@Valentino
Thanks so much for your voluble and valuable posts. I'm interested to know the sources of the quotes contained in your second post, if you could be so kind as to supply them (I would assume they're derived from Bradshaw's work cited above, as well, but not sure...as I don't have the work handy, myself).
There's much confusion over the subject of shame, on average...i.e. varying definitions-both "working definitions", as well as in the abstract...and especially with regard to its contrast to the concept of guilt.
But there is an important point that's often overlooked, when thinking of shame...which Valentino very appropriate referred to in his citation of the quote originating from
"Shame and the origins of self-esteem: A Jungian Approach" by Mario Jacoby
This is what's referred to as "prosocial" shame. In other words, and put simply-it's the shame parents instill in their children as part of discipline during childhood, which was at one time considered every parent's "Civic Duty" (and still is, in all othercultures, which are now considered "traditional" cultures, as opposed to the post-60s American "post-traditional" culture).
So the main confusion enters in due to the fact that we are really "talking apples and oranges", here--
The idea of Prosocial Shame is one meant for use in Sociology, on a broad scale, when talking about factors influencing social groups, etc.
...whereas we are talking instead about what Bradshaw refers to as "Toxic Shame", as Bradhshaw puts it (again, in Valentino's quote, above).
The first is an abstract concept used as a term applicable broadly, to the development and maintenance of civilizations, in general, when what we're after is related to an emotion which is destructive to us, personally.
But interestingly, the idea that all shame is negative, and should be replaced instead with the idea of "Guilt", as a simple recognition that one has erred in relation to a legitimate normative social value, is somewhat in err.
For example--which is more highly motivating as a "stick" to keep members of a society in line...a simple intellectual recognition that they are factually at fault?...or a deeply negative emotion which gives an individual much motivation not to engage in the behavior again...in the form of actual "shame". You see the point.
The problem is that there is presumably a "window", as with all else. Too much parental shame creates a "shame-based" individual, running and hiding from a self he/she experiences as worthless, and so hides from the world, resulting in a life devoid of intimacy, and therefore, any real experience of satisfaction, resonance, or acceptance. And shame over the wrong things...things which are not and should not be commonplace to any childhood...molestation, brutality (physical or emotional)--creates "mislaid" shame.
But the idea that ANY shame at all is to be avoided, and labeled as negative, by virtue of its very nature...is an idea born of the 60s cultural revolution in the U.S., which has since been thoroughly debunked. It simply doesn't make for a group of people you want to have to live among, in a society.
My personal take on it is that the Depression era/WWII era essentially experienced the world as such a dangerous place...that they overshamed the generation they raised...the baby-boomers...in attempts to produce a generation that was "civically minded" enough to ensure that society would in the future cooperate in "being good boys/girls" so that the world would be a better place, instead...
...the result of which was the boomer's "reaction-formation", or overcorrection...of rebelling by not shaming their children at all in the course of disciplining them to abide by social norms.
But ghotiff's quote is more telling, I think--the idea that a show of shame to others could be a sort of defense, in that it might inspire a caretaking sort of reaction.
I liken this to the kind of "neck-baring" behavior you see in animals..dogs, for example, rolling over on their backs to expose their bellies, in effort to show a kind of deference which makes it clear that attack is not the motivation. There are others in different species, but that's the idea-in exposing your "soft underbelly", you're making it clear that your intentions are cooperative rather than oppositional, in hopes of receiving the same, in return. Getting off on the right foot, so to speak.
It makes me wonder if the human version is the open-palm of the handshake...which supposedly originated with the same intention...to show you had no weapon, ie, that your intentions were cooperative rather than aggressive.
...which leads me to wonder...in a culture where such a display of innocence and goodwill has been replaced, instead, with what seems an inherently combative bumping of closed fists...is the kind of "neck baring" of shame still effective in producing a caretaking response? Or instead, the response one would expect of baring one's neck to a predator?
So shame at having "been bad" is something I value, in myself--when I HAVE "been bad"--and is something I associate with being a good person. If I only intellectually acknowledge that I've acted in violation, so to speak...that would make me an astute person...but not necessarily a good one.
But being "overshamed", so that I walk around with the permanent and pervasive sense that I AM bad...is something that I've identified as a pathological expression resulting from childhood trauma, and which I try to recognize, and "externalize"...as I would notice when, for example, my leg hurt as a result of a childhood injury--I would just say "huh, darn leg is acting up again"...and not think much more about it. And it's that degree of detachment from that sense of fundamental inadequacy I work towards in my recovery.