The way they are talking about shame in the fofblog doesn't come even close to understanding the manipulation on individuals that cults induce through shame.
The following article from wikipedia is fairly good in explaining the different instances of shame and particularly the fact that it is an aspect of the self. It's through the authoritarism of the guru and the whole structure of power that shame is gradually introduced in the follower's psyche. It is clear that most ex-members as much as members haven't yet come to grips with the full reality of what is going on in cults. That is why they had to ban me, because they are so afraid of the truth about it that they had to silence it.
In cults the use of shame is much more related to the following article on shame and torture. THAT is what they need to understand to know why cults need to be stopped.
Just as isolation and humiliation makes the victims of torture helpless, isolation and sublimized humiliation make cultmembers equally helpless. It might all be dressed in silk but the effects are the same: absolute submission. Had they not been ABSOLUTELY submitted in Jonestown and the other cults that have finished with suicide, they would not have finished in such a way.
The Fellowship of Friends Cult, Pathway to Presence has EXACTLY the same mechanisms as these other cults. The highly indoctrinated members inside no longer exist for themselves but for the cult. THAT is already a form of death.
Continued shame achieves the gradual annihilation of the self. Brainwashing the individual implies the destruction of his own SENSE of his self and replacing it for the desired SENSE of his self that the brainwasher needs: the old personality connected to his own essence is totally replaced by the new personality without essence at the complete service of the brainwasher. They all disguise themselves behind a uniform because in unifying themselves they feel protected by the alter ego of the cult while having lost any trace of their own personal essence.
Shame
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about psychological, philosophical, and societal aspects of shame. For other uses, see Shame (disambiguation).
Shame is, variously, an affect, emotion, cognition, state, or condition. The roots of the word shame are thought to derive from an older word meaning to cover; as such, covering oneself, literally or figuratively, is a natural expression of shame.[1]
[edit]Description
Nineteenth century scientist Charles Darwin, in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, described shame affect as consisting of blushing, confusion of mind, downward cast eyes, slack posture, and lowered head, and he noted observations of shame affect in human populations worldwide.[2] He also noted the sense of warmth or heat (associated with the vasodilation of the face and skin) occurring in intense shame.
A "sense of shame" is the consciousness or awareness of shame as a state or condition. Such shame cognition may occur as a result of the experience of shame affect or, more generally, in any situation of embarrassment, dishonor, disgrace, inadequacy, humiliation, orchagrin.[3]
A condition or state of shame may also be assigned externally, by others, regardless of the one's own experience or awareness. "To shame" generally means to actively assign or communicate a state of shame to another. Behaviors designed to "uncover" or "expose" others are sometimes used for this purpose, as are utterances like "Shame!" or "Shame on you!"
Finally, to "have shame" means to maintain a sense of restraint against offending others while to "have no shame" is to behave without such restraint.
[edit]Shame vs. guilt and embarrassment
The location of the dividing line between the concepts of shame, guilt, and embarrassment is not fully standardized.[4]
According to cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, shame is a violation of cultural or social values while guilt feelings arise from violations of one's internal values. Thus, it is possible to feel ashamed of thought or behavior that no one knows about and to feel guilty about actions that gain the approval of others.
Psychoanalyst Helen B. Lewis argued that "The experience of shame is directly about the self, which is the focus of evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object of negative evaluation, but rather the thing done is the focus."[5] Similarly, Fossum and Mason say in their book Facing Shame that "While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one's actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person."[6] Following this line of reasoning, Psychiatrist Judith Lewis Herman concludes that "Shame is an acutely self-conscious state in which the self is 'split,' imagining the self in the eyes of the other; by contrast, in guilt the self is unified."[7]
Clinical psychologist Gershen Kaufman's view of shame is derived from that of Affect Theory, namely that shame is one of a set of instinctual, short-duration physiological reactions to stimulation.[8][9] In this view, guilt is considered to be a learned behavior consisting essentially of self-directed blame or contempt, with shame occurring consequent to such behaviors making up a part of the overall experience of guilt. Here, self-blame and self-contempt mean the application, towards (a part of) one's self, of exactly the same dynamic that blaming of, and contempt for, others represents when it is applied interpersonally. Kaufman saw that mechanisms such as blame or contempt may be used as a defending strategy against the experience of shame and that someone who has a pattern of applying them to himself may well attempt to defend against a shame experience by applying self-blame or self-contempt. This, however, can lead to an internalized, self-reinforcing sequence of shame events for which Kaufman coined the term "shame spiral.[8]
One view of difference between shame and embarrassment says that shame does not necessarily involve public humiliation while embarrassment does, that is, one can feel shame for an act known only to oneself but in order to be embarrassed one's actions must be revealed to others. In the field of ethics (moral psychology, in particular), however, there is debate as to whether or not shame is a heteronomous emotion, i.e. whether or not shame does involve recognition on the part of the ashamed that they have been judged negatively by others. Immanuel Kant and his followers held that shame is heteronomous; Bernard Williams and others have argued that shame can be autonomous.[10][11] Shame may carry the connotation of a response to something that is morally wrong whereas embarrassment is the response to something that is morally neutral but socially unacceptable. Another view of shame and embarrassment says that the two emotions lie on a continuum and only differ in intensity.
[edit]Subtypes
- Genuine shame: is associated with genuine dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation.
- False shame: is associated with false condemnation as in the double-bind form of false shaming; "he brought what we did to him upon himself". Author and TV personality John Bradshaw calls shame the "emotion that lets us know we are finite".[12]
- Secret shame: describes the idea of being ashamed to be ashamed, so causing ashamed people to keep their shame a secret. [13]
- Toxic shame: describes false, pathological shame, and Bradshaw states that toxic shame is induced, inside children, by all forms of child abuse. Incest and other forms of child sexual abuse can cause particularly severe toxic shame. Toxic shame often induces what is known as complex trauma in children who cannot cope with toxic shaming as it occurs and who dissociate the shame until it is possible to cope with.[14]
- Vicarious shame: In the 1990s, psychologists introduced the notion of vicarious shame, which refers to the experience of shame on behalf of another person. Individuals vary in their tendency to experience vicarious shame, which is related to neuroticism and to the tendency to experience personal shame. Extremely shame-prone people might even experience vicarious shame even to an increased degree, in other words: shame on behalf of another person who is already feeling shame on behalf of a third party (or possibly on behalf of the individual proper).
[edit]Social aspects
 | This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2007) |
 | This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (February 2008) |
Shame is considered one aspect of socialization in all societies. Shame is enshrouded in legal precedent as a pillar of punishment and ostensible correction. Shame has been linked to narcissism in the psychoanalytic literature. It is one of the most intense emotions. The individual experiencing shame may feel totally despicable, worthless and feel that there is no redemption. According to the anthropologistRuth Benedict, cultures may be classified by their emphasis of using either shame or guilt to regulate the social activities of their members. Shared opinions and expected behaviours that cause the feeling of shame (as well as an associated reproval) if violated by an individual are in any case proven to be very efficient in guiding behaviour in a group or society.
Shame is a common form of control used by those people who commit relational aggression. It is also used in the workplace as a form of overt social control or aggression. Shamery is also a central feature of punishment, shunning, or ostracism. In addition, shame is often seen in victims of child neglect, child abuse and a host of other crimes against children.
[edit]Shame campaign
A shame campaign is a tactic in which particular individuals are singled out because of their behavior or suspected crimes, often by marking them publicly, such as Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. In the Philippines, Alfredo Lim popularized such tactics during his term as mayor of Manila. On July 1, 1997, he began a controversial "spray paint shame campaign” in an effort to stop drug use. He and his team sprayed bright red paint on two hundred squatter houses whose residents had been charged, but not yet convicted, of selling prohibited substances. Officials of other municipalities followed suit. Former Senator Rene A. Saguisag condemned Lim’s policy.[15]
Despite this criticism, the shame campaigns continued. In January 2005, Metro Manila Development Authority Chair Bayani Fernandoannounced shame campaign to target jaywalkers by splashing them with wet rags. Sen. Richard Gordon disagreed with the shame tactic, and Rep. Vincent Crisologo called this approach "martial law tactics". Rep. Rozzano Rufino Biazon argued jaywalkers were being treated like cattle.[16][17]
[edit]
© Susmita Thukral
Understanding Shame and Humiliation in Torture
© Susmita Thukral
ORLJ 4859, Fall 2004
Dr. Evelin Lindner, Ph. D.
Teachers College, Columbia University
Understanding Torture 2
Understanding Shame and Humiliation in Torture
Although the use of torture in any form and for any reason has been banned by
international law, it is still practiced on a million people each year around the world.
(Pincock, 2003). Within the larger global context, where genocide, terrorism and war
have become the hallmarks of the 21st century, the practice of torture has acquired a new
place although, paradoxically enough, this century has also seen the vigorous human
rights movement. With the sophistication afforded by modernity, warfare no longer
deploys the same method to conquer or rule and so is the situation when it comes to
inflicting torture. Over the years physical torture has given way to increased intense
psychological torture out of a need to hide evidence of torture and also out of recognition
that psychological torture can be more effective for the torturer and more debilitating,
annihilating and silencing for the tortured. Furthermore, it seems that psychological
torture predominantly secures its effectiveness through the use of humiliation.
The purpose of the present paper is to understand this very unique relation between
torture and humiliation and the manner in which humiliation and shame are
systematically used for purposes of torture. In a way, the premise of the paper is that
torture acquires its efficacy primarily because it deploys humiliation and sets in motion
those psychological processes in the tortured that go far beyond the effects of physical
abuse and that are longstanding in their impact on the psyche.
Shame and Humiliation
Physical torture around the world has mostly been practiced in the form of
beating, electric shocks, submersion in water, suffocation, sleep-deprivation, burns, rape
Understanding Torture 3
and sexual assault. Psychological torture on the other hand, uses isolation, forced
witnessing of the tortures of loved ones, sham executions and most importantly
humiliation. (Pincock, 2003; Piwowarczyk, Moreno & Grodin, 2000)
Most recently, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal also reinforces the idea that
humiliation is frequently called in the service of torture. Lindner (2002) has defined
humiliation as, “the enforced lowering of a person or group, a process of subjugation that
damages or stripes away pride, honor and dignity. To be humiliated is to be placed
against your will and often in a deeply hurtful way, in a situation that is greatly inferior to
what you feel you should expect. Humiliation entails demeaning treatment that
transgresses established expectations. At its heart is the idea of pinning down, putting
down or holding to the ground. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of humiliation
as a process is that the victim is forced into passivity, acted upon, made helpless.” (p. 2)
This definition enables us to appreciate that acts of humiliation tear down the very core of
the individual by invoking a deep sense of shame that comes with forced passivity, in the
victim. The sexual nature of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison inflicted by the American
soldiers, for example, was particularly humiliating for the Iraqi prisoners as a result of the
shame that the acts invoked in the prisoners who belong to a cultural background where
homosexuality, in particular, is shameful and sexual acts, nudity and sexuality, in general,
are shrouded with shame and guilt. The acts of torture that were used in the prison were
in a way deliberated upon, keeping in mind, their impact on an Arab psyche which deeply
values masculinity and regards homosexuality as feminized masculinity. Further, the
specific kind of torture that was inflicted on the prisoners was rooted in the knowledge
Understanding Torture 4
that shame and humiliation carry a very strong and different psychological meaning in the
Arab world. (Puar, 2004)
Hartling, Rosen, Walker and Jordan (2000) have closely examined shame and
humiliation in an attempt to understand the differences and similarities in between the
two feelings. Although both the affects are considered to belong to the domain of self-
conscious emotions, it has been highlighted that while, “shame is a felt sense of being
unworthy of connection, humiliation might be thought of as a feeling associated with
being made to feel unworthy of connection.”(p. 3). The distinction between these two
feelings is important to register for it tells us how these feeling might be exploited in
situations of social control and particularly in torture. Recognizing that humiliation is
interpersonally situated and that shame is self-focused enables us to comprehend how
techniques of torture are designed to produce their effects. Typically torture techniques
tend to work because they convert the humiliation of the act perpetrated by the torturer
into a deep sense of shame of the tortured. It is the feeling of shame that is invoked that
produces the silencing impact of the humiliating act, so that often victims of torture are
unable to relate their experiences of humiliation for they feel so shamed. Shapiro (2003)
has also noted that “shame is a major psychological issue for survivors of torture” and
that “people are reluctant to speak directly of feeling ashamed, since to acknowledge
shame is (in their eyes) to admit that there is something to be ashamed of.” (p. 1131)
The feeling of shame necessarily brings with it the component of exposure and often
humiliating experiences become difficult to recount and are silencing in their impact
because of this fear of being exposed, in the victim. Victims of torture face this issue
grimly because the feeling of shame in such cases is closely linked to the idea of locus of
Understanding Torture 5
control. Prisoners in the Nazi concentration camp, for example, were deeply ashamed of
what had happened to them for there was an inherent feeling of how could they have let
that happen to themselves. In other words, humiliation reigns over the person since the
victim feels low in his/her own eyes for having allowed something horrible happen to
him and this feeling of perceived helplessness gets projected to the other and gets
converted into shame as seen through the eyes of the other. In a similar vein Trumbull
(2003), has conceptualized shame as a stressful reaction to a disavowed image of oneself
as seen through the gaze of another. Thus shame is a feeling that gets triggered off when
one sees oneself as compromised in another person’s eyes. This subtle nuance is
important to understand since it informs us that victims of torture internalize the
humiliation subjected by the perpetrator as shame within them that leads to severely
paralyzing psychological outcomes.
Impact of Humiliation and Torture
Clinical Implications: Both physical and psychological torture can lead to a huge array of
disturbing psychological outcomes in the victims through the mechanisms of humiliation
and shame. Hartling et al.(2000) have noted that such experiences deeply affect one’s
capacity to relate to others and form intimate and healthy relationships. Piwowarczyk et
al. (2000) have also highlighted that torture can destroy one’s fundamental capacities
such as the capacity to trust and form secure attachments. Interpersonal, social and
occupational dysfunctions are also common outcomes in survivors of torture.
Furthermore, the experience of torture can lead to a strong sense of depersonalization and
alienation and it has been found that survivors of torture tend to lead to personally
Understanding Torture 6
disconnected and disengaged lives. It is as though they stop participating actively in the
interpersonal world and become encapsulated in their trauma.
In terms of clear cut psychopathological syndromes depression has been cited the most as
an immediate and longstanding impact of torture. In fact shame has been found to be a
very strong predictor for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as well. (Trumbull, 2003;
Piwowarczyk et al. 2000) Obsessive- compulsive disorder and paranoia have also been
implicated. (Shapiro, 2003)
Global Implications : Apart from how humiliation impacts people in rupturing the basic
fabric of their lives, deep and continued humiliation can also lead to antisocial,
revengeful and militant personalities. It is no longer just armchair speculation that the
September 11 attacks are not just plainly terrorist attacks but that they are a manifestation
of the deep vengeance and a reaction to the prolonged and sustained humiliation that the
Arab world has faced for decades at the hands of America. Being cut off from one’s own
feelings, as is often the case in survivors of torture, can lead to the birth of militant
ideologies that can perpetuate apocalyptic violence in the world.
Helping the Tortured
Understanding the processes of shame and humiliation and their interplay in the lives of
survivors can go a long way in enabling these people to pick up the threads of their lives.
Piwowarczyk et al. (2000) have outlined that one of the first crucial steps involved in
helping the tortured is to be able to identify torture clinically and carefully. One of the
biggest impediments to identification of torture is that the trauma of the torture erases or
impairs the memory of the trauma itself. Often victims of torture go through severe
Understanding Torture 7
dissociative disorders that make it very difficult to help these individuals. It is also
important to realize that torture and its practice is culturally situated and therefore the
help afforded to victims of torture should also be in consonance with their cultural
backgrounds. Certain cultures do not permit open communications about incidents of
shame and humiliation and so it is important for anyone working with a torture survivor
to ask questions around such incidents with cultural sensitivity and empathy. Any enquiry
about the torture should be done so as to not even remotely seem as an interrogative
experience that the victim has already endured. The process of recounting the humiliation
of torture should not become humiliating itself when done for clinical, legal or
assessment purposes.
Physicians and doctors are the people with whom torture survivors come in contact with
first. It is important to train these medical professionals in the detection of torture and see
physical symptoms in relation to torture and trauma. A lot of torture survivors are put on
psychiatric medication, but it is crucial that this population also be given
psychotherapeutic help. Within this realm, Hartling et al. (2000) have given pertinent
insights into the clinical processes between a therapist and a client with humiliation as a
core life them. These insights can be extrapolated and used in therapy with torture
survivors where the therapist has to be careful and sensitive enough to tune in to the
victim’s experience of humiliation and ensure that the therapeutic process does not
become humiliating in any way. Additionally, it is equally important for doctors or
clinicians or anyone else working with torture survivors to be aware of their own
resistances to hearing stories of torture that can unconsciously be communicated to the
victim and produce a muting effect. Frequently survivors of torture are exiled from their
Understanding Torture 8
own homeland and land up as refugees in foreign nations. It is cardinal to recognize the
added difficulties of such people who not only have to cope with the trauma of torture but
also deal with the added responsibility of adjusting themselves to an alien land. To this
effect, all kinds of legal help that affords this population safe and healthy asylum must be
garnered. Finally both qualitative and quantitative research should be carried out on the
impact of the torture with a specific focus on shame and humiliation as the mediating
processes between the experience of torture and the development of psychopathology in
order to better help survivors of torture.
Understanding Torture 9
References
Hartling, L.M., Rosen, W., Walker, M., Jordan, J.V. (2000). Shame and Humiliation :
From Isolation to Relational Transformation. Work in Progress.
Lindner, E. G. (2002). Humiliation or Dignity : Regional Conflicts in the Global Village.
Journal of Mental Health, Psychosocial Work and Counseling in Areas of Armed
Conflict, forthcoming.
Pincock, S. (2003). Exposing the Horror of Torture. The Lancet, 362, 1462-1463.
Piwowarczyk, L., Moreno, A., Grodin, M. ( 2000). Health Care of Torture Survivors.
JAMA, 284, 539-541,
Puar, J. K. (2004). Abu Ghraib : Arguing against Exceptionalism. Feminist Studies, 30,
522-534.
Shapiro, D. (2003). The Tortured, Not the Torturers, are Ashamed. Social Research, 70,
1131-1148.
Trumbull, D. (2003). Shame : An Acute Stress Response to Interpersonal Traumatization.
Psychiatry, 66, 53-64.
No comments:
Post a Comment