Shame and Modernity

J. Braithwaite
{"title":"Shame and Modernity","authors":"J. Braithwaite","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.BJC.A048257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If shaming is crucial to crime control, then is not the task of controlling crime hopeless in modern urbanized societies? It is argued here that any such pessimism must be qualified by a broader understanding of shame in human history. First, the article considers the arguments of Elias that shame became more important in the affect structure of citizens with the demise of feudalism. Elias did not consider the movement away from shame and towards brutal punishment in crime control directed at the lower classes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This period culmintaled in a demonstration of the failure of stigmatization and punitive excess, opening the way for reinlegralive ideals to gather support in the Victorian era and beyond. Finally, drawing on Goffman, it is argued that there are some neglected ways in which shaming can have more power in the city than in the village. Overall, there is no structural inevitability about the impotence of shaming in industrialized societies; there is no inexorable march with modernization towards a society where shaming does not count. My recent book, Crime, Shame and Reinlegration (Braithwaite 1989) advances the theory that nations with low crime rates, and periods of history where crime is more effectively controlled, are those where shaming has the greatest social power. For shaming to attain its maximum effectiveness, it must be of a reintegrative sort, avoiding stigmatization. Stigmatization is shaming which creates outcasts, where 'criminal' becomes a master status trait that drives out all other identities, shaming where bonds of respect with the offender are not sustained. Reintegrative shaming, in contrast, is disapproval dispensed within an ongoing relationship with the offender based on respect, shaming which focuses on the evil of the deed rather than on the offender as an irremediably evil person, where degradation ceremonies are followed by ceremonies to decertify deviance, where forgiveness, apology, and repentance are culturally important. The","PeriodicalId":134925,"journal":{"name":"Regulation, Crime, Freedom","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation, Crime, Freedom","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.BJC.A048257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

If shaming is crucial to crime control, then is not the task of controlling crime hopeless in modern urbanized societies? It is argued here that any such pessimism must be qualified by a broader understanding of shame in human history. First, the article considers the arguments of Elias that shame became more important in the affect structure of citizens with the demise of feudalism. Elias did not consider the movement away from shame and towards brutal punishment in crime control directed at the lower classes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This period culmintaled in a demonstration of the failure of stigmatization and punitive excess, opening the way for reinlegralive ideals to gather support in the Victorian era and beyond. Finally, drawing on Goffman, it is argued that there are some neglected ways in which shaming can have more power in the city than in the village. Overall, there is no structural inevitability about the impotence of shaming in industrialized societies; there is no inexorable march with modernization towards a society where shaming does not count. My recent book, Crime, Shame and Reinlegration (Braithwaite 1989) advances the theory that nations with low crime rates, and periods of history where crime is more effectively controlled, are those where shaming has the greatest social power. For shaming to attain its maximum effectiveness, it must be of a reintegrative sort, avoiding stigmatization. Stigmatization is shaming which creates outcasts, where 'criminal' becomes a master status trait that drives out all other identities, shaming where bonds of respect with the offender are not sustained. Reintegrative shaming, in contrast, is disapproval dispensed within an ongoing relationship with the offender based on respect, shaming which focuses on the evil of the deed rather than on the offender as an irremediably evil person, where degradation ceremonies are followed by ceremonies to decertify deviance, where forgiveness, apology, and repentance are culturally important. The
羞耻与现代性
如果羞辱对控制犯罪至关重要,那么在现代城市化社会中,控制犯罪的任务不是毫无希望吗?本文认为,任何这种悲观主义都必须以对人类历史上羞耻的更广泛理解为前提。首先,本文考察了伊莱亚斯的观点,即随着封建制度的消亡,羞耻感在公民的情感结构中变得更加重要。伊莱亚斯没有考虑到十七和十八世纪在控制犯罪方面从羞耻转向残酷惩罚的运动是针对下层阶级的。这一时期以污名化和过度惩罚的失败告终,为重新合法化的理想在维多利亚时代及以后获得支持开辟了道路。最后,借鉴戈夫曼的观点,作者认为,在一些被忽视的方面,羞辱在城市比在农村更有影响力。总的来说,在工业化社会中,羞耻感的无能并不存在结构性的必然性;在现代化的进程中,没有什么不可阻挡的趋势会使我们走向一个不受羞辱的社会。我的新书《犯罪、羞耻和重新融入社会》(Braithwaite, 1989)提出了一个理论,即犯罪率低的国家,以及犯罪得到更有效控制的历史时期,是羞耻具有最大社会力量的国家。为了使羞辱达到最大的效果,它必须是一种重新整合的方式,避免污名化。污名化是一种羞辱,它创造了被抛弃的人,在这种情况下,“罪犯”成为一种主要的身份特征,驱逐了所有其他身份,在这种羞辱中,与罪犯的尊重纽带无法维持。相比之下,重新整合羞辱是在与冒犯者的持续关系中基于尊重而给予的不赞成,羞耻关注的是行为的邪恶,而不是冒犯者作为一个不可救药的邪恶的人,在堕落仪式之后是取消偏差的仪式,宽恕,道歉和忏悔在文化上很重要。的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信