@Hashi Ok, my feeble attempt at trying to address your confusion concerning the original quote:
The article is about exploring the aspect of shame within 'Betrayal Trauma Theory' defined as:
A theory that predicts that the degree to which a negative event represents a
betrayal by a trusted needed other will influence the way in which that events is processed and remembered.
---- from Jennifer J. Freyd's webpage:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/defineBT.html
The original quote was an explanation of an
example about how shame can be helpful in traumas with betrayal involved.
She starts with this theory:
It is also possible that feeling ashamed of oneself plays a protective function in close relationships characterized by abuse.
Then she goes into an example:
For example, if a parent emotionally, physically, or sexually assaults a child, the child may feel ashamed of herself instead of feeling angry at or afraid of the abuser.
In this example the parent is the abuser/perpetrator, the abuse is emotional, physical or sexual assault, and child is abused victim. The child feels 'shame' in response to the abuse, instead of anger or fear.
Then this is where the original quote comes from, she is referencing research examples to support her theory that shame can be a protective type response to betrayal trauma:
Researchers such as Dacher Keltner have found that whereas anger often results in fighting and fear often results in fleeing, shame tends to result in submitting and appeasing. Thus, the expression of shame has the potential to elicit a caregiving response from the perpetrator which could ultimately keep the victim as safe as possible within an unsafe situation.
She's stating that shame tends to motivate 'people pleasing' behavior, of which it has
the potential to appease the abuser/perpetrator to respond in a less abusive way or possibly even a sympathetic/pity 'care-giving' response. This appeasing response instead of an aggressive response, can be a strategy to limit damage or danger from an abuser.
Then she summarizes at the start of the next paragraph here:
Although we propose that proneness to shame is useful for survival during ongoing abuse, it has harmful consequences in its chronic form.
She's made a proposal that 'shame can be useful for surviving ongoing abuse', then she transitions into describing negative aspects when shame turns into chronic shame.
......
In summary, I think she's just exploring how the shame response works for trauma within an ongoing relationship (betrayal trauma), and her proposal can be simplified into this:
The shame strategy is an attempt to de-escalate aggression and tension from the abuser, while the anger response to fight against might increase aggression from the abuser, and the fear response to escape or hide may frustrate and irritate the abuser.
She also states this at the end of her opening paragraph here:
Whereas victims of trauma perpetrated by a stranger may be motivated to either fight back or run away, these responses are less helpful in the case of betrayal trauma, in which the perpetrator is providing food, shelter, and/or emotional connection to the victim.
This is similar effect as 'the fantasy bond' response when children usually self-blame for their parent's flaws and faults, because that protects the image of safety from their providers. This gives the child the idea and option of controlling their behavior to create more predictable behavior and safety from the parent. The alternative of fully recognizing the parent's flaws & inadequacies, gives up all control of resources to the flawed parent. This leaves the child in a position of helplessness and uncertainty, which could be much harder to psychologically bear than the 'fantasy bond' illusion.
