She said on p 224 "...we need to separate our children from their behaviours. As it turns out, there's a significant difference between you are bad and you did something bad. And, no, its not just semantics. Shame corrodes the part of us that believes we can do and be better. When we shame and label our children, we take away their opportunity to grow and try on new behaviours. If a child tells a lie, she can change that behaviour. If she is a liar--where the potential for change in that?
Cultivating more guilt self-talk and less shame self-talk requires rethinking how we discipline and talk to our children."
She went on to use terms such as a child is 'good' but just makes bad choices. Now, we know that from a Biblical perspective we are not inherently 'good' and just make bad choices. We are sinfully bad and thus we make bad choices. We lie not because we accidentally made a bad choice but because sin hates the truth. We lie because at heart level we are liars.....so much so, that in saying we are 'good' is actually a lie in itself!
BUT separate of the false 'good' premise she promotes, she actually has a very good point that I failed to realise at the time of that first read.
She is right, guilt is imperative. Or should I say an awareness of the reality of guilt and its place and function is imperative. Without it, we have a lop-sided and detrimental perspective on our wrong-doing.
Living, as I do, in a culture that according to The Culture Test results has some of the highest honour/shame emphasis levels in the world, I see more and more the problems of a lack of guilt emphasis.
You see, Brene Brown is right. As she and so many others point out that shame is about who I am, and guilt is about what I do. And if we leave off half the story we create a problem for ourselves.
But you see, I suggest Brene Brown is also wrong. God offers an answer to 'who I am' as well as 'what I do'. If we only emphasise the 'what I do' we will miss out in offering people an answer for 'who I am'.
Psychology has for years said that telling people about guilt is a bad thing, Brene Brown is right in saying that perspective is destructive, because it has left us with only the 'shame' side of the picture.
We may not think so, but God blessed us with guilt in addition to shame. It gives us balance. It gives opportunity to hope and start again. You see, we can see what we do more than who we are.
So when we see what we do, its easier to believe we 'are' something different. When we see what others do, its easier to believe they might be becoming something different.
This is where, if you are managing to follow me, her argument actually contradicts itself.
There is a reason that seeing what we do can give us hope that we 'are' becoming someone different. And that is because what we do, does come from who we are. If we are Christians, new creatures in Christ, the 'who we are' changes and thus the 'what we do' changes. ('by their fruit you shall know them' Matthew 7:20).
What we do comes from who we are
But on the other hand, in our sinful nature, we lie because we are liars. We sin because we are sinners. Even our 'good works' outside of Christ are for our own honour and pleasure apart from God, and come from a heart that is self-focused. (Although it is true there is a vague marred image of God's character in our world and a knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' as well as the living example of Christians as salt and light that draws people to desire the benefits of 'good' and to avoid the realities of 'bad'. And there are certain God ordained 'cause and effect' realities in our world of what happens when 'good' is done as opposed to 'evil' that the world enjoys as part of 'common grace'.)
The problem with her argument comes when a person for whatever reason does something 'bad' again. At some point they will inevitably still feel that they are becoming 'bad' again. So they will hide it because to 'become bad' is a shame issue.
So Brene hopes that teaching kids to emphasise the guilt factor will help them focus on the 'bad thing' and not feel a 'bad person' and thus be more willing to even admit wrong in the first place and learn from it. She believes this will help to create 'shame resilience'. But its an argument that is built on a false foundation that won't stand the tests she hopes it will. Focusing on guilt may reduce the impact of shame, but it won't eliminate it.
Focusing on guilt may reduce the impact of shame, but it won't eliminate it.
Now, lets take a leap from this point, as I want to use what we have just talked about to talk further about the place and importance of guilt. You see Brene Brown is on the right track, she just got a bit diverted by another aspect of psychology (that we are all inherently 'good') along the way.
When there is no or little emphasis on guilt, if a person does wrong, as we have said, there is no room for any interpretation except that the person is bad. There is no distance between the act and the one committing the act. There is no space or hope for change.
But as we interact person to person, God has given a design that includes both guilt and shame. When we focus on shame alone, and someone does something wrong, we have only two options. 1. ignore it. 2. have full on shame/rejection. There is no middle ground. Shame is a 'being' related function whereas guilt is a 'behaviour' related function.
Shame severs relationship and if we only have 'shame' as a means for dealing with wrong, and emphasise the 'being' without the 'behaviour', we have no means for acknowledging the wrong but still offering relationship in which the person can bring new behaviour and rebuild the honour. Forgiven guilt is the bridge one has to cross to properly move from shame to restored honour. Without that bridge, the only answer to shame is a total separation of the relationship....or an ignoring of the behaviour so as to avoid the separation of the relationship.
Forgiven guilt is the bridge one has to cross to properly move from shame to restored honour.
Aussies are seeing a form of this possibly playing out when the Speaker in Federal Parliament was 'found guilty' for claiming some transport allowance that when 'exposed' was beyond what the Australian public and other parlimentarians thought was acceptable even though it was within the 'rules'. The Speaker explained it was not done as a deliberate breaking of any rule and she immediately offered to pay it back and did promptly pay it back with penalty. She also made a significant statement of apology exhibiting remorse.
Now I am not here to judge the sincerity or accusations surrounding this incident but....it reveals some interesting dynamics.
There were many (especially in the opposition) who demanded the Speaker step down and that she has totally lost their respect over the incident. They say they cannot respect the position she holds in the Parliament while she fills it. Interestingly a poll (31 July 2015) taken by THE AGE newspaper had about 2/3 agreeing she should step down because people have lost trust in her, and 1/3 who said she should stay otherwise the punishment would be greater than the crime.
Here we have a situation that is like big flashing lights to me of a guilt-shame culture collision of a Western culture that is in tension, and dare I say transition, between a once guilt emphasis and a growing shame emphasis - although neither side would be aware of what is going on.
The Speaker (age 72) did all the 'right' things expected in a guilt emphasis culture - she confessed (didn't deny it), she gave an apology showing remorse, and she paid back the amount even with additional 25% penalty. Not only that but she voluntarily asked the Finance committee to check all her other past expenses so if there is anything else that is felt she should pay back she will. I think she expected forgiveness and permission to 'start again' and show she would not do the same thing again.
Those accusing her, however have little room for forgiveness of guilt, it seems. In their framework, she has broken the trust that they believed was necessary to hold the relationship of respect together. So now the relationship is broken and the only way for the Parliament to move on is for her to be removed. In their minds, the relationship has ended. Behaviour is inseparable from the person, in their thinking, and opportunity for behaviour change is not permissible. There is not the slightest hope for forgiveness and in fact the word hasn't even been mentioned in anything I've read. This is considered enough to ruin her reputation with no room for reparation. From their perspective what she is guilty of, is that she lost their respect.
While details may differ, the elements of this scenario are so common in situations I've observed in the culture around me. There is nothing positive about losing a right emphasis on guilt. The West has been blessed for many years to benefit from a 'guilt factor' reality. Brene Brown is right to be concerned about its fading from the scene and the need to make sure it comes back.
Lest I be thought to be simplistic in this, I am not saying an over-emphasis on guilt is the answer. Part of the reason I was originally in disagreement with Brene Brown's statement was that if we just keep ignoring shame and emphasising guilt, it won't just go away. Shame is not a human construct that we can eliminate. Focusing on behaviour alone will not remove the reality of our 'being'. We cannot detach 'what we do' from 'who we are'.
Our world in its broken sinful state, and the West with its post-Judeo-Christian legacy, is grasping at ways to solve its problems. It sees some blurred images of truth, that are fast fading in the Western world, but neither understands their source nor seeks the fullness of their truth. Our world wants the blessings of godliness without God.
God has an answer for 'who we are
What our world fails to realise is that God has an answer for 'who we are'. We do not have to declare ourselves 'good' in order to escape a knowledge 'we are bad'. In fact when we do, we keep ourselves estranged from the very One who is good, and who wants to give us a new 'good' nature, in Himself.
We can't rename a bad thing 'good' in the hope it will change. But God doesn't just re-name us (although that's included since we go from sinner to saint!), but He remakes us and redeems us! We get to change who we 'are'.
We don't just have to learn shame resilience, but we receive shame replacement. We gain a new identity - one of honour instead of shame. Not only are our sins forgiven, but the old 'me' goes and a new 'me' comes....a new 'me' is born!
We can be born again when the One who cannot sin and does not sin is born into us and give us His new life! Then since we behave from a base of who we are, our behaviour also begins to change.
We won't be perfect in behaviour in this life as we battle the reality of this sinful world and our 'old' sinful nature in our flesh, but as we submit to Christ, we are being transformed from one degree of glory (honour) to another.
This is the good news of the gospel!
No comments:
Post a Comment