- Post starter
- #61
Well summarized @Valentino
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
The Purpose Of 'shame'
- Post starter ghotiff
- Start date
- Status
Thank you, @Valentino.
I'm still puzzled!
Because everything you say is absolutely fine. Basically - in my words - shame and the victim's resulting actions can defuse the situation.
Less abusive, no problem. Care-giving? How? Why? What would be an example of a perpetrator getting a submitting and appeasing response, and as a result being more care-giving? What is meant by care-giving in response to the victim's shame?
What I'm suspecting is that the meaning is actually "a response that the victim, who can't afford to see the perpetrator as a perpetrator, can interpret as care-giving". Which is very much not the same thing.
I'm still challenging the "care-giving" response idea, pending more explanation of what's meant by it.
I'm still puzzled!
Because everything you say is absolutely fine. Basically - in my words - shame and the victim's resulting actions can defuse the situation.
Less abusive, no problem. Care-giving? How? Why? What would be an example of a perpetrator getting a submitting and appeasing response, and as a result being more care-giving? What is meant by care-giving in response to the victim's shame?
What I'm suspecting is that the meaning is actually "a response that the victim, who can't afford to see the perpetrator as a perpetrator, can interpret as care-giving". Which is very much not the same thing.
I'm still challenging the "care-giving" response idea, pending more explanation of what's meant by it.
I don't know what you mean. The person quoted - as the basis of this discussion thread - has used a phrase and I'm wondering what is meant by it. Is that wrong?
What's the point of me giving my definition, when it's their definition because it's their quote? I'm trying to understand their meaning. All I've done in this thread is try to clarify that. Before I give my own interpretation, which may not be in line with what they meant.
What's the point of me giving my definition, when it's their definition because it's their quote? I'm trying to understand their meaning. All I've done in this thread is try to clarify that. Before I give my own interpretation, which may not be in line with what they meant.
I find it's easy to get distracted or lost trying to respond or defend against your leading questions and challenges.
Let's go back to your original challenge:
Are you challenging the potential? Are you making a case that it is absolutely impossible for shame to elicit a caregiving response? Or are you making a case that the perpetrator is absolutely incapable of offering a caregiving response?
Or what case are you making against her position that shame can potentially elicit a caregiving response?
and... with your suspected meaning:
I suspect that the issue is more so about significantly different or probably opposite viewpoints. Without exploring your definitions to get to your viewpoints, it's unlikely to adequately speculate and describe the author's definitions and understanding to your satisfaction.
Let's go back to your original challenge:
The author wrote this quote:
The author states that shame has the potential to elicit a caregiving response.
Are you challenging the potential? Are you making a case that it is absolutely impossible for shame to elicit a caregiving response? Or are you making a case that the perpetrator is absolutely incapable of offering a caregiving response?
Or what case are you making against her position that shame can potentially elicit a caregiving response?
and... with your suspected meaning:
If the victim sees a response as caregiving, why wouldn't that be qualify as an 'elicited caregiving response'? Though if you define a perpetrator as incapable of care, and possibly 'all-bad', then the delusions of a victim seeing a particular action as care-giving, would likely be a mute point from your standpoint?
I suspect that the issue is more so about significantly different or probably opposite viewpoints. Without exploring your definitions to get to your viewpoints, it's unlikely to adequately speculate and describe the author's definitions and understanding to your satisfaction.
Lucycat
Sponsor
my interpretation from my own personal experience is that my abuser - my father - created such shame in me that it kept my mouth shut. As such he was able to continue the abuse. He was also the person who provided my home, my food and organised my education.
If I had challenged him - ie not expressed shame but shouted out loud and caused a scene - making people aware of what was happening - I feared that he would be sent to jail and I would be in a children's home as we would not have any money. I was scared of the consequences of my actions on my siblings and mother, and I guess on him too because I thought then jail was really, really bad.
So I can entirely understand the concept that shame can elicit a care-giving response. My shame kept a roof over my head.
If I had challenged him - ie not expressed shame but shouted out loud and caused a scene - making people aware of what was happening - I feared that he would be sent to jail and I would be in a children's home as we would not have any money. I was scared of the consequences of my actions on my siblings and mother, and I guess on him too because I thought then jail was really, really bad.
So I can entirely understand the concept that shame can elicit a care-giving response. My shame kept a roof over my head.
@Valentino, I'm asking what the author of the quote means by "caregiving response" when they say "caregiving response".
I don't believe that "caregiving response" has a single defined meaning anywhere, but if it does please point me to it.
Failing that... what more can I say? I'm wondering what the author of the quote means by "caregiving response".
I don't believe that "caregiving response" has a single defined meaning anywhere, but if it does please point me to it.
Failing that... what more can I say? I'm wondering what the author of the quote means by "caregiving response".
I've not responded to this thread as I am as confused as most about 'shame' eliciting a care giving response. I'm sure victims do a lot of things to elicit care giving, as they would perish without it, but I'm totally lost as to why shame would be used to get care giving, as well as to why the perpetrator would respond to shame with care giving. I think the statement needs revision ... by the author.
I'm a bit puzzled.
How come when I ask questions seeking clarification and information, I get evasive non-responses. Were the questions that difficult to address? How am I supposed to try to address a counter-argument, when I can't get clarity about what exactly the counter position is? How can I address a challenge when it seems to be a 'straw man fallacy argument' attacking a mischaracterization of the original author's thesis statement? Why does it feel like there's a 'Failure to State' fallacy also going on? (Defined as: Never actually stating a position on the topic, rather constantly being on the attack or asking questions. This protects the person from attack.)
Why do I feel like I'm responsible for the author's position or that I am responsible for someone else's understanding of a common expression?
How can it be that hard to understand 'caregiving response'?
Response = action or behavior by a person in reaction to another (in this case an expression of shame by victim)
Care = Attention that is helpful to meet the physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual needs and wants of another person.
Caregiving = Above type care that is often associated as parent to child in primary caregiver role, or care that is given to someone who's ill or elderly.
Why do I think that the above descriptions are still going to be inadequate?
I'm suspecting that the disagreement and confusion is more about the idea that shame can be helpful in certain trauma... Or it's the idea that shame can be helpful period. That suggestion alone is likely triggering, and probably polar opposite to long held assumptions that were created as survival mechanisms in the midst of childhood trauma. Maybe there's some black and white thinking going on, labeling shame as all bad?
Maybe it's also related to attachment disorders or difficulties? I'd think that toxic or chronic shame also plays an important role with failure or lack of attachment.
Shame is an integral emotion for social and relational communication and bonding. Without access to healthy shame, it likely would create a blindness to recognizing social boundaries of others, and also learning how to recognize and communicate your own social boundaries.
----
It's simply a concept, a theory, it doesn't have to be totally true. Just something to explore or consider. I don't even think it's that important of a theory. Because I don't think that people really have a choice in how they respond to trauma. I think that every person is genetically hard wired to primarily respond to external stress through 1 of 3 ways: fear (withdrawal), anger(assert), or shame (compliant). And people respond to internal stress through 3 ways: fear (positive outlook), anger (competence), and shame (reactive).
How come when I ask questions seeking clarification and information, I get evasive non-responses. Were the questions that difficult to address? How am I supposed to try to address a counter-argument, when I can't get clarity about what exactly the counter position is? How can I address a challenge when it seems to be a 'straw man fallacy argument' attacking a mischaracterization of the original author's thesis statement? Why does it feel like there's a 'Failure to State' fallacy also going on? (Defined as: Never actually stating a position on the topic, rather constantly being on the attack or asking questions. This protects the person from attack.)
Why do I feel like I'm responsible for the author's position or that I am responsible for someone else's understanding of a common expression?
How can it be that hard to understand 'caregiving response'?
Response = action or behavior by a person in reaction to another (in this case an expression of shame by victim)
Care = Attention that is helpful to meet the physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual needs and wants of another person.
Caregiving = Above type care that is often associated as parent to child in primary caregiver role, or care that is given to someone who's ill or elderly.
Why do I think that the above descriptions are still going to be inadequate?
I'm suspecting that the disagreement and confusion is more about the idea that shame can be helpful in certain trauma... Or it's the idea that shame can be helpful period. That suggestion alone is likely triggering, and probably polar opposite to long held assumptions that were created as survival mechanisms in the midst of childhood trauma. Maybe there's some black and white thinking going on, labeling shame as all bad?
Maybe it's also related to attachment disorders or difficulties? I'd think that toxic or chronic shame also plays an important role with failure or lack of attachment.
Shame is an integral emotion for social and relational communication and bonding. Without access to healthy shame, it likely would create a blindness to recognizing social boundaries of others, and also learning how to recognize and communicate your own social boundaries.
----
It's simply a concept, a theory, it doesn't have to be totally true. Just something to explore or consider. I don't even think it's that important of a theory. Because I don't think that people really have a choice in how they respond to trauma. I think that every person is genetically hard wired to primarily respond to external stress through 1 of 3 ways: fear (withdrawal), anger(assert), or shame (compliant). And people respond to internal stress through 3 ways: fear (positive outlook), anger (competence), and shame (reactive).
- Post starter
- #72
I think this is the reason I was so interested in getting other peoples opinions, I was drawn somehow to the quote and at the same time felt frustrated/confused by it.
I liked the idea that there is a purpose to 'shame' in an abusive environment. I think its because shame can be such a toxic emotion that I wanted to believe that there was a point to it...that it served me at some point in my life. I wanted to understand why it served me....and then through understanding why it served me (during the abuse), be then able to understand that the original purpose no longer exists. From this I expected to find it easier to let it go.
I think I have reached this intellectual understanding now. I see how it kept me quiet about the abuse, how it stopped me 'telling everyone' and thus helped me 'fit in' with society and what was expected of me. I'm not saying this is right or healthy, but it does explain the role shame played in my life. And, with that understanding I hope that I will be able to more easily let go any residual shame feelings I may still have.
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
