I was thinking about shame or shaming as a response to those who continue to use race or other characteristics to discredit and/or physically harm those who they perceive to be different.   This morning I read an article in Today’s Tampa Tribune by Dr. Roy Kaplan, former head of the Tampa Bay Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews and an adjunct professor at the University of South Florida entitled “A Post-Racist United States:  Sadly we’re still not there”. In this article, Dr. Kaplan was responding to both the recent hate response President Obama got on his Twitter account and the growth of hate groups in the United States since the election of President Obama.  He went on to point out that according to figures compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center the United States has nearly 800 and Florida nearly 50 such identifiable groups.

Dr. Kaplan is recommending that the members of these hate groups “be exposed and held accountable for their incivility, rudeness and crudeness.  Publish their names, addresses and places of work so we can peel away the veil of anonymity they hide behind.” (Tampa Tribune, May 28, 1015, p 9). 

It seems to me that what Dr. Kaplan is proposing is to shame them and to expose them to possible hateful response in payment for their hateful behavior.  

First of all I want to thank Dr. Kaplan for his many years of leadership in exploring ways to create a more just and mutually accepting community and for taking the time to insure that we are aware of the extent to which some (too many), in this country, continue to use hate or some form of oppression as a way to boost their own self sense of self worth.   Obviously, those who claim that racism is not longer an issue in our culture needs to know that current research does not support this claim. 

Obviously, if individuals such as Dr. Kaplan do not force us to face the reality of ongoing racism we will not do what we need to be doing in our educational systems and in other parts of our society to end this terrible excuse for oppression.

I am not, however, convinced that Dr. Kaplan’s solution is going to be helpful or effective.

My initial response was that Dr. Kaplan is recommending that we publicly shame the members of hate groups as well as others who are promoting hatred.   As if my habit I checked the definition of shame and found in Wikipedia:

Shame is a negative, painful, social emotion that can be seen as resulting "...from comparison of the self's action with the self's standards..."[1] but which may equally stem from comparison of the self's state of being with the ideal social context's standard. Thus, shame may stem from volitional action or simply self-regard; no action by the shamed being is required: simply existing is enough. Both the comparison and standards are enabled by socialization. Though usually considered an emotion, shame may also variously be considered an affect, cognition, state, or condition.

The roots of the word shame are thought to derive from an older word meaning "to cover"; as such, covering oneself, literally or figuratively, is a natural expression of shame.

This definition fits with my understanding of the concept of shame or the act of shaming one.  Obviously, the hope of Dr. Kaplan is that by publicly exposing those who are promoting hatred they will compare “the self’s action with the self’s standards”.

With few exceptions I am not convinced that, among those who are members of or supportive of hate groups, that there is that disparity. I think the action often matches the standards or values of the individuals.  Thus, it is not possible to shame those who believe that their behavior is the right or moral course of action. 

I think what Dr. Kaplan is proposing is similar to the approach in the United States to other behavior or alleged behavior, which is contrary to the values of the majority.   We have, for example,  been publishing names and addresses of convicted sex offenders for some time with seemingly little decrease in the sexual abuse of minors or others.  First of all let me remind the reader that many on the sexual offenders lists are not and have not been sexual predators.   We have lumped together those who have unwittingly had sex with an underage prostitute, those who expose themselves, those who unintentionally had child porn on their computer and those who her accused of sexual crimes by angry spouses in the midst of an angry divorce but who did not have a good defense attorney.  Secondly, my personal experience in working with/for those on the sexual offenders list is that, as a result of their names and address being publicized, they were cursed, physically threatened and, at times, physically attacked, and verbally abused.  This did not help them heal, change their behavior or motivate them to treat their abuser with loving-kindness.  Often they then responded with self-loathing and/or anger.  Sometimes they just internalized the abuse they exploded and/or engaged in some self-destructive behavior.

As I have repeatedly suggested, punishment does not work.  If we humans are treated badly we tend not to be motivated to “rise above’ and respond with loving kindness.  Yet, that is exactly what we need to do.  Dr. Kaplan uses another term. That term is accountability.   I am choosing, for the purpose of these comments, to ignore the fact that Dr. Kaplan seems to use the term accountability in a way, which seems synonymous with shaming.  That is not my understanding of the word accountability.   My understanding is that that accountability is done with empathy and love and not more hatred.  

It seems to me that the goal of shaming is to make the person feel bad enough that they want to change.  This works only if the individual themselves feel bad about their behavior and want to change it.  Even then if they use shame to scold or to punish themselves they are not likely to change their behavior.  They will, in that case, find themselves repeatedly engaging in the same behavior.  If they want to change their behavior they have to change their thinking and give themselves other behavioral options.  If I, for example, have a sexist or racist thought, I want first of all to notice it and to notice that it is inconsistent with my current values.  I will then replace that thought with one, which is more consistent with my current values.

If I want to help create an atmosphere, which is more likely to promote change, then I have to (1) make other ways of thinking attractive in some way and (2) make sure that the person knows that they can safely “confess” to themselves and me without any fear of being rebuked or punished.

I am well aware that if I am talking to a person who is a member of a hate group, I am not going to change them by running up to them, giving them a big hug and a kiss and telling them that I love them.   That would be very naive at best and stupid at worse.    I am going to do what I can to tune into the pain, which underlies the need to hate; the pain, which says that one needs some way of proving one’s worth.  If that way of proving one’s worth is by convincing oneself that one is superior to another, then I am not going to change them by telling them that they are a piece of crap.  I am going to say to them in every way that I can that they are worthy of love and respect; that we do not need to put others down to feel good about ourselves.  I may, at times, be able to talk about how all of us feel unworthy at some level and look to something outside of ourselves to feel better about ourselves. 

In the world today there is increasing concern about the proliferation of hate groups and individuals who are terrorists.   All of the studies I have read lead me to believe that one is more likely to adopt the beliefs of a hate group or a terrorist organization if one is already feeling lost, disconnected and without a sense of purpose.  Those organizations or individuals who have had some success in attracting these individuals to explore another way of thinking have done so by offering them another very concrete option for feeling as if their life has meaning/a purpose which translates into the person beginning to belief that they have purpose or a sense of worth based on doing something they could consider positive.  

Terrorists, racists, and extremist are not different than you or I.  We all want to have a sense of purpose, to believe that we can make a difference and to be loved and respected, if not in this life, in the next. 

It is my belief that until we come to terms with this essential “truth” we are not going-to-going to create a more just and loving society. As long as we are convinced that one could never be like “that person” or “that person” has nothing in common with us, we will not see long-term positive change. 

Simple changes such as  “We humans have a tendency to feel good about ourselves by convincing ourselves we are more than or better than.” as opposed to “You people have a tendency to.”   It is never a you.  It is always a we!

I can obviously understand why none of us want to look at the part of us who can be a racist, a radical terrorist, a right-wing fundamentalist, or a drug addict, but until we can accept this essential truth we will think in terms of ‘the other” and will react to “them” rather than embracing the mirror image.

As is my usual Sunday morning habit I was listening to “On Being” with Krista Tippet.  One of her scientists guest this morning was Michael McCollough who is the author of Beyond Revenge”  The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct.     I was fascinated by what he had to say and have ordered the book to read.   As a person who  has come out of a Christian tradition and has extensively studied Buddhism I have long been interested in  the question of why we humans find it so difficult to forgive each other.   I admire the work of Robert Enright, particularly his book, Forgiveness is a Choice –A Step by Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope.

Perhaps my exposure to the subject of SIN by ministers of the Southern Baptist Church I attended as a child first sparked my interest in the subject of forgiveness. Perhaps it was the fact that it seemed to me that my mother was very generous in the giving of her time and energy to point out the extraordinary number of times that I could commit grievous errors of judgment in a single day and in a very consistent fashion.  Perhaps, as I grew towards adulthood in a physical sense, it was my increasing awareness of how often I fell short of  the rigorous standards I had set for myself; of the number of times in any given day or week during which I allowed fear or some other emotion to determine my behavior.  Whether it was, as Jimmy Carter admitted, “I committed adultery in my heart,”  or the lies which I told to avoid admitting I had forgotten an appointment, been remiss in nurturing a friendship,  ignored a responsibility, oversold my abilities, or any of a long list of possible violations of the rules I had decided governed the life of anyone deserving of respect, I was sure that the  Christian concept of Grace did not apply to me. When the Buddhist’s talk about everyone deserving maître (holding oneself in the cradle of loving kindness) I knew that I was one of the exceptions.

It is no surprise that I took an interest in the concept of forgiveness and found it relatively easy most of the time to accept that others were deserving of forgiveness; that no one was worse than I.  The person who stole a valuable object was essentially no different than the person who took a pencil from the office or something else that was not theirs to take.  The person who killed someone in a fit of anger or because they were not paying attention while driving was no different than what I was capable of doing.   If I was honest, either I had thoughts of doing the same wrongs of those I  heard about  or I knew or, given the right circumstance, I could have that thought.

Obviously I have a very selfish, vested interest in adopting a belief that all we humans are deserving of forgiveness or none of us are deserving.    

I like the idea of the evolution of  the forgiveness instinct which Mr. McCollough suggests in the title of his book.   As I continued to live in the world,decade after decade, I could not help but notice that many, if not all of we humans,  as individuals or as collective entities have a difficult time forgiving ourselves and each other.  Once I got a graduate degree in clinical psychology and started my counseling career I became even more aware of the legion of people who find it difficult to forgive themselves. I had previously noticed this fact as a professional working for/with people struggling with addiction.  

The fear, of course, is that  if let ourselves and others off the hook for hurtful deeds than we humans will commit even more hurtful deeds.  Is that accurate?  Actually, in order to change our behavior we do have to be aware and be able to admit that not only did we hurt others, but that hurting others eventually leads to others hurting me more which leads to ….  It is a destructive process.

It seems to me that forgiveness requires, at a minimum, acceptance of:

·      The ability to accept that all we humans can and do hurt each other.
·      There is no accurate, scientific way to measure various ways we hurt ourselves, each other and mother nature.
·      Behavior is never committed in a vacuum.
·      Particular brains function differently at different times and differently than brains of others.
·      Much, if not most, of our anger which leads to blame is really because someone or something did not  behave in a way which we expected them to behave.  Whether is our car not starting, another driver not doing what we think he/she should do, the air conditioning not working well, or more frequently someone not responding to us emotionally the way that we thought  they would or expected them to, our expectations are the problem.  For example, for years as a young man,  I wanted my version of unconditional love from my mother.  I finally figured out that (1) she is already doing her best and (2) I only have control over giving what I want – unconditional love. 
·      It is not practical to withhold forgiveness.  If I espouse the view that so and so does not deserve forgiveness, than someone else will do the same to me, which means that …….
·      It is important that we strive to do our best to make it safe for we humans to be accountable which is not the same as beating ourselves up.  To be accountable means that we admit to ourselves that we did something which was hurtful. Instead of beating ourselves up we then put our energy into changing our behavior.  If as a parent of a child  we want  the behavior of our child to be kinder to others we need to focus on finding a way to teach our child that being kind  to others is not only the right thing to do it is more likely to lead to others being kind.
·      We must be willing to allow ourselves and each other to sincerely make amends to ourselves and others without the drama of a Puccini opera.