In recent years, the concept of shame has all but vanished from the political arena. Politicians now operate in a ‘post-shame’ environment, where the primary concern is the ‘optics’ of a situation—how it appears to the public—rather than the intrinsic moral value of their actions. This shift is evident in the behaviour of many contemporary political figures, who prioritise image management over accountability.
Rishi Sunak’s current challenges in the British General Election exemplify this broader trend. His difficulties reflect a continuation of the erosion of shame as a regulating factor in political life and national leadership in Britain. The focus has shifted from moral integrity to managing public perception, underscoring a significant transformation in political culture.
James Hillman, a noted psychologist and scholar, provides a nuanced understanding of the function of shame in modern society and its relationship to archetypal psychology. According to Hillman, shame serves as a critical psychological function that goes beyond mere social conformity or personal embarrassment. He suggests that shame is an archetypal experience, deeply embedded in the human psyche, and serves as a profound motivator for individual behaviour and societal norms.
Hillman argues that shame functions as a regulatory mechanism, guiding individuals towards self-awareness and social cohesion. It acts as a boundary marker, highlighting the limits of acceptable behaviour and encouraging self-reflection and moral introspection. This perspective aligns with his broader archetypal understanding, where human motivations and behaviours are seen as expressions of deeper, universal patterns or archetypes.
From an archetypal standpoint, Hillman views shame not just as a negative or debilitating emotion but as a gateway to greater psychological depth and authenticity. By confronting and integrating feelings of shame, individuals can access deeper layers of the self, fostering personal growth and transformation. This process involves recognising and honouring the shadow aspects of one’s personality, which are often brought to light through experiences of shame.
Furthermore, Hillman emphasises the societal dimension of shame, noting that it plays a crucial role in maintaining social order and cultural values. In modern society, where individualism and self-expression are highly valued, the experience of shame can serve as a counterbalance, reminding individuals of their interconnectedness and responsibilities to others. This dual role of shame—as a personal motivator and a social regulator—highlights its complexity and enduring significance in human life.
Hillman’s approach to shame in modern society underscores its archetypal roots and transformative potential. He views shame as a necessary and valuable aspect of the human experience, one that can lead to deeper self-understanding and greater social harmony when appropriately acknowledged and integrated.
The concept of shame has a rich etymological history, originating from the Proto-Indo-European root *skeh₃-, which evolved into *skamō in Proto-Germanic. This root passed through Old English as ‘sċeamu’ or ‘scamu,’ meaning ‘shame,’ and into Middle English as ‘schame,’ eventually becoming the modern English ‘shame.’ The word’s evolution reflects its deep-seated role in human consciousness and social structures.
In ancient Greek society, the term ‘aidōs’ encompassed modesty, reverence, and respect, which were broader concepts than the English ‘shame’ and were closely tied to honour and social propriety. Shame was integral to the heroic code and social norms, regulating behaviour through concerns about public honour and reputation, particularly in the context of Homeric epics.
In ancient Roman society, the Latin concept of ‘verecundia’ referred to a strategic fear of causing offence, emphasising modesty and deference to social superiors. This concept reinforced social hierarchies by promoting behaviour that respected one’s place in society, serving as an external force to maintain social order.
During the medieval period in Europe, shame had significant religious connotations. In early modern Britain, it was seen as a virtuous emotion tied to piety and moral rectitude, embraced by Protestants as a sign of devotion. In the secular realm, shame functioned as a moral and disciplinary tool, enforcing public honour and social norms through community and judicial punishments.
In modern society, contemporary views, influenced by thinkers like James Hillman, see shame as an archetypal experience that encourages self-awareness and moral introspection. It acts as a boundary marker, guiding personal behaviour and fostering social cohesion. Shame continues to regulate social behaviour, balancing individualism with the need for social harmony and interconnectedness.
Over time, the concept of shame has evolved from a focus on public honour and social status in ancient cultures to a more complex understanding that includes psychological introspection and social cohesion in modern times. Its function as a social regulator has remained consistent, adapting to the values and structures of different periods and civilisations.
Metamodern approaches to culture and social theory offer a nuanced perspective on the role of shame as a regulator of social relationships and moral frameworks. These approaches blend elements of modernist and postmodernist thought, acknowledging the complexity and fluidity of contemporary social dynamics while seeking constructive pathways for personal and collective growth.
In the metamodern context, shame is seen not just as a personal or negative emotion but as a crucial component of social cohesion and moral development. It acts as a social regulator by helping individuals align their behaviours with collective norms and expectations. This is particularly important in an era where traditional moral frameworks are often questioned or redefined. Shame encourages individuals to reflect on their actions from the perspective of others, fostering empathy and social responsibility.
The metamodern perspective also highlights the dual nature of shame. On one hand, it can be a source of social conformity, ensuring that people adhere to shared values and behaviours, thereby maintaining social order. On the other hand, it can be oppressive, especially when it enforces harmful stereotypes or unjust norms. Thus, metamodern theorists advocate for a balanced approach where shame is used to promote positive social change rather than merely enforcing conformity.
Furthermore, metamodernism recognises the interconnectedness of personal and societal experiences of shame. By understanding shame as both an internal feeling and a social phenomenon, it becomes possible to address its impacts at both the individual and collective levels. This dual approach can help mitigate the negative aspects of shame, such as social exclusion or personal humiliation, while harnessing its potential to encourage ethical behaviour and social solidarity.
Overall, metamodern approaches suggest that working with the idea of shame involves acknowledging its complexity and leveraging its regulatory function to foster more empathetic, inclusive, and reflective societies.
Despite the growing emphasis on identity, persona, and appearance in contemporary society, the fundamental values of character and judgement continue to resonate deeply with most people. Many still believe that what truly matters is how individuals conduct themselves and the decisions they make, rather than their external attributes or public image. This enduring belief underscores the possibility of transforming our civic and political discourse.
We can shift the focus of our conversations to evaluate people based on their actions and behaviour. By prioritising moral integrity and accountability over superficial qualities, we can foster a more substantive and meaningful political culture. This change would allow us to judge leaders and public figures on the basis of their contributions and ethical standards, rather than their appearance or identity, thereby restoring a sense of trust and respect in our civic life.
Such a shift is not only possible, but necessary, to ensure that the values of integrity and responsibility remain at the core of our societal and political interactions.
Leave a Reply