THE FUNCTION OF SHAME:
Changing and the Community Conference ProcessReports in the literature of how changing occurs through the community conferencing process are insightful and controversial. A dialectic exists here too: Does change spring from the internalist’s accounts of change, coming from within the individual or the externalist’s accounts of change, being a product of the pressures of social conformity from without? (see McDonald & Moore, 2001). Deeply connected to this dialectic are questions concerning the function of shame and the collective experience.
The function of shame. Included in this function is the relationship between shame and forgiveness, and whether or not to force either in the conference to make change happen. Affect theory (Nathanson, 1997; McCold & Wachtel, 1997) postulates that there are nine basic affects or emotions that are universal to all human beings. These nine affects are categorized into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative. It is in the negative group that the controversy begins. The affect that dominated discussions in the earlier theoretical development of the conferencing process was shame or humiliation. Kaufman (1985) states, “To feel shame is to feel seen in a painfully diminished sense. The self feels exposed both to itself and to anyone else present” (p. 8). As theorists developed their models for the conferencing process, shame was broken into two types and referred to as reintegrative shaming or stigmatizing shaming (Braithwaite, 1989). Stigmatizing shaming was seen to make offenders more angry and less reflective. Reintegrative shaming appeared to reconnect the offender with the community. Nathanson (1997) later argues that reintegrative shaming was a misnomer. He argues that it is more useful to understand individuals’ responses to shame: withdrawal, avoidance, attack self, and attack other. In reality there was “only reintegration, only hard work aimed at the reinforcement of community and the hope that the offender finds the community enough of a source of positive affect that return to it is worth a huge dose of shame as withdrawal” (p. 2).
The collective experience. Nathanson’s (1997) thinking reflects a shift to a more systemic view of the process. In discussing the evolution of the conferencing process, McDonald and Moore (2001) describe a shift that moves from seeing the process as isolated events to a more synergetic event. They still recognize that the expression of shame is a turning point in the conference, but they “now emphasize that a significant part of the experience of shame seems to be collective” (p. 131). They continued by acknowledging that change seems related more to the emotional dynamics of a conference than to the expression of a specific emotion. They summarize their account of this aspect by stating:
This account suggests that the crucial dynamic is not that one conference participant expresses shame, and thereby clears the hurdle beyond which reintegration can occur. Rather, the crucial dynamic is that everyone experiences a sense of shame, and this experience marks the transition from a generally negative emotional climate, to a generally positive emotional climate. Shame marks the transition from conflict to cooperation. (p. 7)
Within this brief review on how change occurs through the conferencing process, I recognize Lawlis’ (1996) required elements for changing—courage for the individual and support from the group or community.
Osborn, David A. Training in Restorative Justice: Enhancing Praxis with Public School Educators. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Adult Education. Saint Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Downloaded 21 August 2003. 2003
Affect theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn psychology, affect is an emotion or subjectively experienced feeling. Affect theory is a branch of psychoanalysis that attempts to organize affects into discrete categories and connect each one with its typical response. So, for example, the affect of joy is observed through the reaction of smiling. These affects can be identified through immediate facial reactions that people have to a stimulus, typically well before they could process any real response to the stimulus.
Affect theory is attributed to Silvan Tomkins and is introduced in the first two volumes of his book Affect Imagery Consciousness (published in 1962 and 1963 respectively).
The nine affectsThese are the nine affects, listed with a low/high intensity label for each affect and accompanied by its biological expression [1]:
Positive:
Affect theory can also be used as a blueprint for intimate relationships. Kelly (1996) describes relationships as agreements to mutually work toward maximizing positive affect and minimizing negative affect. Like the "optimal mental health" blueprint, this blueprint requires members of the relationship to express affect to one another in order to identify progress.
Descriptive implicationsThese blueprints can also describe natural and implicit goals. Nathanson (1997), for example, uses the "affect" to create a narrative for one of his patients:
I suspect that the reason he refuses to watch movies is the sturdy fear of enmeshment in the affect depicted on the screen; the affect mutualization for which most of us frequent the movie theater is only another source of discomfort for him.
and:
His refusal to risk the range of positive and negative affect associated with sexuality robs any possible relationship of one of its best opportunities to work on the first two rules of either the Kelly or the Tomkins blueprint. Thus, his problems with intimacy may be understood in one aspect as an overly substantial empathic wall, and in another aspect as a purely internal problem with the expression and management of his own affect.
Tomkins (1991) applies affect theory to religion noting that "Christianity became a powerful universal religion in part because of its more general solution to the problem of anger, violence, and suffering versus love, enjoyment, and peace." The implication is that the optimization of affect motivates the adoption of religion.
Affect theory is also referenced heavily in Tomkins's Script Theory.
Changing and the Community Conference ProcessReports in the literature of how changing occurs through the community conferencing process are insightful and controversial. A dialectic exists here too: Does change spring from the internalist’s accounts of change, coming from within the individual or the externalist’s accounts of change, being a product of the pressures of social conformity from without? (see McDonald & Moore, 2001). Deeply connected to this dialectic are questions concerning the function of shame and the collective experience.
The function of shame. Included in this function is the relationship between shame and forgiveness, and whether or not to force either in the conference to make change happen. Affect theory (Nathanson, 1997; McCold & Wachtel, 1997) postulates that there are nine basic affects or emotions that are universal to all human beings. These nine affects are categorized into three groups: positive, neutral, and negative. It is in the negative group that the controversy begins. The affect that dominated discussions in the earlier theoretical development of the conferencing process was shame or humiliation. Kaufman (1985) states, “To feel shame is to feel seen in a painfully diminished sense. The self feels exposed both to itself and to anyone else present” (p. 8). As theorists developed their models for the conferencing process, shame was broken into two types and referred to as reintegrative shaming or stigmatizing shaming (Braithwaite, 1989). Stigmatizing shaming was seen to make offenders more angry and less reflective. Reintegrative shaming appeared to reconnect the offender with the community. Nathanson (1997) later argues that reintegrative shaming was a misnomer. He argues that it is more useful to understand individuals’ responses to shame: withdrawal, avoidance, attack self, and attack other. In reality there was “only reintegration, only hard work aimed at the reinforcement of community and the hope that the offender finds the community enough of a source of positive affect that return to it is worth a huge dose of shame as withdrawal” (p. 2).
The collective experience. Nathanson’s (1997) thinking reflects a shift to a more systemic view of the process. In discussing the evolution of the conferencing process, McDonald and Moore (2001) describe a shift that moves from seeing the process as isolated events to a more synergetic event. They still recognize that the expression of shame is a turning point in the conference, but they “now emphasize that a significant part of the experience of shame seems to be collective” (p. 131). They continued by acknowledging that change seems related more to the emotional dynamics of a conference than to the expression of a specific emotion. They summarize their account of this aspect by stating:
This account suggests that the crucial dynamic is not that one conference participant expresses shame, and thereby clears the hurdle beyond which reintegration can occur. Rather, the crucial dynamic is that everyone experiences a sense of shame, and this experience marks the transition from a generally negative emotional climate, to a generally positive emotional climate. Shame marks the transition from conflict to cooperation. (p. 7)
Within this brief review on how change occurs through the conferencing process, I recognize Lawlis’ (1996) required elements for changing—courage for the individual and support from the group or community.
Osborn, David A. Training in Restorative Justice: Enhancing Praxis with Public School Educators. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Adult Education. Saint Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Downloaded 21 August 2003. 2003
Affect theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn psychology, affect is an emotion or subjectively experienced feeling. Affect theory is a branch of psychoanalysis that attempts to organize affects into discrete categories and connect each one with its typical response. So, for example, the affect of joy is observed through the reaction of smiling. These affects can be identified through immediate facial reactions that people have to a stimulus, typically well before they could process any real response to the stimulus.
Affect theory is attributed to Silvan Tomkins and is introduced in the first two volumes of his book Affect Imagery Consciousness (published in 1962 and 1963 respectively).
The nine affectsThese are the nine affects, listed with a low/high intensity label for each affect and accompanied by its biological expression [1]:
Positive:
- Enjoyment/Joy - smiling, lips wide and out
- Interest/Excitement - eyebrows down, eyes tracking, eyes looking, closer listening
- Surprise/Startle - eyebrows up, eyes blinking
- Anger/Rage - frowning, a clenched jaw, a red face
- Disgust - the lower lip raised and protruded, head forward and down
- Dissmell (reaction to bad smell) - upper lip raised, head pulled back
- Distress/Anguish - crying, rhythmic sobbing, arched eyebrows, mouth lowered
- Fear/Terror - a frozen stare, a pale face, coldness, sweat, erect hair
- Shame/Humiliation - eyes lowered, the head down and averted, blushing
Affect theory can also be used as a blueprint for intimate relationships. Kelly (1996) describes relationships as agreements to mutually work toward maximizing positive affect and minimizing negative affect. Like the "optimal mental health" blueprint, this blueprint requires members of the relationship to express affect to one another in order to identify progress.
Descriptive implicationsThese blueprints can also describe natural and implicit goals. Nathanson (1997), for example, uses the "affect" to create a narrative for one of his patients:
I suspect that the reason he refuses to watch movies is the sturdy fear of enmeshment in the affect depicted on the screen; the affect mutualization for which most of us frequent the movie theater is only another source of discomfort for him.
and:
His refusal to risk the range of positive and negative affect associated with sexuality robs any possible relationship of one of its best opportunities to work on the first two rules of either the Kelly or the Tomkins blueprint. Thus, his problems with intimacy may be understood in one aspect as an overly substantial empathic wall, and in another aspect as a purely internal problem with the expression and management of his own affect.
Tomkins (1991) applies affect theory to religion noting that "Christianity became a powerful universal religion in part because of its more general solution to the problem of anger, violence, and suffering versus love, enjoyment, and peace." The implication is that the optimization of affect motivates the adoption of religion.
Affect theory is also referenced heavily in Tomkins's Script Theory.
