definition of shame brene brown

Brene Brown’s Definition of Shame is Ignorant

Brene Brown’s great at times, but that doesn’t keep her immune from ignorance and this includes her definition of shame. I think I throw up a little bit in my mouth every time one of my friends shares her definition of shame. So to make me gag just a little more, let’s put it up here:

I believe that guilt is adaptive and helpful – it’s holding something we’ve done or failed to do up against our values and feeling psychological discomfort. I define shame as the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging – something we’ve experienced, done, or failed to do makes us unworthy of connection.”

Now again, her stuff on vulnerability is great.

But this definition of shame is bad, bad teaching.

Here’s why:

How do you make course corrections in honor / shame societies if shame is always illegitimate?

And this isn’t a question for just Africa or Asia. This is a question for a social media saturated Western world that thrives on shaming one another. She has a piece of it, but it’s only the piece of it she’s tested in Western psychological settings. I guarantee that if she ventured deeper into honor / shame cultures, she would see a different dynamic at work.

Guilt and shame are both adaptive and helpful.

&

Guilt and shame are both painful and unhelpful.

It simply depends on whether or not they’re justified. If guilt or shame is justified, then it helps us. If guilt or shame is unjustified, then it hurts us. And sometimes, it can only help us so far, which means we need both forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration to bring us back.

She was right in part about guilt: guilt is what we feel about ourselves when we do something wrong. Innocence is the opposite of that. We feel guilt when we do something evil, regardless of whether or not anyone knows.

That means guilt and innocence are interior feelings. It’s right and wrong as applied to one’s self.

But shame’s more than simply feeling unworthy of love. That’s where she’s wrong. Shame is what we feel about others when we do something wrong. Honor is the opposite of that. We feel shame when we do something evil and people find out about it.

Guilt deals with the position and posture of our soul as relates to the inherent beauty and goodness and truth of all that is unseen.

Shame deals with the position and posture of our soul as relates to the inherent beauty and goodness and truth of all that is seen.

In the ideal situation, someone who murders feels both guilt and shame — guilt because they have a conscience and shame because the community around them affirms that conscience. And in the ideal situation, someone who heals or gives birth to another person feels both innocence and honor — innocence because they gave life and honor because the community around them affirms that life.

Of course, this doesn’t always happen.

Innocent men get wrongly accused of murder.

READ NEXT:  The Gift of the Magi by O'Henry

Guilty men go free.

Honorable men get shamed by the public for doing the right thing.

Shameful men get honored by the public for doing the wrong thing.

We get it wrong all the time. Which makes us guilty of shaming the wrong people and ashamed of our injustices. In general, both are self-corrective. But when we get it wrong — when we get shamed for doing the right thing or honored for doing the wrong thing, when we get falsely accused or wrongfully set free — it compounds the whole situation and leads to a slow decay in ourselves and in society.

The only way we can ever thrive is to do good in the teeth of wrongful convictions. To live honorably in the teeth of a culture that shames us when we do good. And even if one or two of us can do it, that’s insufficient to save the whole world.

It would take a perfect man doing all of the good in the teeth of the worst wrongful conviction. It would take him living honorably in the teeth of the worst shame that could be leveled on a man. Hell, it would take God. God himself suffering as we suffer — taking on our guilt and our shame and offering us innocence and honor and return. Taking all of that, killing it, resurrecting, and giving us the power of that resurrection in us so that we can take on the guilt of others, though we be innocent. And so that we can take on the shame of others so that the least of these can have honor — the poor, the immigrant, the widow, the orphan, the prisoner, the hungry, the slave.

Which is exactly what the Christian view of history teaches.

My job isn’t to prove it’s true here. That’s the job of men like Peter Kreeft, a Boston College philosopher who offers evidence for the Resurrection, or men like the world-renowned historian N.T. Wright who did something similar in the world’s most complete survey of the thousand years before and after the life of Jesus, or men like the Cambridge chair of Medieval Literature who argued you can’t believe in the existence of reason or logic without this story. That’s their job.

It’s just my job to make you wish it were true: that you could live without shame and without guilt.

Because at the end of the day, much as I love Brene Brown, you can’t psychoanalyze your way out of shame and guilt. You and I need help from someone who doesn’t have any.

lancelot tobias mearcstapa schaubert monogram

Your comments matter more than my posts ::

%d bloggers like this: