SHAME, GUILT, THE MUSLIM PSYCHE, AND THE DANISH CARTOONS

****WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS! WELCOME MICHELLE MALKIN READERS!! Feel free to browse the site and previous posts in the sidebar ****

In a previous post on "Shame and the Arab Psyche and Islam", I stated:

[...]shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. But healthy shame, on the other hand, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

Excessive or inappropriate shame is another thing altogether, communicating forcibly to the individual that he or she is worthless. Shame can be an exceedingly devastating and painful experience

Children who live with constant hostility and criticism learn to defend against the bad feelings and shame within; and to externalize blame onto others. Projection and paranoia, which are both external assignments of blame, are psychological defenses against shame.

Often this excessive shame is dealt with by humiliating someone perceived as weaker or more worthless than the shamed person (e.g., the family pet, women, Gays, or outside groups serve this function for both individuals and cultures).

In contrast, guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one's own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt manages the excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable; and is usually expressed as regret and remorse.

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. It should be noted that without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience.

Islam has absorbed the dominant features of a "shame culture" from its Arab and tribal roots; while the West has become a "guilt culture". The differences between them can be summed up in the table below:


A guilt culture (i.e., the West) is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, be pathological.

In contrast, in a typical shame culture (i.e., Arab/Islamic culture) what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has several side-effects, including granting the individual carte blanche to (1)engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved; and (2) engage in any necessary behavior, including wrong-doing (i.e., murder, beheading, etc.) in order to avoid shame and/or recover honor.

Although it is hard for someone in a guilt culture to appreciate, it may be impossible for an individual in a shame culture to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is)--particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty-- because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence, even if you are guilty. Remember maintaining honor is what is important--not truth, not justice, and not tolerance or restraint.

One of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor. In Arab/Islamic culture, women are one of the primary instruments of achieving honor. Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even women buy into the delusion.

Another expression of the shame culture is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. For the last five years we have been regularly subjected to imams, religious leaders, and leaders of Muslim states insisting that 9/11 or the London bombings were not committed by Muslims. These same individuals will often blame the Jews for such acts. In this way they can avoid the shame that taking responsibility for evil.

Additionally, the emphasis by CAIR and other Muslim organizations in their continual demands that any statement or drawing or act that casts aspersions on Islam (whether true or not) be immediately retracted or apologized for, a part of this shame-avoidant dance that leads the culture into the blurry realms of delusion.

There is no shame involved in insulting or denigrating other cultures for Muslims. Therefore such insults are acceptable. That is why there is a disconnect between the disgusting cartoons that are incredibly offensive to Jews and Christians and/or the West (see here), yet at the same time, they angrily DEMAND on threat of violence that even the most mildly offensive cartoons (i.e., the Danish ones here) be immediately repudiated.

SHAME MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. Everything else is secondary. Contradictions are irrelevant; logic and reason unimportant. HONOR MUST BE RESTORED, and this can only be done at the expense of those who originated the "insult".

Meanwhile, in our guilt culture, we obsess about how we might have hurt their feelings and some of us (not me) actually desire to make amends and apologize. This is laudable and very sensitive. It underscores the sense of tolerance that has evolved within Western culture. However well-meaning, IT WILL NOT WORK , particularly in the long-run. Making an apology for having "shamed" someone in such a culture is merely a sign of weakness from their perspective (since you are shaming yourself by admitting guilt), and hence only escalates the self-righteousness and demands that follow; and it does not ameliorate the next insult when it inevitably (and usually unintentionally) comes.

For most shame societies, even the mildest insult must be avenged with death, because now everyone knows that you have been insulted, and without the death (or blood) to wipe it out, honor cannot be restored.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously within the culture, the oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful") is a high priority. Additionally, the shame culture will always perceive the guilt culture as "weak" and inferior.

Shame cultures inevitably project their own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto outside groups.

The last such culture the West dealt with was Japan during WWII. Interestingly, they also had their suicide bombers (kamikaze) and their ritual killings for honor and vengeance related to shame avoidance.

The conundrum facing the West in dealing with Islam is that if Islam backs down from its demands, the resulting humiliation only increases the entire culture's sense of shame (which has been high for some centuries now) and brings it closer to the reality of a ticking time bomb that can blow up the rest of the world.

And sadly; the reverse situation--if the West, out of guilt and a sense of justice and fair play, backs down and permits Islam to restore its honor over the Danish cartoon issue at the expense of the West's cultural values; Islam will perceive such appeasement as the ultimate weakness and will be encouraged in thinking that it is the superior culture that will conquer and dominate the world. Hence even that scenario offers no relief for the world from the ticking time bomb that is Islam.

In other words, there appears to be no way to avoid a final confrontation.

UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred and I are on the same wavelength today and approaching the same issue from slightly different starting points.

UPDATE II - an excellent analysis of some fascinating data at Dean's World. It is my hypothesis that as the freedom increases in a "shame culture" it will have a greater liklihood of evolving into a "guilt" culture. It has been noted in several studies that a shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

UPDATE III - ShrinkWrapped draws some parallels between the Reichstag fire and the cartoon wars and comments:

This is the point that needs to be kept in mind by those who correctly counsel restraint. While there is no need for any Americans to purposely provoke the Islamists and their thugs and cannon fodder on the street, we should not for a minute believe that our behavior of restraint will have any influence on how this plays out. I suppose one could argue that we could make things worse but we have no ability to make things better. That is up to the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, along with such ugly actors as Hamas, Hezbullah and Fatah. To believe these types will do anything more than offer a "hudna" is to delude oneself.

Read it all.

SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM

General Comments about Shame
Shame is often an underappreciated psychological state. Particularly in the modern world, but also throughout history, shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. But healthy shame, on the other hand, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

Excessive or inappropriate shame is another thing altogether, communicating forcibly to the individual that he or she is worthless. Shame can be an exceedingly devastating and painful experience

Children who live with constant hostility and criticism learn to defend against the bad feelings and shame within; and to externalize blame onto others. Projection and paranoia, which are both external assignments of blame, are psychological defenses against shame.

Often this excessive shame is dealt with by humiliating someone perceived as weaker or more worthless than the shamed person (e.g., the family pet, women, Gays, or outside groups serve this function for both individuals and cultures).


Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one's own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience.

Guilt Cultures vs. Shame Cultures

In thinking about how the concepts of guilt and shame apply in a culture, it is helpful to refer to a seminal work that was originally published by Benedict in 1946, where she discussed the collectivist culture of Japan during WWII and distinguished it from American culture. Japan had a “shame culture”, while the U.S. and most of the West subscribe to a “guilt culture”. Each type of culture has its own set of rules with regard to wrong-doing and they are determined by the beliefs of the individual and other people regarding guilt, and summarized in the two matrix tables below:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.



In contrast, a typical shame culture (e.g., Japan as discussed by Benedict; or the present focus of this discussion: Arab/Islamic culture) what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. As noted by Gutman in his writings, the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

Let us now turn to Arab/Islamic culture.

This piece by David Gutmann is one of the best psychological analyses of shame and the Arab psyche I have read, and because it deals with something so critically important, I am going to quote a rather large excerpt:

The Arab world is suffering a crisis of humiliation. Their armies are routed not only by Americans, but also by tiny, Jewish Israel; and as Arthur Koestler once remarked, the Arab world has not, in the last 500 years or so, produced much besides rugs, dirty postcards, elaborations on the belly-dance esthetic (and, of course, some innovative terrorist practices). They have no science to speak of, no art, hardly any industry save oil, very little literature, and portentous music which consists largely of lugubrious songs celebrating the slaughter of Jews.

Now that the Arabs have acquired national consciousness, and they compare their societies to other nations, these deficiencies become painfully evident, particularly to the upper-class Arab kids who attend foreign universities. There they learn about the accomplishments of Christians, Jews, (Freud, Einstein, for starters) and women. And yet, with the exception of Edward Said, there is scarcely a contemporary Arab name in the bunch. No wonder, then, that major recruitment to al-Qaeda's ranks takes place among Arab university students. And no wonder that suicide bombing becomes their tactic of choice: it is a last-ditch, desperate way of asserting at least one scrap of superiority—a spiritual superiority—over the materialistic, life-hugging, and ergo shameful West.

But this tactic is not, I suggest, a product of Islam. Rather, it is a product of the bruised Arab psyche. Remember that the Japanese also turned to suicide tactics in WWII to evade the humiliation of defeat. Though their religion was Shinto rather than Muslim, they too constituted a paradigm shame/honor culture, and defeat brought about, as with the Arabs, a furiously suicidal/homicidal response. After their armies had been defeated, their fleets sunk, their cities set aflame, and their home islands invaded, they launched the kamikaze bomber offensive, thereby committing a hi-tech form of hara-kiri, their usual remedy against intolerable shame. It is in this way that the modern Arab world resembles the Japan of World War II. In both cases it is not religions but psychic wounds, the wounds inflicted by defeat and evident inferiority, that inspire suicide bombers.

It is often asserted that the changes set in train by modernization are particularly toxic to the Arabs. No doubt this is true. But if we are going to be therapeutic, our diagnoses need to be more specific; we need to identify the particular pathogens that are released by modernization. Besides sharpening their sense of inferiority relative to the West, modernization threatens to bring about the liberation of women (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). I say "threatens," because the self-esteem of Arab males is in large part predicated on the inferior position of their women. The Arab nations have for the most part lost their slaves and dhimmis, the subject peoples onto whose persons the stigmata of shame could be downloaded. But anyone who has spent time among them knows that Arab males have not lost their psychological need for social and sexual inferiors. In the absence of slaves and captive peoples, Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man.

Hence the relative lack of material achievement by Arabs: the Arab world has stunted the female half of its brain pool, while the men acquire instant self-esteem not by real accomplishment, but by the mere fact of being men, rather than women. No wonder, then, that the Arab nations feel irrationally threatened by the very existence of Israel. Like America, the Jews have brought the reality of the liberated woman into the very heart of the Middle East, into dar al-Islam itself. Big Satan and Little Satan: the champions of Muslim women.

I contend that female liberation is the most hopeful development in the Middle East, greater even than the first stirrings of democracy. I believe that Arab women have a greater stake in liberal democracy than Arab men, and as they acquire political power, they will fight for it. As for suicide bombings, jihadism and the macho posturing of Arab men, they are desperate remedies against further humiliation, against the perceived threat of “castration,” by their own women. Until Arab women achieve freedom and independence, we can expect, at least for awhile, to see Arab men cling to these remedies.

Even then, some Arab men will probably backslide to even greater suicidal/homicidal tantrums. Others, (perhaps even a majority) no longer able to project their deficiencies onto Arab women, will begin to recognize the flaws in themselves. These converts would adopt the self-critical stance that is already showing up among some daring Arab intellectuals and even religious leaders. And when Arab men can no longer acquire instant self-esteem by demeaning their women, some of them might even turn to the arts of peace, and try to acquire the sense of self-worth via instrumental rather than illusory psychological means.

We cannot, in the end, correct all the distortions of the Arab shame/honor ethos. But by pledging our support for Arab women's liberation—for instance, by advocating expanded liberties for women in the text of the new Iraqi constitution—we can hasten its erosion.

Gutmann takes pains to separate the toxic aspects of the Arab psyche from Islam. This is the only part of his argument that I do not find compelling.

it seems to me that the Arab psyche has had centuries to be slowly absorbed by Islam and that in many cases, and in most important aspects, the two are now inseparable. We can see this in the fact that even in Indonesia, Thailand and non-Arab locales where Islam has been embraced it retains both Arab misogyny and intolerance.

Alternatively, it might be argued, that Islam takes root and grows best when it is in the toxic nutrients of Arab-shame/honor cultures.

It is also important to remember that Mohammad himself was Arab and most of the Koran is pretty consistent with what is known about his personality and style.

On the other hand, it is only in the fairly recent history of Islam (e.g. in the last century) that Islam appears to have fully embraced the subjugation of women under the guise of "protecting" them and preserving honor.

This earlier article by Gutmann also discusses shame in the Arab world:

In regard to military history, the Arab's preference for guerrilla over conventional war reflects a long tradition, one that began in antiquity, with the Bedouin raiders. Their way of war- brilliantly described by T.E. Lawrence in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom – is based on hit and run forays by camel-mounted Bedouin who appear suddenly out of the desert, tear up an unsuspecting enemy camp, and then disappear back into the waste, carrying "honorable" loot: thoroughbred horses, camels and women.

The traditional Bedouin created a nearly pure "Shame" culture, whose goal was to avoid humiliation, and to acquire sharraf - honor. Thus, the goal of the Bedouin raid is not to finally win a war, for such inter-tribal conflict is part of the honorable way of life, and should never really end. The essential goals of the raid are to take wealth – not only in goods, but also in honor - and to impose shame on the enemy. Any opponent worth fighting is by definition honorable, and pieces of his honor can be ripped from him in a successful raid, to be replaced by figments of the attacker's shame. The successful attacker has "exported" some personal shame to the enemy, and the enemy's lost honor has been added to the raider's store.

This calculus of shame and sharraf is an important element in all Arab warfare, whether waged by Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, or a Bedouin sheik. In particular, that same dynamic drives the Arab preference for irregular over conventional war.

Irregular tactics - spiced with Terror – have on occasion defeated regular armies; but win, lose, or draw in the military sense, terror tactics can be a far more efficient means of meeting psychological goals - i.e., shedding shame and capturing honor - than all-out war.

Let me be clear that I am not excusing the behavior of Islam and Arabs toward women, Jews, Christians, and other cultures. I am merely trying to understand those elusive "root causes" that everyone talks about.

As stated earlier in this essay, one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor. In Arab/Islamic culture, women are one of the primary instruments of achieving honor. Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even women buy into the delusion (as eloquently demonstrated by Dymphna in this post)

Honor killings of women are all too common in Arab culture, and importantly are not dissuaded by the tenets of Islam.

Other expressions of the shame culture that are obvious is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Not only are we regularly subjected to imams, religious leaders, and leaders of Muslim states stating even now that 9/11 or the London bombings were not committed by Muslims; they also regularly blame the Jews for such acts. In this way they can avoid the shame that taking responsibility for evil.

Additionally, the emphasis by CAIR and other Muslim organizations in demanding that any statement that criticizes or even suggests blame or responsibility by Islam for terror, be retracted or apologized for, is also just a part of the shame-avoidant dance that leads the culture into the blurry realms of delusion.

Finally, it is not surprising that the most murderous thugs espousing religious ideals as they brutally cut off the heads of infidels are hidden behind masks and dare not reveal themselves to the world. I suspect that on some deep level they know that their "pride" in their sick behavior would be more difficult to boast about if they were not anonymous. "If no one knows it is me committing these acts, then I am not shamed," after all.

While psychological health and self-esteem depend to some extent on overcoming shame and progressing to a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that there is an objective truth out there that is not determined by other people's opinions; both shame and guilt can be important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group.

Some of the earlier pieces I have written on these topics include:

NARCISSISM AND SOCIETY:
Narcissism and Society, Parts I,II, III

WOMEN AND ISLAM:
Where Have All the Mothers Gone?
Yes, This Is Islam
International Women's Day in Iran
Modern vs. Medieval
Institutionalized Misogyny
The Psychopathology of Terrorism

PROJECTION AND PARANOIA:
Islamic Delusion
Paranoia and Projection
Psychological Defense Mechanisms
Paranoia Strikes Deep
Denial and Delusion

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS A 'SHAME' CULTURE ?

One of my regular readers, OBloodyHell emailed me this yesterday:

Carl, over at No Oil For Pacifists has a piece up about pork: Pork Update which deals with Obama's name appearing on an earmark, despite his promises that wouldn't happen. In the final bill, his name will be removed. That makes it "all better".

I quipped something to him about one of his points, and he responded with
> That's because us inside-the-beltway types think anonymity preserves ethics.

Which produced an interesting connection in my head to your piece on Shame Cultures.

The Left's response to ethical challenges maps into that layout box on shame/honor remarkably well -- and maybe, if you think about it, to the underlying mental gymnastics going on when the MSM doesn't "report" ethically inappropriate actions by Dems, as we all know is far more common than it ought to be. It does seem to me that the Left seems to think that by not reporting on inappropriate actions, that Their Guys are exonerated somehow. Think about Dan Rather's continued denial of his incompetent fact checking in this context, too.

What OBloodyHell is referring to is this table, which lays out the fundamental psychological differences between a typical "shame" culture and a "guilt" culture:



Let me review the key differences between the two types of cultures:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.

In contrast, a typical shame culture what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

I think OBloodyHell is definitely onto something here.

Ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal, for example. He is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about his behavior, whether it is in the public or personal domain and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign. He has high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do).

Remember, shame--especially in limited quantities--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. Healthy shame keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one's own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

But many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way.

This is, of course, typical of most narcissists; and without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture.

If you recall, the other day I quoted a very perceptive thought of Siggy's while talking about the neo-Marxist economic modus operandi: "Conservatives believe they have better ideas. Leftists believe they are better people."

This is extremely relevant to a discussion about the differences between the Democratic Party culture (which has become primarily, though not exclusively, influenced by the political left) and the Republican Party culture (which is predominantly influenced by conservative ideas and values).

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience.

Hence, we see Republicans as a group are far more likely to resign positions when their unethical or immoral behavior is exposed.

Democrats don't tend to do this. In the first place, they will not even acknowledge a "scandal" unless it remains in the national media for an extended period of time (they hope it will go away, and if it does, then they can continue to go about their business as if it never happened). They can always count on the MSM to minimize the damage--even not to report it at all if they can.

Thus the first and foremost rule: if no one knows about their shame, then it doesn't count and they can continue to pretend they are innocent. Just think of the likes of Charles Rangell; Chris Dodd or Barney Frank. Could a Republican politician ever recover from being responsible for the death of a young woman while he saved himself and didn't even report the accident to the police? Yet, someone like Ted Kennedy is now a revered senior statesman on the Democratic side of the aisle. No one talks of his crime. Do you imagine Larry Craig--whose indiscretion hurt no one-- could ever make a comeback like that? Not on your life.

No, because Democrats, on the whole, firmly believe that they are "better people"--i.e., more loving, more compassionate, more intelligent etc. etc. ad nauseum; they go to great lengths to avoid shame; and hence, to avoid responsibility for their behavior. For every corrupt Ted Stevens, there are at least three John Murthas, Charlie Rangells, and William Jeffersons.

They lie, they deceive, they distort. They take kickbacks and are self-righteous about how innocent they are. They vow to eliminate pork, but think all they have to do is take their name off the bill they support and they are in the clear. They wonder what the meaning of "is" is. They insist they" did not have intercourse with that woman" because rhetorical maneuvers are a key postmodern method to avoid having to deal with shame and oral sex isn't really sex anyway. They deny deny deny, and they pretend that they are innocent victims of vast rightwing conspiracies or, as in the case with ex-Governor Blagojevich, they emphasize what "champions" of the little guy they are. They ignore facts and when that doesn't work, they are prepared to ignore the whole of reality itself. Because the cost to their fragile self-esteem if they are discovered is far too catastrophic.

Republicans tend to be amused when they watch Democratic scandals unfold--they, at least have few illusions about human frailty. Democrats, OTOH, immerse themselves in an orgy of self-gratifying excitement and jubilation when they hear of a Republican who fails to live up to the morality he espouses. "HYPOCRISY!" they scream in delight, cheered by the fact that they can once again feel superior.

Their own hypocrisy is another matter altogether and the mental gymnastics in which they engage in order to avoid coming to terms with their own imperfections is...well, it would be amusing if they didn't get away with it so often. But since most journalists are now immersed in leftist culture, they also think of themselves as "better people" and thus, can't allow one of their cultural brothers or sisters to make asses of themselves.

Why, that would be like criticizing Mohammed for sleeping with a 9-year old! It just isn't done in a shame culture, especially one based on the writings and behaviors of the aforementioned Mohammed. Instead, you make sleeping with a 9-year old one of the highest moral virtues of the culture.

In the Arab/Islamic culture one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor.

The Democrat/leftist ummah has developed a rather clever way to do this in the western world: they constantly create victim groups that they can feel superior to and "champion". All that is required is for those groups to remain perpetual victims and constantly complain about their downtrodden state so that the elites of the left can show off what better people they are. They have even created a complicated victimhood heirarchy to deal with competing victimhood claims; and when push comes to shove--i.e., when Democrats or leftists do something wrong, immoral, unethical, or even evil--they can always claim to be victimized themselves. It's a nice little scam they've got going on the side to maintain their shame culture.

Another way understanding this "shame and guilt" culture distinction is that, those who will do anything to avoid shame, have bought into psychological denial big time; their emotions and the need to feel good about themselves have become more important than reason, truth or reality.

This is the same psychological maneuver that allows people to claim they are champions of free speech, as they diligently work to silence anyone with views that differ from their own. Inevitably, it leads to complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This psychological maneuvering is no different from that of certain male religious fanatics to believe that by subjuging women and making them invisible, they are virtuously protecting society from the evils of women's sexuality; when what the society really suffers from is the evils of their own perverted sexuality. They delude themselves--and sometimes the women--into believing such nonsense so that they can maintain the illusion of being honorable men.

Because they persist in believing that they are "better people", the Democratic Party has had little choice but to descend into the immature, anti-reason and anti-reality behavior of a typical shame culture.

You can think of it as the "Arabization of American politics".

EVERYDAY DELUSIONS OF A SHAME CULTURE

For anyone who desires real peace in the middle east, it must be extremely disheartening to see thugs like Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and Assad assert that they have achieved a great victory over Israel with regard to the current UN-brokered ceasefire. On TV, the scene abruptly shifts to the explosion of joyous fireworks over Beirut that proclaim an historic victory for Islam as women and children dance in the streets; when days before we were shown by the same media the pathos of dead children's bodies pulled from wrecked buildings; and the suffering of horribly victimized Lebanese, defeated and dispirited by the vicious bombs of the Israelis.

Let us put aside for the moment a discussion of whether the claims of victory have merit, since I believe it is far too early to be able to assess what may yet happen in Lebanon and how the situation will unfold. The ultimate victor and loser remains to be seen and a case could be made at this moment for either outcome.

Instead, let us consider how a shame culture--like the Islamic states and terror groups involved in this conflict--deal with success and failure.

For a typical shame culture the most important issue--indeed the issue that trumps truth or reality every time--is what people believe.

What others believe to be true has a far more powerful impact on behavior than what any particular individual believes; since the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else, is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This need to avoid shame motivates the individuals in the culture to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

It also motivates them to do whatever is necessary to give the impression that honor has been preserved.

As long as others in the culture believe that honor has been preserved, then neither the individual or the group have to experience either guilt or shame. It is not surprising therefore, that a great deal of effort and planning goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty); your victimization (even if you are the oppressor); and your victory (even if you are the loser).

Since shame cultures work best within a collectivist/totalitarian framework, it is often fairly easy to manipulate appearances in order to avoid shame and claim honor has been preserved. When you control the media and/or the social structure; have unlimited money and sophisticated tools for the development and dissemination of propaganda, then it is even easier.

It is an absolute cake-walk if you also happen to have a bunch of useful idiots managing the media of the enemy you hope to shame and give the appearance of defeating.

Remember, in this kind of culture, nothing is more important than making sure you do not experience feelings of humiliation and shame.

We see hints of the profound reservoir of shame that already exists within the culture in Nasrallah's references to humiliating defeats in both the near and distant past of Islam's history; and his insistence that this time, they have achieved an "historic victory". It is this reservoir that is the psychological motivation that drives the continual denial, delusion, paranoia and projection of the culture, and which keep it mired in a medieval time-warp.

In a true shame culture, the goal is not necessarily to win a war, particularly since maintaining conflict with the traditional enemy--i.e., the "Jew"--is part of what is perceived as an "honorable" way of life, and should never really end. The primary goal of Hezbollah (and Hamas)is very simple: to impose shame on Israel.

As long as they do that, then they have "won" by their standards. Faking photographs to demostrate the evil of their enemy; hiding among women and children to force the enemy to kill those same women and children; transforming every loss of personnel into a condemnation of Israel for attacking "innocents"--all these tactics serve the purpose of shaming the enemy and inducing guilt.

Thus, by these standards, the new barbarians of the Islamic world, know they cannot lose in any conflict with the west--no matter what the reality is.

By these standards, all that is required for them to proclaim victory is to avoid shame and make their enemy feel it instead.

By these standards, they will ALWAYS--always-- be psychologically empowered, encouraged; and reinforced in their delusions of grandeur--not to mention in their violent, aggressive and barbaric behavior-- by any compassionate or concerned humanitarianism on the part of their despised enemies; by any cessation of conflict before they are utterly and complete defeated; or by any attempts on the part of the west to negotiate a real and lasting peace.

Such are the everyday delusions of a shame culture.

THE POSTMODERN PSYCHOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE AND THE BATTLE BETWEEN GUILT AND SHAME

Victor Davis Hanson on Iran and its plans for the end of days:

Ahmadinejad faces two hurdles: He must get the bomb, and he must create the psychological landscape whereby the world will shrug at Israel’s demise.

Oddly, the first obstacle may not be the hardest....

But the second obstacle — preparing the world for the end of the Jewish state — is trickier.

True, the Middle East’s secular gospel is anti-Semitism. State-run media in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan broadcast endless ugly sermons about Jews as “pigs and apes.” Nor do Russia and China much care what happens to Israel, as long as its demise does not affect business. But the West is a different matter. There the history of anti-Semitism looms large, framed by the Holocaust that nearly destroyed European Jewry. Thus the Holocaust is now Ahmadinejad’s target just as much as downtown Tel Aviv.

Holocaust denial is a tired game, but Ahmadinejad’s approach is slightly new and different. He has studied the Western postmodern mind and has devised a strategy based on its unholy trinity of multiculturalism, moral equivalence and cultural relativism. As a third world populist, he expects that his own fascism will escape proper scrutiny if he can recite often enough the past sins of the West. He also understands the appeal of victimology in the West these days. So he knows that to destroy the Israelis, he, not they, must become the victim, and Westerners the aggressors who forced his hand. (emphasis mine)

This is a must-read by Hanson, who goes on to discuss at length various strategies to deal with Iran.

What is most interesting to me is context of Iran's "psychological landscape", i.e., the extreme religious fanatacism driven by a shame culture.

Let us consider for a moment how a shame culture--like Iran and all these Islamofascist terrorists for that matter--deal with success and failure.

For a typical shame culture the most important issue--indeed the issue that trumps truth or reality every time--is what people believe.

What others believe to be true has a far more powerful impact on behavior than what any particular individual believes; since the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else, is one of the primary foundations of the culture/religion. This need to avoid shame motivates and exculpates the individuals in the culture to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or if he piously disavows that he did it.

It also motivates them to do whatever is necessary to give the impression that honor has been preserved.

As long as others in the culture believe that honor has been preserved, then neither the individual or the group will experience either guilt or shame. It is not surprising therefore, that a great deal of effort and planning goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty); your victimization (even if you are the oppressor); and your victory (even if you are the loser).

Do you begin to see why Ahmadinejad's tactics play so well in the West--particularly to the intellectual and cultural elites whose intellects are drowning in a toxic brew cooked up in the postmodern kitchen?

Since shame cultures work best within a collectivist/totalitarian framework, it is often fairly easy to manipulate appearances in order to avoid shame and claim honor has been preserved. When you control the media and/or the social structure; have unlimited money and sophisticated tools for the development and dissemination of propaganda, then it is even easier.

It is an absolute cake-walk if you also happen to have a bunch of useful idiots managing the media of the enemy you hope to shame and give the appearance of defeating.

Remember, in this kind of culture, nothing is more important than making sure you do not experience feelings of humiliation and shame.

In a true shame culture, the goal is not necessarily to win a war, particularly since maintaining conflict with the traditional enemy--i.e., the "Jew"--is part of what is perceived as an "honorable" way of life, and should never really end. The primary goal of Iran and its proxies in Iraq and elsewhere is very simple: to impose shame on the West and Israel.

As long as they do that, then they have "won" by their standards. Faking photographs to demostrate the evil of their enemy; hiding among women and children to force the enemy to kill those same women and children; transforming every loss of personnel into a condemnation of Israel for attacking "innocents"--all these tactics serve the purpose of shaming the enemy and inducing guilt.

Thus, by these standards, the new barbarians of the Islamic world, know they cannot lose in any conflict with the west--no matter what the reality is.

By these standards, all that is required for them to proclaim victory is to avoid shame and make their enemy feel it instead.

By these standards, they will ALWAYS--always-- be psychologically empowered, encouraged; and reinforced in their delusions of grandeur--not to mention in their violent, aggressive and barbaric behavior-- by any compassionate or concerned humanitarianism on the part of their despised enemies; by any cessation of conflict before they are utterly and complete defeated; or by any attempts on the part of the west to negotiate a real and lasting peace.

Is it surprising that in the mullahs eyes, the Democrat's insane desire to ensure defeat and utterly surrender in Iraq is a source of honor and status?

And, in a shame culture, the granting of "honor and status" from the culture's perceived enemies will not induce them them to compromise or negotiate in good faith. Instead, it will breed the exaggerated arrogance; even more swaggering rhetoric and veiled threats; more taunting of the Jews, Israel, and the West; more oppression of its own people, and more flaunting of its nuclear ambitions in the face of the world.

This, by the way, is exactly the same dynamic that charges our relationship with North Korea, yet another shame culture run by a megalomaniac. In that instance, the forces of appeasement, surrender, and complete moral idiocy are working hard to bring honor to Kim Jung Il and shame to America.

What motivates regimes like Iran and North Korea is the avoidance of shame, and maximization of honor. For them it is is simple elementary psychological math. In such cultures maximizing their honor involves shaming you. Thus, the recent spectacle of Iran's aggression against Britain, the taking of hostages and flaunting them on the world stage; and the ultimate grandiosity--"graciously" granting them pardons after honor has been maximized.

Then all you have to do to stretch honor out a little further is sit back and watch your leftist allies in this peculiarly postmodern game engage in the usual displays of gratuitous self-flagellation and mea culpas. This is music for the thuggish souls of the Islamofascists (even if music and most other forms of pleasure are forbidden).

They can now offically consider you as weak and inferior to themselves. By their cultural standards, they have won and you have lost.

It is only a matter of time until they logically proceed toward your complete subjugation. Only by your total humiliation and defeat can their own honor continue to be maximized. Just ask the women in their culture (the ones that are not brainwashed by this cultural dynamic anyway).

By allowing these shame-avoidant and repellant regimes to preen and flout their sense of superiority at the expense of the West, the intellectuals of the postmodern political left regularly prove to the mullahs that there is no one strong enough to stop them now from obtaining (or using) nuclear weapons.

By ceding Iraq to the thugs of Iran; by treating Ahmadinejad and his mullahs as moral equals; by granting them the honor and status of --in short, by imagining that they think like you do; value and seek peace like you do; and in general believing that they are motivated by reason and truth and reality like the West--only makes them anticipate your eventual submission more strongly.

The well-meaning, but ultimately stupid projection of our own deeply ingrained cultural values onto this extremely pathological shame culture by our politicians and media; combined with the perverse and irrational leftist multicultural-politically-correct-victim pap that derives from an ideological agenda that shares common goals and rhetorical strategies with the terrorists; has further enabled and encouraged these fanatics to believe that they can easily wipe us off the map (just as Kruschev wanted to "bury" us) or force us to submit to their religion.

In their frenzy for power and regaining the White House, the Democrats have outsourced their rational cognitive processes to their unconscious feelings and fears; they have closed their eyes to the unpleasant reality about the inevitable psychological consequences of their defeatist and continually appeasing behavior. And they are in the grip of a profound and near-suicidal psychological denial and projection, where they can even (with a straight face) pronounce their actions political "realism".

Such are the everyday delusions that arise from the interaction of the postmodern mindset with psychopaths like Ahmadinejad and all the religious fanatics of the Middle Eastern shame cultures.

As Hanson clearly recognizes, this toxic interaction will not produce peace in our time; but, on the contrary will inevitably lead to more war and even more death and destruction than is now able to be imagined. Because, these Islamic fanatics--who do not let reason or life interfere with their jihad; who abide by no treaties, follow no rules, and scorn the very values upon which western civilization is founded will not be appeased and will use the postmodern lunacy very well to their advantage against us.

We could have lived with them if they did not insist that we must submit, become what they are, or die. But they have defined the groundrules (or the non-rules) of this conflict; and eventually, we will have to meet them at their level--or they will win. They have set the psychological landscape of this war, and the political left in our own country and around the world has done all it possibly can to ensure that those committed to our destruction have the advantage and that we must operate under a vicious, self-imposed handicap.

However, Hanson, an expert in history , cautions rightly:

But what the Iranian theocrats, like the al-Qaedists, never fully fathom is that if the American people conclude that their freedom and existence are at stake, they are capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 7th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. The barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden and Hiroshima prove that well enough. In short, there are consequences to the rhetoric of Armageddon.

So far the Iranian leader has posed as someone 90 percent crazy and ten percent sane, hoping that in response we would fear his overt madness, grant concessions, and delicately appeal to his small reservoir of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90 percent of the time as children of the Enlightenment, they are still suffused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational ten percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier in the end than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer

The dire consequences of not understanding the motivations and behaviors of a shame culture are paralleled by the shame culture's inability to understand the motivations and behaviors of the democratic and freedom-loving Western mind.

When it comes right down to it, the cost of this war will be more than all the lives lost; it will also be for the humanity and civilization the West will temporarily abandon to win. In the real world, the good and virtuous whose cause is just do not always win; and bringing a knife (unsharpened at that) to a street fight where the other side has guns is suicidal.

The ultimate advantage a guilt culture like ours has over the shame culture is that, when we are finally cornered and must allow our own barbarism to surface to combat theirs head to head, then we will always be prepared to live with the consequences--including the agonizing guilt that will properly ensue--or else everything we hold dear, everything we aspire to become, will forever perish from the earth.

Just ask the Japanese.

THE DEMOCRAT SHAME CULTURE

I am beginning a week of on-call and will be dealing with a lot of very sick individuals; so, blogging will be light.

In the meantime, here is an old post of mine which I think is relevant to the discussion about Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke/Bill Maher. In case you have been living on another planet in the last week, here is the crux of the Democrat hypocrisy when it comes to calls for civility and their outrage over Republicans' supposed "War on Women". You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy Democrat-style hypocisy in the galaxy; as manifested by the smug, spinning, and obfuscating Democrat machine, which swung into action after Limbaugh's uncivil remarks.

Democrats OWN psychological denial on this issue as well as on many others.

The original post is from March, 2009.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my regular readers, OBloodyHell emailed me this yesterday:

Carl, over at No Oil For Pacifists has a piece up about pork: Pork Update which deals with Obama's name appearing on an earmark, despite his promises that wouldn't happen. In the final bill, his name will be removed. That makes it "all better".

I quipped something to him about one of his points, and he responded with
> That's because us inside-the-beltway types think anonymity preserves ethics.

Which produced an interesting connection in my head to your piece on Shame Cultures.

The Left's response to ethical challenges maps into that layout box on shame/honor remarkably well -- and maybe, if you think about it, to the underlying mental gymnastics going on when the MSM doesn't "report" ethically inappropriate actions by Dems, as we all know is far more common than it ought to be. It does seem to me that the Left seems to think that by not reporting on inappropriate actions, that Their Guys are exonerated somehow. Think about Dan Rather's continued denial of his incompetent fact checking in this context, too.

What OBloodyHell is referring to is this table, which lays out the fundamental psychological differences between a typical "shame" culture and a "guilt" culture:



Let me review the key differences between the two types of cultures:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.

In contrast, a typical shame culture what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

I think OBloodyHell is definitely onto something here.

Ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal, for example. He is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about his behavior, whether it is in the public or personal domain and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign. He has high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do).

Remember, shame--especially in limited quantities--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. Healthy shame keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one's own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

But many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way.

This is, of course, typical of most narcissists; and without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture.

If you recall, the other day I commented, while talking about the neo-Marxist economic modus operandi: "Conservatives believe they have better ideas. Leftists believe they are better people."

This is extremely relevant to a discussion about the differences between the Democratic Party culture (which has become primarily, though not exclusively, influenced by the political left) and the Republican Party culture (which is predominantly influenced by conservative ideas and values).

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience.

Hence, we see Republicans as a group are far more likely to resign positions when their unethical or immoral behavior is exposed.

Democrats don't tend to do this. In the first place, they will not even acknowledge a "scandal" unless it remains in the national media for an extended period of time (they hope it will go away, and if it does, then they can continue to go about their business as if it never happened). They can always count on the MSM to minimize the damage--even not to report it at all if they can.

Thus the first and foremost rule: if no one knows about their shame, then it doesn't count and they can continue to pretend they are innocent. Just think of the likes of Charles Rangell; Chris Dodd or Barney Frank. Could a Republican politician ever recover from being responsible for the death of a young woman while he saved himself and didn't even report the accident to the police? Yet, someone like Ted Kennedy is now a revered senior statesman on the Democratic side of the aisle. No one talks of his crime. Do you imagine Larry Craig--whose indiscretion hurt no one-- could ever make a comeback like that? Not on your life.

No, because Democrats, on the whole, firmly believe that they are "better people"--i.e., more loving, more compassionate, more intelligent etc. etc. ad nauseum; they go to great lengths to avoid shame; and hence, to avoid responsibility for their behavior. For every corrupt Ted Stevens, there are at least three John Murthas, Charlie Rangells, and William Jeffersons.

They lie, they deceive, they distort. They take kickbacks and are self-righteous about how innocent they are. They vow to eliminate pork, but think all they have to do is take their name off the bill they support and they are in the clear. They wonder what the meaning of "is" is. They insist they" did not have intercourse with that woman" because rhetorical maneuvers are a key postmodern method to avoid having to deal with shame and oral sex isn't really sex anyway. They deny deny deny, and they pretend that they are innocent victims of vast rightwing conspiracies or, as in the case with ex-Governor Blagojevich, they emphasize what "champions" of the little guy they are. They ignore facts and when that doesn't work, they are prepared to ignore the whole of reality itself. Because the cost to their fragile self-esteem if they are discovered is far too catastrophic.

Republicans tend to be amused when they watch Democratic scandals unfold--they, at least have few illusions about human frailty. Democrats, OTOH, immerse themselves in an orgy of self-gratifying excitement and jubilation when they hear of a Republican who fails to live up to the morality he espouses. "HYPOCRISY!" they scream in delight, cheered by the fact that they can once again feel superior.

Their own hypocrisy is another matter altogether and the mental gymnastics in which they engage in order to avoid coming to terms with their own imperfections is...well, it would be amusing if they didn't get away with it so often. But since most journalists are now immersed in leftist culture, they also think of themselves as "better people" and thus, can't allow one of their cultural brothers or sisters to make asses of themselves.

Why, that would be like criticizing Mohammed for sleeping with a 9-year old! It just isn't done in a shame culture, especially one based on the writings and behaviors of the aforementioned Mohammed. Instead, you make sleeping with a 9-year old one of the highest moral virtues of the culture.

In the Arab/Islamic culture one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor.

The Democrat/leftist ummah has developed a rather clever way to do this in the western world: they constantly create victim groups that they can feel superior to and "champion". All that is required is for those groups to remain perpetual victims and constantly complain about their downtrodden state so that the elites of the left can show off what better people they are. They have even created a complicated victimhood heirarchy to deal with competing victimhood claims; and when push comes to shove--i.e., when Democrats or leftists do something wrong, immoral, unethical, or even evil--they can always claim to be victimized themselves. It's a nice little scam they've got going on the side to maintain their shame culture.

Another way understanding this "shame and guilt" culture distinction is that, those who will do anything to avoid shame, have bought into psychological denial big time; their emotions and the need to feel good about themselves have become more important than reason, truth or reality.

This is the same psychological maneuver that allows people to claim they are champions of free speech, as they diligently work to silence anyone with views that differ from their own. Inevitably, it leads to complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This psychological maneuvering is no different from that of certain male religious fanatics to believe that by subjuging women and making them invisible, they are virtuously protecting society from the evils of women's sexuality; when what the society really suffers from is the evils of their own perverted sexuality. They delude themselves--and sometimes the women--into believing such nonsense so that they can maintain the illusion of being honorable men.

Because they persist in believing that they are "better people", the Democratic Party has had little choice but to descend into the immature, anti-reason and anti-reality behavior of a typical shame culture.

UPDATE: If you want more examples of the shamelessness of today's left, check out who has been invited to speak at the Radio and TV Correspondents' Dinner this year. Greta Van Susteren is on it. Also, notice that not only will the Obama campaign NOT give back the $1 Million from the woman-hating (specifically REPUBLICAN women) Maher, but David Axelrod is scheduled to appear on Maher's show.

If you are a postmodern progressive leftist, you never have to say you're sorry.

THEY'RE JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU, OBAMA

The latest on the "hot dog" diplomacy promoted by the hot dog-in-Chief:

From a State Department briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: This isn’t a frivolous question, really. Do you think it’s still appropriate to have Iranians come to these July 4th parties under the circumstances? I mean, is there any thought being given to like, rescinding invitations?

MR. KELLY: No, there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats.

QUESTION: It’s appropriate to have a social dialogue with them if they come?

MR. KELLY: Well, we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran, and we tried many years of isolation and we’re pursuing a different path now.

QUESTION: Have they said yes?

QUESTION: The President keeps saying that —

MR. KELLY: I don’t know, Arshad.

Putting aside that the Iranian regime is just not that into Obama reaching out begging them to like him, the moral aspects of Obama's suck up to the Mullahs should be front and center.

America, are you proud of this behavior?

Are you proud to be hosting a bunch of murderous, lying thugs on our national holiday of freedom and liberty? Are you proud of Obama's simpering, fawning behavior when it comes to the Iranian "Supreme" Leader? Maybe all we needed to do with Saddam was to invite him for coffee and donuts at the White House to seduce him into change his genocidal ways?

Lefties are all in a snit about the hypocrisy of Ensign's sex scandal because he dared to champion family values while he was having an extramarital affair.... I don't deny his hypocrisy on the issue, but frankly, I don't care much about it either.

Ensign sold out his own personal values and is rightly being taken to task for it.

OTOH, isn't it hypocrisy to the ultimate degree to be the President of a country that prides itself on the values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ,to have intercourse with representatives of a regime that stands for the opposite???

That is selling out an entire country's values--big time.

Not only is Obama's behavior an example of breathtaking immorality by someone who supposedly champions America; but the meta-hypocrisy of all the postmodern demagogues of the left is mind-boggling. They are all desperate to find something they can use for their campaigns of personal destruction directed against any and all Republicans(did you know it's "bizarre" to go hiking alone--which is only one of many leftist speculations about Governor Sanford; but perfectly normal and laudable to angrily accuse the CIA of lying to Congress to CYA and without any evidence to support it?); but unconcernedly shrug off the massive hypocrisy of major Democrats (like Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Jefferson, and the saintly Obama to name just a few) because they are all completely shameless about their behavior.

Like a teenage girl shamelessly pursuing a boy who could care less about her--or, for that matter, like any primitive shame culture--the left continually pretends that if they don't notice reality, it will go away.

How do people like Obama, Pelosi, Dodd and Frank et al get away with their hypocrisies? When I said 'shameless', I was being precise:

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience....

In thinking about how the concepts of guilt and shame apply in a culture (NOTE: e.g., the culture of the political left, whose members never admit to wrongdoing--no matter how blatant or obvious it is; vs the culture of the right, whose members acknowledge it and take their lumps accordingly) it is helpful to refer to a seminal work that was originally published by Benedict in 1946, where she discussed the collectivist culture of Japan during WWII and distinguished it from American culture. Japan had a “shame culture”, while the U.S. and most of the West subscribe to a “guilt culture”. Each type of culture has its own set of rules with regard to wrong-doing and they are determined by the beliefs of the individual and other people regarding guilt, and summarized in the two matrix tables below:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.



In contrast, in a typical shame culture (e.g., Japan as discussed by Benedict; or the present focus of this discussion: Arab/Islamic culture) what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. As noted by Gutman in his writings, the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

Now you understand why the left hysterically and loudly condemns Republicans like Ensign; but is absolutely silent (and deaf) when it comes to the wrongdoings of Democrats and those on the left (who you may notice rarely resign or even admit to any guilt or shame).

Obama shamelessly throws himself at the Iranian Mullahs who want nothing to do with him, and betrays his country's values without a lick of remorse; but we're supposed to get worked up about Senator Ensign having an affair with a staffer?

Ensign at least, had enough integrity left to acknowledge his moral transgression and act accordingly. Obama and the other moral relativists of the left understand that being a postmodern zombie means never having to say you're sorry.

UPDATE:


[Cartoons by Glenn McCoy]

MALIGNANT GRANDIOSITY AND THE SHAME CULTURE

There seems to be some doubt out there that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear device (see here and here, for example).

I, of course, have no way of personally knowing the truth of this, but I can think of a lot of reasons why the U.S. might go along with any North Korean deception in this area.

What interests me is the psychology behind a North Korean deception--if it is a deception; which in many ways would be not dissimilar from the same kind of deception about WMDs that Saddam Hussein foisted on the world (and may be the same kind of game being played by the Iranians).

What is the point of such provocation and brinkmanship on the part of Kim? What was ever the point of Saddam's trickery and subterfuge with the international community?

For at least part of that answer, we must go back to the essentials of a "shame" culture--the type of culture that not only dominates the world of the Middle East, but also is rampant in many Asian countries. I discuss "shame" versus "guilt" cultures here.

What ties the three megalomaniacs of North Korea, Iraq and Iran together is their obsessive shame-avoidant behavior, a cultural attribute which is the flip side of their individual malignant grandiosity.

Let me first address the narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all dictators and tyrants, particularly the three mentioned above. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Hussein, or Ahmadinejad are:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Other people are seen only as an extension of the self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; an inability to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Inflated/exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

ShrinkWrapped has this to say about these individuals:

In more severe cases, the existence of the other person’s mind and life is simply of no consequence. For the Malignant Narcissist, other people are mere props in the pageantry of their lives. A tyrant can throw someone into a shredding machine without a second thought because the victim only matters in relation to how he can support the grandiosity of the tyrant; beyond that, he is faceless, nameless, worthless. It was no accident that Saddam Hussein was surrounded by sycophants who all grew mustaches to look just like him.

These kind of personality characteristics certainly can occur in any type of society; but appear to be more easily cultivated in shame cultures, which by their very nature are usually collectivist-oriented. Thus, it is not unusual to find the toxic combination of individual narcissistic personality traits with those behavioral attributes encouraged within a shame culture; specifically, preserving honor and avoiding shame at all costs.

For both the grandiose and shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame.

Most psychological theorists see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience. Most of western culture is predominantly a "guilt"-type culture

In a typical shame culture, what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on one's behavior than even what the individual himself believes. These powerful, preening dictators, who hold complete power over people and who present themselves as little gods, are totally wrapped up in what other people think of them. Humiliation and shame are to be avoided at all costs; and this cultural imperative is only emphasized by the individual grandiosity of the near-omnipotent "great" or "dear" leaders.

From a psychological perspective, it is ridiculous to maintain that it is America's --or any other country's-- "fault" when such leaders behave badly. This distorted view arises from a perverted notion of what self-esteem is really all about.

The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that people like Kim Jung Il or Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath. Such individuals turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve.

Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise. Rather, it is more consistent with exactly the opposite--a narcissistically inflated sense of self that much be preserved at all costs.

Let's remember that these tyrants are not psychiatric patients. They do not seek help; nor do they believe that anything is wrong with them. They believe they are entitled to unlimited praise and deference. They believe that their will and their desire is all that is important. Many people who enthusiastically surround such dictators and admire them are sycophantic and self-abasing appeasers (these people genuinely admire the power and ruthlessness of the omnipotent dictator and want some of that aura to rub off on them--see an example here).

One of the most important expressions of the shame culture, as well as shame-avoidant and grandiose persons in general, is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for any inappropriate behavior--up to and including the most disgusting of atrocities. It is always someone else's fault. In this way the shame-avoidant person can successfully avoid the shame that is inevitable when a mature individual takes responsibility for their own malignant behavior.

Iran's latest press release, blaming the US for North Korea's nuclear test (even if the test turns out to be non-nuclear) is just a part of the classic shame-avoidant dance that leads into the blurry realms of delusion.

Iran's leader clearly understands this dynamic, because he suffers from it himself. It is always someone else's fault that forces you to behave insanely when you are humiliated. There is no responsibility for one's own actions; or even for one's own thoughts or feelings.

Psychological health (which dictators, tyrants and thugs clearly lack, since their operating principle is to obtain power over others, rather than exert power over their own aggressive impulses) and healthy self-esteem depend on overcoming shame by progressing to a level of maturity that recognizes objective reality and truth; a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that the truth about one's self is not determined by other people's opinions. When that level of maturity is reached individually and culturally, both shame and guilt become important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group. When a narcissistic and grandiose individual is steeped in such a culture, they easily become monsters and think of themselves as "gods" (or the special envoy of a god in the case of Ahmadinejad).

The issue for western nations is how one addresses such cultures and their grandiose and often irrational, but cunning, leaders.

SC&A in his usual direct manner have this to say:

Diplomats do not solve problems, they effect useful compromise. That is nice when we are dealing with Canada, France or Luxembourg. Diplomats are ineffective when comes to dealing with evil, because evil must be defeated, not compromised with. Evil must be addressed, head on and relentlessly. If you are unsure about what is and isn’t real evil, you are indeed an idiot.
[...]
In fact, as those who insist we establish a ‘dialogue’ with North Korea, that very regime has been at the fore of arms proliferation, selling nuclear and missile expertise to the highest bidder. No amount of ‘dialogue’ will cause the North Koreans to ’see the light.’ They know very well the difference between right and wrong. They have deliberately chosen to starve their nation so that they might field the world’s 4th largest military and they have deliberately rebuffed the civilized world with threats of catastrophe.

It should come as no surprise that North Korea has for decades, counted among it’s allies terrorists and rogue nations and regimes that openly call for the destruction of other nations and entire peoples.

Compromise and negotiation are not a valued part of any shame culture. There can be no compromise with their concept of "honor", for any compromise brings "shame". Thus, in order to maintain honor, lying and any other kind of deceit is completely acceptable--even encouraged. Multiply this times ten when dealing with the malignant narcissistic leader of the culture or nation.

This reality is hard to grasp for the western mind which places a higher value on truth and honesty. Thus, western diplomats seem incredibly naiive and laughable to both Asian and Arab minds because they believe in the sanctity of agreement, treaties, and the like. The idea that deliberate deceit or lying as a political strategy is considered acceptable--even honorable --in some places of the world doesn't seem to occur to them.

Kim Jong Il cannot back down now. He has brought things to the brink, where he (and most narcissists and psychopaths) like to operate. In fact, he is counting on the West and in particular, the U.S. to take the step back. He has every historical reason to be encouraged that this will happen. Jimmy Carter did it; Madeleine Albright did it; Bill Clinton did it. The Democratic leadership currently in Congress is dying to do it.

However there are several key psychological points one needs to keep in mind when dealing with both the narcissistic grandiosity of the dictator/tyrant and the shame-avoidant culture that nourishes him.

First, in dealing with the narcissistic grandiosity it must be remembered that what you are confronting is basically a bully (a bully with nuclear weapons for sure, but still a bully). And a bully will only stop bullying when it is absolutely clear to him that he cannot win. In other words, a show of overwhelming force that is direct, clear and unambiguous is what is needed. The bully must understand that he will not get away with his bullying; that it will not be tolerated-- or there will be catastrophic consequences for him personally.

Bullies like Kim Jong Il will watch carefully to see if the West really means what it says in this area, and if he senses any ambiguity or lack of resolve on the part of the international community or within the US, he will hold his ground because he thinks he is stronger and can exploit our indecision.

That is what Saddam believed would happen in Iraq. That is what Ahmadinejad and the malignant mullahs believe will happen in their own confrontation with the West. They have seen the indecision and the lack of will and are certain they will prevail against such weakness.

So it is incredibly important that militarily the US or the international community step up to the plate. (I suspect we can likely forget the latter).

The second part of the strategy must address the shame-avoidant culture that Kim controls. Some sort of "carrot" must be offered to the regime that can help them save face. It does not necessarily have to be anything that is high on the North Korean priority list; but it must be something of significance internationally that will increase their status in some way that does not reinforce their already over-emphasized military grandiosity.

This sort of dual behavioral management strategy takes into account both the individual and the cultural psychological dysfunction that underlies the pathological brinksmanship often seen such regimes. Showing any sign of military weakness, willingness to appease or tolerate bad behavior, or a lack of resolve will only empower malignant narcissists like Kim; and failing to offer a way to save face (or reinforcing the worst aspects of the regime in the face-saving) will leave Koreans with an intolerable degree of shame that may be manipulated and cause future problems.