless people (many of whom are quite narcissistic) relate to others. In the desperate need to assess themselves positively--and to validate themselves to others--they share (and without any perceptible sense of shame) things that others would typically regard as shameless, and therefore take pains to hide. In their efforts to justify themselves, behavior commonly seen as presumptuous, brash, or outrageous is presented by them as altogether reasonable and defensible--even righteous. In their efforts to overcome old feelings of shame, they've managed (with a success that can be truly alarming!) to subdue any qualms about the responsibility of their behavior. No apologies are necessary, for they don't really feel they've said or done anything wrong.

Abhorrent? . . . Odious? . . . Outrageous? . . . Well, of course. But there's little doubt that for these individuals such brazenness--or better, "unashamedness"--confirms their specialness. Having convinced themselves that their behaviors are well within their rights, they can heedlessly trample on the rights of others. All in the conviction that their personal wants and needs are more important.

Embarrassment Essential Reads

3 Ways to Cope with Cringe Attacks

Humiliations Galore: Surviving, Perhaps Thriving?

Moreover, to be shameless--as opposed to shameful--is also to be guiltless. For in their assuming superiority over others (unconsciously, to dispossess themselves of buried feelings of inferiority), they see themselves as entitled to push their way (as it were) to the front of the line. Having once felt small, unimportant, and possibly demeaned and humiliated as well, their massively constructed defense system now enables them to feel "privileged." They can experience themselves almost as above the law, and certainly beyond the court of public opinion. These are the individuals who, when convicted of trespassing on others' rights--of having acted in flagrant disregard of their fellow humans--may demonstrate little, if any, remorse. And shamelessness, at its irremediable worst, is just one of many traits keying into the diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder.

It should be obvious, then, that it's extremely difficult to respect anyone who, in the need to feel better about themselves, replaces feelings of shamefulness with words and deeds that are irrefutably shameless. But it can be useful to at least comprehend where such unenviable--and reprehensible--shamelessness comes from. So let me conclude this piece by saying not "better to be shameless than shameful," but rather "better to work on (and hopefully resolve) feelings of shamefulness so we're not later impelled toward shamelessness." And if it's already been suggested to us that we're afflicted with this social/psychological handicap, then we need to consider working with a professional who might help us learn how to love and accept ourselves without having to turn our back on others, or use them to enhance our own (basically fragile) sense of self-worth.

Undeniably, we're all motivated to act in ways that make us feel good about ourselves. But affirming our value through treating others as objects to enhance our self-esteem is hardly the best way to accomplish this most fundamental of human pursuits.

Note: To be notified of my future posts, please subscribe to my RSS feed (see orange radio signal icon at top right of page, below my image). If you'd like to check out other posts I've done for Psychology Today, please click here..

© 2009 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.

---- I invite readers to join me on Facebook, and to follow my psychological/philosophical musings on Twitter.