One thing I've learned through blogging this semester is that war is full of complex situations, and nothing is simple. I know that groups find many reasons for engaging in war, but I never would have thought that wars are fought out of shame or to avoid shame. "The Social Self Preservation Theory asserts that situations which threaten the 'social self' (ie, one’s social value or standing) elicit increased feelings of low social worth (eg, shame)" (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Faney, p. 915, 2004). Basically, an event or situation which threatens people's self-worths causes an increase in shame. If a group feels threatened, it makes sense that it would go to war in order to avoid being defeated and feeling shame. The threatened group might attack first as a way of ensuring that the other group is shamed first. It is also possible that a group that is already feeling shame would attack in order to feel better. The already ashamed group would hope to improve its social standing and therefore its social worth by getting rid of the threat they are under.
After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany fell under the latter type of group. The nation had been humiliated by losing "much of its territory, its industry, its army and its status as a powerful nation following World War I" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006), and the people were looking to get back on top. The Nazi party offered an opportunity to do just that and regain the lost pride of the Fatherland. What ensued was a war in which the shamed Nazis "felt better about themselves when they disempowered and cruelly humiliated those over whom they had control (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). When they gained control over others and shamed them, the Nazis were able to get rid of their own shame.
In many Middle Eastern countries, if a woman is found to be having sex with anyone besides her husband, her family is deeply dishonored. Whether she has committed adultery or been raped, the family is shamed and in need of a way to regain its honor. The result is that "the woman is sentenced to death by the men in her family" (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). There is a great deal of importance placed on family honor, and the loss of it creates much shame within the society. It appears that it is worth sacrificing a family member's life if it means that the family as a whole can end its shame and go back to its previous social position.
The United States is not too good for shame, and its own national anthem demonstrates the importance of pride in the country. We are in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and so any threat to the freedom that the citizens are so proud of would have consequences, thanks to the brave ones fighting for it. In fact, "the American government claims to fight wars in the name of freedom and national honor" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006). The people of the United States are so proud of their freedom and honor, that, even when its not threatened, they fight to preserve it. They fight to avoid the shame that would come from losing their social status. They fight to avoid ending up like Germany after World War I.
Everyone experiences shame, but not everyone is willing to go to war to avoid/stop that feeling. Normal shame, like letting a dark secret slip out accidentally, is usually short-lived and doesn't create a need to attack in order to feel better. Pathological shame, on the other hand, exists when the same feeling of shame is felt with every single small failure or rebuke (Goleman, 1987). Occasional shame is normal, and a well-adjusted person can get over it easily. Pathological shame is relentless, and a person under it needs to turn the tables in order to feel better.
It is very common to say that one is fighting for pride or honor, and it is understood that a defeat would cause a loss of pride, in the form of humiliation and shame. Is it not the same thing, then, to say that one is fighting to avoid shame? I am not suggesting that shame is the sole factor in a conflict, but according to the Social Self Preservation Theory, when a threat to the social self is present, so is shame.
References:
Armstrong, M. K. (2006). The connection between shame and war. The Journal of psychohistory. 34(1), 35-42.
Goleman, D. (1987). "Shame Steps Out of Hiding and Into Sharper Focus", The New York Times, Tuesday, September 15, 1987.
Gruenewald, T. L.; Kemeny, M. E.; Aziz, N.; Faney, J. L. (2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic medicine. 66(6), 915-924.
Free Speech and Academic Engagement
13 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment