Worldly Shame: Ethos in Action

155 Pages·2020·2.604 MB·English

by  Manu Samnotra

Worldly Shame

Worldly Shame
Ethos in Action
Manu Samnotra
LEXINGTONBOOKS
Lanham•Boulder•NewYork•London
PublishedbyLexingtonBooks
AnimprintofTheRowman&LittlefieldPublishingGroup,Inc.
4501ForbesBoulevard,Suite200,Lanham,Maryland20706
www.rowman.com
6TinworthStreet,LondonSE115AL,UnitedKingdom
Copyright©2020byTheRowman&LittlefieldPublishingGroup,Inc.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyformorbyany
electronicormechanicalmeans,includinginformationstorageandretrievalsystems,
withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher,exceptbyareviewerwhomayquote
passagesinareview.
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationInformationAvailable
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020942607
ISBN978-1-7936-1301-1(cloth:alk.paper)
ISBN978-1-7936-1302-8(electronic)
TMThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofAmerican
NationalStandardforInformationSciencesPermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibrary
Materials,ANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992.
Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments xiii
1 Shame’sWorldliness 1
2 Against“MagicWands” 33
3 “ThisMeansYou” 61
4 “ThisElementalShame” 89
5 TheShameof“WhoWeAre” 119
Bibliography 125
Index 131
AbouttheAuthor 137
v

Preface
This book is about something I call “worldly shame.” When we experi-
ence “worldly shame” we are attuned to the world around us, but in a
waythatmakesusreceptivetoapluralityofviewpoints,andinamanner
thatempowersustotransformtheworldforthebetter.Whenovercome
with“worldlyshame,”Iargue,webecomeawareofourindividualpow-
erlessnessinthefaceoftheworld’scomplexityandrichness;weseekout
and act alongside Others in ways that sustain the world’s diversity and
abundance; and finally, we are able to acknowledge and respond to the
horrorsandtraumasthataffectthelivesofOthersaroundusbydrawing
usintothepubliclight.Forthesereasons, “worldlyshame”isanimpor-
tantprerequisitefor,andintegralto,ademocraticpoliticalethos.
The role shame ought to play in political life is vexed. On the one
hand, shamelessness seems to be on the rise. The price of life-saving
drugs is regularly raised by pharmaceutical companies eager to make
ever larger profits instead of saving more lives. Immune to overwhelm-
ingscientificevidence, adismallylarge proportion of the electorate con-
tinues to dispute the reality of climate change. Unafraid to show them-
selves in public, members of Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK openly ad-
vertise their hate-filled agenda in public spaces. And perhaps most
alarmingly, the prevailing political norms of the age seem to allow the
greatest degree of shamelessness; where we might have once expected
thedisgracedpoliticiantowithdrawfrom political life, today bare-faced
liesbyelectedofficialsonlyevokeourtoothlessdismay.
Speaking at Nelson Mandela’s hundredth birth anniversary, the for-
merPresidentoftheUnitedStates,BarackObama,notedtheworldwide
spread of this trend. According to him, people seemed to have lost that
common web of facts on which dialogue and cooperation depend. But
this loss was not based on principled disagreements on what counts as
facts.Instead,heattributedrecentdevelopmentstoaheightenedpolitical
propensitytolie.Moreimportantly,wewereabletoliesoeasily,hesaid,
becauseofshamelessness.HereisObamahimself:
Unfortunately,toomuchofpoliticstodayseemstorejecttheverycon-
ceptofobjectivetruth.Peoplejustmakestuffup.Theyjustmakestuff
up.Weseeitinstate-sponsoredpropaganda;weseeitininternetdriv-
en fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between news and
entertainment,weseethe utterlossofshameamongpolitical leaderswhere
they're caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more.
vii
viii Preface
Politicianshavealwayslied,butitusedtobeifyoucaughtthemlying
they'dbelike,“Ohman.”Nowtheyjustkeeponlying.1
Obama’s diagnosis is clear: A lack of shame has diminished a commit-
ment to shared truth. Unconcerned about what others might think, and
untethered from any commitment to shared values, politicians today
have no reservations about “mak[ing] stuff up.” And when caught in a
lie,theirshamelessnessonlyletsthem“doubledownandliesomemore.”
If this diagnosis is correct, something about it is appealing given the
developmentsthathaveengulfedusinrecentyears,thentheresponseis
clear: somehow, shame must regain resonance for those in whom we
reposeourpoliticaltrust.
But consider the other face of shame, a face that all of us have felt in
our lives at some point or the other. “Shame on you.” “You should be
ashamed.” “Have you no shame?” To be accused of shamelessness is to
feelonourveryskinsthechargethatwehavesomehowlostmoraldirec-
tion. Disciplined into avoiding proscribed behaviors through a fear of
shame,wecontortourselvesjustsothatwecanremaininthepresenceof
those Others whose acceptance we most desire. Perhaps we might still
seesomevalueinthissortofshame.Afterall,werenotsuchexperiences
crucialinshapingusintotheresponsibleadultswearetoday?Andcan-
not chants of “Shame on you,” used regularly in political assemblies by
concerned citizens to sway their recalcitrant elected representatives, still
haveapowerfuleffectin,atleast,remindingusofrightandwrong?But,
andhereisadifficulttruth:thereislittletodistinguishthisfacetofshame
fromanotherthathasnoredeemingvalue.Thisotherfacetisdeployedin
cyber-bullying, body-shaming, misogyny, and violence against the
LGBTQ community. Those who wield this shame use it on others not to
nudge or coolly invite them to change behavior. No! In these hands,
shame is a weapon used to silence and exclude voices and bodies from
appearinginthepublicsphere.
Atthispoint,wefindourselvesinafamiliarconundrum.Even aswe
feel its normative power, we recognize the double-edged nature of
shame. We think we might be able to use shame in ways that limit its
effectonlytothoseendsthatwehaveidentifiedasappealing,endssuch
as democracy, civic participation, respect for truth, etcetera. But far too
often, to deploy shame as a weapon is to immediately lose control of its
intended effects. Not only is shame remarkably particular in how it is
received by everyone, such that my sense of shame is historically/cultu-
rally/psychologically different from your sense of shame, but the very
ends that we might want to use shame toward are themselves eternally
contestable. In effect, not only would shame work differently on each of
us, but more significantly, the truly nefarious thing about shame is that
even those who might share with us the values of democratic participa-
tion and a commitment to factuality, might disagree on who should be