SOC344 2020 Tut8 – Monday 12.30pm

Shame is commonplace in everyday life and politics. Thomas Scheff calls shame ‘the master emotion’, though notes its discussion is often taboo in western countries. He argues that when directed towards ourselves, shame can help us alleviate anxieties through information-seeking and risk avoidance. In these circumstances, when internalised, it resembles (and possibly transforms into) guilt, encouraging sympathy, helpfulness, and attempts to correct (one’s own) bad behaviour. Shame can, however, be highly damaging if internally directed at our core-identity; our sense of who we are rather than what we do, and the source of our self-esteem. When shames turns us against ourselves, it can destroy confidence, lead to depression, create dissonance, and manifest in deviant acts; simple thrills and joys in doing anti-social or wrong things – what Jack Katz calls the ‘seductions of crime’ – that denote an inauthenticity in the way we relate to the people around us.

Trying to avoid this harmful internalisation, we often externalise our shame – blame it on someone else – particularly when that another person or group is perceived to be attacking our core identity. When this happens, shame turns into anger. This might include relatively small, nasty incidents, such as online trolling and cyber-attacks. However, it can also include mass gatherings and political channelling of shame and anger. Such events took place over ten years ago in Australia in the form of the Cronulla Riots, which as Ghassan Hage has argued was a representation of the shame and fear experienced by angry rioters who had their core identities – their conventional white masculine dominance – challenged by job loss from globalization. Hage’s analysis was more political than empirical however; he did not talk to the rioters themselves to gauge their opinions, perceptions, motivations, and – importantly – their feelings.

More recently, shame and anger have manifested in American politics with the rise of Donald Trump, and have been subject to more intense analysis. Arlie Hochschild undertook extensive fieldwork with members of the Tea Party to get a sense of their ‘deep story’ about why they were drawn to vote for Trump, and brings back a more complicated, nuanced picture. She describes their narrative: they see themselves ‘waiting patiently in line’; working hard, being good Christians, not wishing ill of others, but aspiring to lead a slowly improving better life; better than their parents, better for their kids. However – their narrative continues – they are being undermined by others who cut ahead them in the line without working for it, who are supported by the government to do so (on their tax dollars!), who turn them into strangers in their own land, and who insult them with labels like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ if they try to point out the injustice of it all.

They therefore turn to someone like Trump because he recognizes and taps into their feelings – of thwarted aspiration, relative decline, being ignored and unsupported, and having these feelings unrecognised and suppressed – and he seeks to overturn liberal feeling rules. She notes how Trump sets himself up as moral guardian and Judge, dividing everything into good and bad, and then judging ‘bad people’ harshly; workers (on the Apprentice), models, journalists, migrants, etc. He demands continual recognition of himself and his achievements, and this appeals to white workers who identify with him and also want to achieve and feel recognized.

I would argue that this is manifestation of multiple forms of shame – shame at their worsening condition, the feeling of being shamed by an uncaring, tax-grabbing government, and the feeling of being shamed by politically correct liberals and the government when they point out how this is unfair – and their subsequent anger is well-tapped by Trump to feed right-wing politics. The question is: what should be the response of the left? Should it take the fight to Trump, and continue to entrench the partisan divisions wedded firmly to identity politics? Should it allow itself to be painted as anti-nation (and pro-global), anti-aspirational (and pro-disadvantaged), and anti ‘straight white male’ (and pro everyone else)? Or should it seek an alternate path, looking for compromise, inclusiveness and hope … and empathy?

#S344UOW20 #Tut8 #Mon1230

Posted in SOC327 - Emotions Bodies and Society, UOW.

7 Comments on SOC344 2020 Tut8 – Monday 12.30pm

Shanice Pereira said : Guest Report 5 years ago

Through this week’s topic Politics, Anger and Shame, highlighting the nature in shame, managing shame directed at self, managing shame directed at others and, shame and anger in politics. Scheff (2003, p. 258) was able to give insight of how shame is a key social emotion, despite it being viewed as unlawful, as it brings many contributions to knowledge about relationships and society. Through the results of managing shame yourself, can result in negative outcomes such as criminological beginnings. Those who have fell into this see defence “of the self against respectable society's demand that the self be transparent and complacent to it” (Katz 1989, p. 370). The problem with managing shame is that it can directed to someone else turning shame into anger, though half the time it is usually small incidents but, in some cases, turn into mass gatherings through political likeness, like the Cronulla riots. Despite there being no clear understanding to the start of riots, it’s seen that alcohol is a problem but is best that religion and politics is not to spoken about in case of things that could get out of hand, resulting into a political problem (Knox 2011). When shame and anger is brought into politics, such as a situation like Donald Trump, governments and society need to see sociological impacts it creates, to analyse what is right and wrong (Hochschild 2016, p. 688). The conclusion to come for this is how we respond and react towards shame and anger, especially in politics. Reference Hochschild. AR 2016, ‘The Ecstatic Edge of Politics: Sociology and Donald Trump’, Contemporary Sociology, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 683-689. Katz, SB 1989, ‘Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing evil by jack katz’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 80, pp. 352-370. Knox, M 2011, ‘Cronulla five years on’, The Monthly, December 2010 - January 2011, viewed 23 May 2020 Thomas J. Scheff 2003, ‘Shame in Self and Society’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 239-262.

Amber Jones said : Guest Report 5 years ago

In the reading for this week, Horchschild (2016) describes Donald Trump as fitting the description of a charismatic leader more so than other candidates. He appeals to many Americans as his sole purpose is to ‘make America great again’. He has no shame in excluding many minority groups, as he is powerful enough to gain the acceptance and approval of many of his followers. Horchschild (2016) believes many of Trump’s followers to be white, male and from blue collar backgrounds. Trump keeps their support by showing them that he is just as angry as they are about certain issues and promises them that he will fix their concerns. They find themselves being able to relate to him in some way and as holding the same beliefs. He is unpredictable and prone to making mistakes. However, he is easily forgiven as his followers rely heavily on him to convey their message to the rest of the country. The left should be empathetic and inclusive towards all groups in America, rather than focusing on gaining the trust of one specific group. By being anti ‘straight white male’ they are just shifting the exclusion to another group, not solving any of the issues at hand.

Claudia St John said : Guest Report 5 years ago

Hochschild describes Donald Trump as the ‘personal messenger’ to the white working class of America (2016, p. 687). As a highly charismatic leader, Trump has been able to communicate and relate to the struggles felt by the diminishing white American population (Hochschild 2016, p. 687). Through establishing an emotional connection with his followers (Ost 2004, p. 230), Trump has harnessed their anger and feelings of isolation and shame to further a political agenda based on segregation. Trump perpetuates the right wing political ideology that the state protects racial, sexual and religious minorities (Ost 2004, p. 239), whilst leaving the white working class to fend for themselves. He has therefore created an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ divide (Ost 2004, p. 230) which has appealed to many and has enabled his longevity in Office. Barrack Obama was also a charismatic and communicative leader, although he appealed to a diverse range of people. Subsequent democrats have since tried to emulate his form of leadership such as Hilary Clinton however without any success. In order to contend against Trump, left-wing leaders need to recognise and potentially empathise with the struggles of the white working class whilst furthering their progressive agendas. Bernie Saunders, attempts to appeal to the young American working class population by disregarding race and focusing on the economy in order to promote his socialist beliefs. However a leader like Bernie Saunders may be too radical to represent the desires of the white working class. Perhaps a more moderate leader would be required as they would be able to compromise between left and right wing ideologies?

James Strachan said : Guest Report 5 years ago

This week’s topic is on shame and anger and the required reading discusses the American political system and how Donald J Trump came to power in one of the most controversial elections in American history. The rhetoric that Trump uses has produced movements of support for him which is instigated and powered by factors such as economic depression, policy of more focussed on isolationism and promoting capitalism in small communities. Trump has also utilised a style of paranoia and rhetoric especially during his election campaign to cast doubt on certain claims and features of the outgoing president Barrack Obama and his democratic successor Hilary Clinton particularly their religious persuasions, Clintons cover up of the 2012 embassy attack in Libya and the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election cycles (2016, p.683). there is a highly Ironic point that is raised in this reading regarding religion and Donald Trump in that in the primaries Trump who is not religious or displays religious practice was found to be much more popular (66%) with protestant Christians compared to Ted Cruz who’s family comes from a deeply evangelical family that should have been more appealing and logical to vote for. It would seem as well that Donald Trump has no shame as he claims he has never asked for forgiveness whenever he did something wrong in the past but tries to correct his mistakes (2016, p.684). Perhaps this attitude is more appealing to middle class America who played a major role in electing him to the office of POTUS.

Alec Webb said : Guest Report 5 years ago

RESPONSE TO JADE RYAN’S QUESTION: Is it possible to create non-judgemental spaces of contentious political dialogue such as immigration policy without causing shame, when opinions and beliefs are not only highly diverse, but extremely personal and emotive? Whether someone belongs to ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ political alignments, environments that contain contentious political dialogue and discussion are ultimately conducive to high emotions, sometimes leading to the cause of shame. In spaces where politics reside, it is unlikely that complete avoidance of shame is a realistic goal to have in place. This also brings up the fact that people’s highly personal and emotional affairs are becoming politicised and included in the official discussion of people who have no personal attachment or experience with such aspects of life. There is a clear need for discussion and decision making about political topics effecting the real lives of people (e.g. immigration policy) to be focused on the actual people rather than convenience and procedure pertaining to the implementation of laws around such topics. Movement towards diminishing shame felt when discussing politically charged topics will come about through more direct and personal consideration of how people’s live are actually affected by seemingly benign and formalised discussion of policy and law-making.

Jade Ryan said : Guest Report 5 years ago

When looking at common explanations of Trump’s rise to power his appeal to both economic and racist interests within white, working-class mostly male voters is raised. This explanation may be overly simplistic as multiple sources of discontent have emerged within white working-class voters from feelings of unrecognition within political discourse resulting in emotions of anxiety, suspicion, anger and shame. Hochschild’s statement ‘the deep story of the southern, white working- and middle-class people I came to know, their sense of being invisible and forgotten, was the basis of Trump’s appeal’ highlights the need of the left to seek an alternate path of dialogue with the right to reach these voters (Hochschild 2016, p. 687). Through responding with inclusivity and empathy toward the right and facilitating in the ‘airing of grievances’, the recognition of sources of discontent such as class inequalities may be achieved on both sides without causing shame. As shame has the propensity to lead to further shame as well as anger, if the left chooses to leave such emotions unrecognised further division may occur and, in extreme cases, acts of violence. Is it possible to create non-judgemental spaces of contentious political dialogue such as immigration policy without causing shame when opinions and beliefs are not only highly diverse, but extremely personal and emotive? (Scheff 2014; Hochschild 2016).

Mikayla Ede said : Guest Report 5 years ago

Scheff (2014) notes the assumption that shame has an internal recursive nature, but that the concept of the looking-glass self provides a different perspective that there is both internal and external results of shame. These forms of shame can be manifested in aggression, such as trolling online (Herring, 2002). As mentioned by Patulny (2020) and studied by Hochschild (2016), the white working-class voters associate themselves with Donald Trump due to his ability to voice their concerns with being ‘pushed behind’ other ethnic and/or gender groups, making them feel estranged. Trump therefore associates himself with their feelings of anger and distrust toward this system, creating more anger and recognising their shame as opposed to liberal parties. In comparison, the left-wing while seeking to benefit the disadvantaged, has the tendency to avoid connecting to others by not addressing the shame and fears of people. Christopher Kabakis noted how Trump addresses very different emotions than Obama, as seen in this video https://bit.ly/2WItCp9. Kabakis continues to evaluate the different communication methods which Trump and Obama used, saying that Trump appealed to a nostalgic vision of returning what was taken from people. From this, it can be seen that a balance is needed in politics when addressing this sometimes labelled ‘invisible’ emotion of shame. Is the theory that internalised shame can be transformed into positive action truly possible today with the increased difficulty in changing views and apologising for bad behaviour? Discuss in reference to the way social media prevents any opinion made public to be erased and its ability to twist opinions and events, especially within politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked