Guilt and Shame Essay Example

Guilt and Shame Essay Example Guilt and Shame Essay Guilt and Shame Essay Essay Topic: African Religions and Philosophy Anna Karenina The society of traditional  Japan  was long held to be a good example of one in which shame is the primary agent of  social control. The first book to cogently[citation needed]  explain the workings of the Japanese society for the Western reader was  The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. This book was produced under less than ideal circumstances since it was written during the early years of  World War II  in an attempt to understand the people who had become such a powerful enemy of the West. Under the conditions of war it was, of course, impossible to do  field research  in Japan. Nevertheless, depending on the study of members of that culture who were  available for interview and study in the West, namely war prisoners at detention centers, as well as literary and other such records pertaining to cultural features,  Ruth Benedict  drew what some regard[who? ]  as a clear picture of the basic workings of Japanese society. Her study has been challenged and is not relied upon by anthropologists of Japan today. Contemporary  Western society  uses shame as one modality of control, but its primary dependence rests on  guilt, and, when that does not work, on the  criminal justice  system. : Paul Hiebert  characterizes the shame society as follows: Shame is a reaction to other peoples criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. Personal desires are sunk in the collective expectation. Those who fail will often turn their aggression against themselves instead of using violence against others. By punishing themselves they maintain their self-respect before others, for shame cannot be relieved, as guilt can be, by  confession  and atonement. Shame is removed and honor restored only when a person does what the society expects of him or her in the situation, including committing suicide if necessary. (Hiebert 1985, 212) guilt society  is one in which the primary method of  social control  is the inculcation of feelings of  guilt  for behaviors that the society defines as undesirable. It involves an implicit judgment on the being (rather than just the behavior) of the individual: You are an  evil  person if you would do such-and-so. It also involves creating the  expectation  of punishment now (when the behavior fails to be kept secret) and/or in the hereafter. One of the interesting features of many such societies is that they inculcate feelings of guilt for feelings and/or impulses that the individual cannot help but feel. Where a  shame societymight tell its members that sexual interactions are to be hidden from general view or knowledge, a guilt society may tell people that they are guilty or sinful for mere  sexual desire. A prominent feature of guilt societies is the provision of sanctioned releases from guilt for certain behaviors either before the fact, as when one condemns sexuality but permits it conditionally in the context of marriage, or after the fact. There is a clear opportunity in such cases for authority figures to derive power, monetary and/or other advantages, etc. by manipulating the conditions of guilt and the forgiveness of guilt. Paul Hiebert characterizes the guilt society as follows: Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of  morality  within us, when we violate our conscience. A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions. Guilt cultures emphasize punishment and forgiveness as ways of restoring the moral order; shame cultures stress self-denial and humility as ways of restoring the social order. (Hiebert 1985, 213) GUILT, SHAME,  and embarrassment are forms of social control. Whether these are cast in evolutionary, psychological, or cultural terms, we should not lose sight of that basic function. These emotions may not always be portrayed in these terms, but that is how they have evolved and become embedded in our cultural beliefs and practices. It is in this context that we should raise the question: Are there shame cultures as opposed to guilt cultures, with corresponding differences in how people within them experience guilt and shame? In American culture (and Western cultures enerally), personal identity is conceived of as being independent and autonomous. Society is seen as a collection of self-contained individuals who are held responsible for their own behavior. Ones interests are best served by allowing maximum freedom and responsibility in choosing ones objectives. Moral precepts are based on conceptions of justice. Even when these are tempered by interpersonal obligations, the focus remains on individuals who must balance their responsibilities between the self and significant others. THE PRIMARY  moral obligation is to avoid harming significant others. It is when you cause harm, or are unjust, that you feel guilty. Being responsive to the needs of others is desirable, but is not a moral duty. Individuals are free to follow their inclinations within the limits of the law and in consideration of the rights of others. Their obligations to others are defined in negative terms- what they should not do- rather than as positive duties of what they should do. Whereas the failure to uphold justice is a vice, the failure to be beneficent to others is only a lack of moral virtue. By contrast, in Asian contexts, ones identity is defined in relation to the group one belongs to, typically the family. Whereas in the West, a person would be known as Jane or John Doe, in the East, they would be identified as members of the Doe family. In her study of Indian Hindus, psychologist Joan Miller found that the primary basis of determining moral conduct was not justice but a persons duties to significant others. Among Americans, moral duty is imposed on the individual to constrain that individuals actions. For Hindus, doing ones duty meant both meeting ones obligations as well as realizing ones own nature. Therefore acting benevolently toward others was not an aim secondary to considerations of justice, nor was it a matter of acting above and beyond the call of duty- fulfilling ones social duty was the primary purpose of moral conduct. These differences lead to contrasting ways of determining what is moral. For instance, if there is no other way to help a friend in need, it would be ethical for an Indian to steal but unethical for an American to do so even if it means failing to help the friend. These differences are not absolute; nonetheless, twice as many Indians as Americans would give priority to interpersonal considerations over abstract ethical principles. Moreover, Indians were more prone than Americans to make contextual exceptions (where the morality of an action depends on the nature of the relationship and the circumstances of the case), whereas Americans took a more absolute view about an action being right or wrong, irrespective of other considerations. The moral objective in the West, as noted above, is to avoid doing wrong and is more objective; in the East, it is to do what is right and is more subjective. Similar considerations apply in other Asian cultures. In China, the family is the great self. One starts by literally owing ones life to ones parents. Ones primary obligation in life is to serve and protect social ties, not pursue personal goals. Similarly, while Americans place a high premium on self-reliance, the Japanese favor interdependence and harmonious integration within the group. Individuals in both groups are highly competitive, but in different ways. Americans want to  get ahead  of others; the Japanese are concerned with not falling behind; instead of pushing ahead, they line up sideways. The personal boundaries of Americans have been compared to the hard shell of an egg; those of the Japanese, to an eggs soft internal membrane. Erich Lessing/Art Resource This individualistic-versus-interdependent basis of moral judgment helps clarify the problematic distinctions between shame and guilt cultures. Instead of these designations explaining differences in such a way that makes one culture seem morally superior to another, they explain cultural differences as the outcome of serving different needs. In the Western context of individualism, guilt, with its emphasis on autonomy, provides a better moral foundation for guiding individuals who are responsible for themselves. With a lesser sense of responsibility for others, there is less need for shame as a form of social control. By contrast, in the Asian cultural context, where maintaining harmony in relationships is most valued, shame is a more effective means of moral control. Since personal boundaries extend beyond the individual, it becomes more difficult to generate guilt. When someone does wrong, it is not only the person but everyone related to that person who shares in the guilt. Therefore, shame in Asian cultures fulfills some of the same functions of social control that guilt does in the West and vice versa. These considerations are important to our understanding of differences in the ways guilt and shame are perceived in Western and Eastern religion. . . . For instance, the centrality of shame in Confucianism has led to the general impression that Confucian China is a shame society, and hence is ethically less developed. [Religion scholar] Mark Berkson [MA 92, PhD 00] has raised cogent arguments that this characterization is not valid. Confucian ethics, far from being ethically less well developed, offers much to others to learn from. While generally framed in East/West terms, these differences between guilt and shame can also be seen within Western culture itself in historical perspective. Homeric heroes in ancient Greece were driven by the twin virtues honor and fame. In their warlike society such virtues were best manifested on the battlefield. The self-esteem of heroes like Achilles, Odysseus, and Oedipus depended on their standing in the eyes of their peers, with whom they were in fierce competition and often conflict. Failure led to loss of face and shame. Consequently, shame has been generally assumed to be the predominant moral sentiment that motivated and restrained the ancient Greeks. Their shame culture was based on public esteem. What mattered was where one stood with respect to ones peers, who constituted an honor-group. This view has been challenged by moral philosopher Bernard Williams, who argues that Greek conceptions of shame also included elements of guilt. The moral objective in the West is to avoid doing wrong; in the East, to do what is right. These cultural differences are embedded in various languages as well. This makes translating terms like guilt and shame a common source of confusion. For example, when we look for synonyms for shame and guilt in Chinese, we do not find single terms that correspond to them. Rather, we find a number of terms that correspond to various types of shame, making distinctions that do not exist in English. In some contexts, even guilt may appear as a subsidiary form of shame. Even if the terms to designate them vary, are these emotions universal or culture specific? Do an American and an Indian experience guilt and shame the same way, whatever they call them? There are no simple answers to this question. Some emotions appear to be more universal than others; for instance, it is hard to imagine a culture that does not recognize expressions of fear or anger. However, when it comes to complex emotions like guilt and shame, which are more subject to cultural variation, the picture becomes less clear. Even the fact that a culture has no word for an emotion does not mean that the emotion it represents is absent. Linguists point out that even if certain emotions are universal, their terminology is not. For instance, there is no word for disgust in Polish. And in one Australian aboriginal language, fear and shame are expressed by the same word (associated with the impulse to retreat). The common error is to start with ones own language and look for exact translations in other languages. Ultimately, it is not through specific terms like guilt or shame but throughmetalanguage- descriptions of the essential elements in emotional states- that we can test the universality of the emotions. For instance, the answer to How do you feel when you have lost someone dear to you? would convey the idea of sadness better than would the answer to the question Do you feel sad? How does the evolutionary view help us in  dealing with guilt? This is not a matter explicitly addressed by evolutionary psychologists. . . . Nonetheless, the evolutionary basis of the capacity for altruism and the capacity to feel guilty provides us with a natural foundation for guilt, and hence the need for its acceptance and usefulness. If guilt is indeed part of our nature, and there are good reasons for it, it makes no sense to fight it or deny it. Accepting guilt as a fact of life therefore makes it easier to approach it in a positive manner, and perhaps helps us to resolve it in more authentic and adaptive ways. HERANT KATCHADOURIAN,  who came to Stanford in 1966, is an emeritus professor of psychiatry and human biology and former president of the Flora Family Foundation. He has received the Dinkelspiel and Lyman awards and has been selected seven times as Outstanding Professor and Class Day speaker. HONOR AND SHAME  IN A MIDDLE EASTERN SETTING| Roland Muller Copyright 2000 All rights reserved. Sociologists have recognized that three social issues have existed since earliest times. As civilizations formed, each of them grappled with the concept of fear, shame and guilt. These are, in essence the building blocks of society. Every society has its particular ways of dealing with these issues. And each of these issues have different importance, depending on the cultural makeup of that society. These three aspects make up the basic building blocks of worldview. It is similar to the three basic colors that an artist mixes to make all the colors of the universe. On my computer, I can mix the three primary colors to make up 64 million other colors. Thats the way it is with worldview. There are many different kinds of worldview, but when carefully examined they can be better understood when looking at them in the light of mans response to guilt, shame and fear. Sociologists have used terms like guilt-based cultures, and shame-based cultures for years now. We must be careful, however, not to try and fit each culture or worldview into one specific category such as fear based or shame based. As I stated, these building blocks are similar to an artist, creating thousands of colors from three basic primary colors. How much of each primary color is used, determines what the final color will be when the paint is mixed. In the same way, all three building blocks are present in all cultures and worldviews, but how much of each one is present, determines the actual type of culture that emerges. Having determined this, one must also consider how people in a particular local culture react to the elements of the overall culture. As an example, when an Arab is shamed, he may react by taking revenge on the one who causes the shame, but when an oriental is shamed, he may react by committing suicide. So while individual cultures may react to sin in different way, in general terms there are great blocks of the world that have similar worldviews. Where are the major blocks? Many western nations (Northern Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand) have cultures that contain mostly guilt-based cultural characteristics. On the other hand, much of the Middle East and Asia is made up shame-based cultures. Most of the primal religions and cultures of the world (such as tribes in the jungles of Africa, Asia, and South America) are structured around fear-based principles. The problem comes when we want to simply classify cultures into these three basic classifications. They do not easily fit, because they are made up of blends of all three. Thus, when analyzing a culture, one must look for the primary cultural characteristics, and then the secondary ones. As an example, many North American Native cultures are made up of elements of both shame-based and fear-based cultures. On the other hand, much of North American culture has been made up almost exclusively of guilt-based principles, although this has changed in the last two decades. As cultures and worldviews developed over the millennia, they have gravitated towards one of these groups. This polarization has created three mega-trends in worldview. While the majority of worldviews fits into these three classifications, many cultures draw equally from two or all three worldviews. This mixing of worldviews is especially noticeable in South America where jungle tribes with fear-based cultures come in contact with shame-based cultures originating out of southern Spain, and guilt-based cultures brought by western religion and western business. The goal of this paper is to simply introduce the idea of guilt, shame and fear based cultures, and then to examine how the Nabataean culture fit into this picture. Along the way I will use illustrations drawn from many cultures of the world, including modern Muslim culture. Guilt-Based Culture None of us lives in exactly the same culture. Culture varies from town to town, family to family and sometimes even from individual to individual. All of us are different. We are made up of different fabrics and formed by the different experiences that come into our lives on a day to day basis. Even those who try to define American or Canadian culture can only talk in vague generalizations. Americans come from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, and have all kinds of values. Some live in middle class housing, some in cardboard boxes on the street, and some in large impressive mansions. Its hard to place categorizations and descriptions on people who are so diverse. Despite this, however, there are some general characteristics or mega-traits that fit the majority of people in the western world. Certain basic fundamental beliefs have molded western civilization. These beliefs have laid the foundations upon which these nations are built, and from which the fabric of their society has been formed. One of these basic foundations is their belief in right versus wrong. This understanding is so deeply ingrained in western culture, that westerners analyze almost everything from this perspective. Most western forms of entertainment are built upon the good guys and the bad guys. It is so familiar to westerners that few of them question its validity. It is such an integral part of religion and society, that they often cannot imagine a world where right versus wrong isnt the accepted basic underlying principle. Right versus wrong is the yardstick used in their culture to measure everything else with. They talk about the rightness and wrongness of someone elses actions. They talk about things being right for me. They are obsessed with knowing their rights and exercising them. Many western societies spend countless hours and billions of dollars debating the wrongs of society. Is homosexuality right or wrong? Is spending billions on the military right or wrong? Is possession of drugs right or wrong? How about possession of nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction? Almost every major issue the west struggles with involves an aspect of deciding whether something is right or wrong. They arrive at this basic tension in life because almost everything in western culture is plotted on a guilt/innocence line. (Innocence being something defined as being right or righteousness). Guilt - Innocence The pulls and demands of these two diametrically opposed forces dictate much of western human behavior. Guilt can plague and haunt people bringing fear and condemnation upon them. Many westerners do everything they can to avoid being guilty. Psychologists spend a great deal of their time helping people deal with all sorts of guilt complexes. Evangelical Christians in particular, often live in circles that are governed by guilt principles based on the authority of the Bible. Outside of these circles, guilt is defined in many other ways. It can be a sense of public disapproval, being in trouble with the authorities, or not being politically correct. However guilt is defined, and to what extent it influences a culture varies widely from location to location. However, the understanding of right and wrong has been instrumental in forming much of western society. On the other end of the spectrum, is righteousness, or innocence. This is the unspoken goal of much of western society. Im OK, youre OK is the most comfortable situation for many. Many westerners express their innocence with the statement that they are as good as the next person. If this is true, then they can get about their business of pursuing happiness and pleasure within the bounds of being OK and not guilty. Most westerners do what they can to avoid being guilty and at the same time exercise their rights. This guilt/innocence thinking is so ingrained in western society that most westerners have immediate reflexes to events that catch them off guard. Being a westerner, I have often noticed some of the reflexes that we have developed. Have you ever noticed what happens in the swimming pool when the lifeguard blows his whistle? Almost all westerners will stop to see who is guilty, and when they realize they are innocent will resume swimming. This is a normal scenario from the western world, but it is not true in much of the eastern world. When we in the western world do something wrong, like unintentionally running a red light, we may feel guilty. This is also not necessarily true in the eastern world. Or, how about this scenario? Imagine a classroom full of grade school kids. Suddenly, the intercom interrupts their class. Johnny is being called to the principles office. What is the immediate reaction of the other children? In the west the immediate reaction would almost always be: What did you do wrong? Even western children almost always immediately assume guilt. Perhaps the school principal was going to hand out rewards, but much of western society conditions people to expect the worst, and they feel pangs of guilt. So much of western thinking is wrapped up in guilt. Wars are justified on the basis of establishing guilt. During the opening days of the Gulf War, the American government spent many hours and millions of dollars determining if Saddam Hussein was guilty. Once they thought they had established that he was guilty of committing atrocities they had the right to take military action against him. Throughout the war, they continued to make statements about Mr. Husseins deranged mental state and irrational actions. All of this helped justify the war. In fact, all during the history of western civilizations, wars have had to be justified, and each side identifies the other as being the bad guys. But some things are not easy to chart between right and wrong. Is a hungry child stealing food guilty? Should he be punished despite his hunger? These questions disturb us, because we feel that everything in life must fit somewhere between guilt and innocence. In fact, western association with guilt has gone so far as to provide an avenue for people to develop guilt complexes. They feel guilt for what they have done and also guilt for what they have not done. They even feel guilt for what others have done. People who struggle with a guilt complex can even be overcome with embarrassment and feelings of guilt from the actions of others. The flip side of guilt is innocence, righteousness, and exercising rights. As I mentioned, Im OK, youre OK is an important philosophy in western culture. In order not to point a finger at people, western society continues to expand the limits of what is acceptable activity. By making homosexuality acceptable, they help thousands of people avoid feeling guilty. This alone is enough to convince many people in western society that its OK for people to be homosexual. In fact, almost anything is tolerated as long as it doesnt hurt another person. I have been surprised to discover that many people in our western world believe that our fixation with right and wrong is not only normal, but also the only correct way to think. They assume that anyone, who does not think in these terms, does not think rationally or logically. In order to understand guilt-based culture, we must go back to Greek and Roman times, and examine the origin of this pattern of thinking, and discover how this has had an impact on society and religion. The Roman Connection The Roman Empire has come and gone, leaving us with a few ruined cities, and a wealth of stories about conquest and heroism. While most of what the Romans accomplished has disappeared, there is one facet of Roman life that has impacted the west, right down to the present. It is the Roman law, or the pax romana (Roman peace) which was brought about by everyone obeying the Roman law. Roman law introduced the concept that the law was above everyone, even the lawmakers. This idea was not totally new. The Jews under Moses understood this. Greek politicians developed a similar plan with their city-state, but with laws that were man made, not divine. The Romans, however, perfected the system, and put it into widespread use. They developed a type of democracy known as the republic. They put in place a complex legal system that required lawmakers, lawyers, and judges. This Roman system of law left a tremendous impact on western society. Even to this day, much of the western legal system is still built around the basic Roman code of law. Western civilization today is littered with references to the Roman Empire. Much of their coins, architecture, and language have Roman roots. Legal and economic theories are so filled with Romanisms that westerners no longer see them for what they are. They have become so much a part of their mental furniture, that few people today question them. As an example, Roman law during the Roman Empire assumed that the individuals rights were granted by the state (by government) and that lawmakers can make up laws. Under Roman law, the state was supreme, and rights were granted or erased whenever lawmakers decided. This philosophy is sometimes called statism. Its basic premise is that there is no law higher than the governments law. Roman politicians were not the first to invent statism but hey did such an effective job of applying it, that the Roman Empire has become the guiding star for politicians in the west. Statists see the pax romana, the period in which Rome dominated the Mediterranean world, as the golden days of statism. The known world was unified and controlled by one large government. This unification was symbolized in Roman times by something known as the  fasces. This was a bundle of wooden rods bound together by red-colo red bands. In ancient Rome the fasces was fixed to a wooden pole, with an ax at the top or side. This symbolized the unification of the people under a single government. The ax suggested what would happen to anyone who didnt obey the government. The Roman fasces became the origin of the word fascism. During Roman times, pax romana (the Roman peace) meant, do as you are told, dont make waves, or you will be hauled away in chains. Roman Law was supreme. In contrast to this, there was the old way of obeying the supreme ruler. Under this system, the word of the ruler was law. With the Republic, the Romans elevated law, so that it was above the ruler. Now everyone, even the emperor of Rome had to obey the law. The law, not the ruler determined if people were innocent or guilty. It is interesting to note, that as the early Christian church developed and grew, Roman law also had an impact on Christian theology. Since Roman law interpreted everything in the terms of right versus wrong, early Christians were deeply influenced by this thinking. Early Church Theologians Tertullian,  the early church father who first developed a code of systematic theology, was a lawyer steeped in Roman law. Using his understanding of law, and the need for justice, guilt, and redemption, he laid the basis for Christian systematic theology, as it would develop in the west. Tertullian was born shortly before 160 AD, into the home of a Roman centurion on duty in Carthage. He was trained in both Greek and Latin, and was very much at home in the classics. He became a proficient Roman lawyer and taught public speaking and practiced law in Rome, where he was converted to Christianity. In the years that followed he became the outstanding apologist of the Western church and the first known author of Christian systematic theology. Basil the Great  was born in 329 AD, and after completing his education in Athens he went on to practice law and teach rhetoric. In 370 AD, Basil, the awyer, became Basil the Bishop when he was elected bishop of Caesarea. During his time as Bishop he wrote many books in defense of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Basils training in law and rhetoric gave him the tools he needed to speak out in defense of the church. Next came  Augustine  who was born in 354 AD into the home of a Roman official in the North African town of Tagaste. He received his early education in the local school, where he learned Latin to the accompaniment of many beatings. He hated studying the Greek language so much that he never learned to use it proficiently. He was sent to school in nearby Madaura and from there went to Carthage to study rhetoric, a technique used in Roman law for debate. He then taught legal rhetoric in his hometown and Carthage until he went to Milan in 384 AD. He was converted in 386 and became a priest in 391. He returned to Africa and became a prolific writer and bishop. No other Christian after Paul has had such a wide and deep impact on the Christian world through his writings as Augustine. Ambrose  was born around 340 AD, in Gaul. When his father, the prefect of Gaul, died, the family moved to Rome where Ambrose was educated for the legal profession. Later, he was appointed civil governor over a large territory, being headquartered in Milan. Upon the death of the bishop of Milan in 374, the people unanimously wanted him to take that position. Believing this to be the call of God, he gave up his high political position, distributed his money to the poor, and became a bishop. In 374, Ambrose demonstrated his ability in the fields of church administration, preaching, and theology. But as always, his training in Roman law enforced his views of guilt and righteousness. Have you noticed the impact that law and lawyers had on the development of the early church? This trend did not stop with the early church. Reformation Theologians John Calvin  was born in 1505 in northeastern France where his father was a respected citizen. He studied Humanistic Studies at the University of Paris, and then law at the University of Orleans, and finally at the University of Bourges. Sometime between 1532 and 1533 he converted and adopted the ideas of the reformation. The writings of John Calvin, the lawyer and theologian, have had a tremendous impact on our society. Calvin was not alone. Arnauld Antoine the French  theologian (1612-1694), studied at Calvi and Lisieux, first law, then theology. He was made a priest and doctor in 1634. Arnauld spoke out against the Jesuits and his writings added to the impact of the reformation. There are more examples of theologians who were also lawyers, such as  Martin Luther, but this list will suffice to point out that legal thought and expression had much to do with the development of the theology of the Early Church and the Reformation. Each of these church leaders continued to develop the relationship between Christianity, as it was known in the west, and the legal understanding of guilt, justice, and righteousness. These lawyers were concerned with establishing guilt, or innocence, and they brought this emphasis with them, into their theology. And so the western church that developed used this theology to build their civilizations. In the ensuing years, new nations in the New World would be founded on the theological basis developed by these church leaders. The United States of America was founded on these principles. The American founders attempted to establish a nation built on the Roman principle of a republic, and on the early churchs understanding of right and wrong. Today, it is interesting to notice that there are many non-western sources who link guilt-based culture with Christianity. In October 1999, Isaiah Kalinowski, the Opinion Editor for the Jordan Times, wrote an article entitled The Shame Culture that is Wabash. In this article he pointed out: guilt culture is due largely to Christianity. A shame culture is one in which individuals are kept from transgressing the social order by fear of public disgrace. On the other hand, in a guilt culture, ones own moral attitudes and fear of retribution in the distant future are what enforce the ethical behavior of a member of that society. From Kalinowskis perspective, guilt-based culture is linked to Christian theology. This is an unfortunate misrepresentation, as the Bible was written in a shame-based setting and speaks to all cultures and worldviews. On the other hand, Christians, must recognize the incredible impact that guilt-based culture has had on their history and understanding and interp retation of the Bible. The Eastern Scene Christianity in the east, however, developed differently. Eastern theologians did not use Roman law as a vehicle for interpreting the gospel. Rather, the eastern world was caught up in the shame-honor relationship that was prevalent in societies scattered from the Middle East to the Far East. Eastern Orthodox theology didnt deal directly with sin, guilt, and redemption. Chrysostom,  the early church theologian for the Eastern Church, was born about 345 AD into a wealthy aristocratic family in Antioch. He was a student of the sophist Libanius who had been a friend of the Emperor Julian. This man gave him a good training in the Greek classics and rhetoric that laid the foundation for his excellent speaking ability. After his baptism in 368, he became a monk in the eastern churches. Chrysostom rose to being an outstanding preacher, even winning the acclaim of the emperor. Today we have a record of around 680 of Chrystostoms sermons and homilies and I am told that he never once preached on justification. In the end, he was banished because he spoke out so sharply against the views of the western theologians. In the same way,  Islam,  which rose to prominence around 600 AD, teaches that God remains over all, and that law is in his hands, not the hands of lawmakers. The Quran enforces the principle that God is overall with the story about Pharaoh and how he was shown Allahs mightiest miracle, but he denied it and rebelled.   The Pharaoh quickly went away and summoning all his men, made to them a proclamation. I am your supreme Lord.   The Quran then tells us that Allah Smote him, and goes on to warn, Surely in this there is a lesson for the God fearing. Therefore it would be unthinkable to a Muslim, that a lawmaker could make a law that is over all. This is why Islam presents both a religious and a cultural pattern for people to live by. God dictates both moral laws and civil laws. Western Historians Roman law and thinking has also impacted the way we westerner look at history. The danger comes, when we westerners take our Roman understanding of civilization and culture and apply it to those who do not have a Roman-based culture. We fruitlessly spend untold hours and incalculable amounts of energy explaining to what motivates people and shapes society, when in truth, we dont understand the real principles of the other culture. The answer to this dilemma is quite simple. We westerners must put our Roman, guilt-based understanding of culture and history aside, and strive to understand other worldviews and their thinking. Then we need to return to our history books and discover what is happening in a society that is not pre-occupied with right and wrong, or guilt and innocence. Fear-Based Cultures As we drew near to the jungle village, the sound of drums could be heard. Drawing closer, we could see people dancing and withering on the ground. A man approached us and explained that they could not go further. The village was doing a sacred rite to improve the economy and bring more trade to the area. We were escorted away and not given a chance to introduce why we had come to their village. Later we heard that a human sacrifice had been offered to the spirits that day. In another situation we arrived in a village when a rain-making ceremony was about to begin. They were invited to watch. A black bull was led to the edge of the village where it faced the direction from where the rain would come. The animals throat was cut and it fell over on its left side, to the delight of all. This indicated that the sacrifice was acceptable. The men then cut up the meat and cooked it. As the meat was cooking, an old man began to shout out a prayer to the spirits for rain. Soon everyone joined in. After the meat was eaten, the shouting turned into dancing. The villagers danced all afternoon until the rain came. It rained so heavily that everyone had to run for shelter. Did the rituals bring the rain? To the natives it was obvious and there was no way that we rational westerners convince them otherwise. As these two stories illustrate, there are many people in the world today whose lives revolve around their interaction with the spiritual world. They believe that gods and spirits exist in the universe and they must live in peace with these unseen powers, either by living quietly, or by appeasing these powers. Based on their worldview, these cultures and peoples view the universe as a place filled with gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, and ancestors. Man needs to live at peace with the powers around him, and often man lives in fear. This fear is based on a number of different things. First, man fears man. Tribal wars are endemic, with captives becoming slaves or, sometimes, a meal for cannibals. Whenever tribes encounter people from outside of their own group, they approached them with suspicion and fear. Secondly, these people fear the supernatural. All around them events are taking place that can only be explained by the supernatural. Much like the ancient civilizations, they have developed spiritual explanations for how things work in this world. If crops fail, then specific gods or demons are responsible. If sickness comes, then other gods or demons are responsible. If a tribe fails in battle, it is because of the activity of a god or demon. Sickness is often viewed as a god reaping revenge. Everything in life, even romance, is somehow attributed to the activities of gods or demons. The struggle that these people face is simply one of needing power. Using their voodoo, charms, and other methods, they seek to gain control over other people and over the controlling powers of the universe. The paradigm that these people live in is one of fear versus power. At the end of the 19th century, E. B. Tylor attempted to understand the difference in thinking between Europeans and other peoples living in Africa and South America. In his writings he coined the word animism from the Latin word  anima  for soul. He saw the animistic worldview as interpreting everything from a spiritual philosophy rather than a materialistic philosophy. Many sociologists of Tylors era saw mankind moving from an ancient worldview based on the supernatural to a modern worldview based on science and reality. Dave Burnett states in his book  Unearthly Powers,  that H. W. Turner later advocated the use of the term primal religion, meaning that these religions both anteceded the great historic religions and continue to reveal many of the basic or primary features of religion. Almost everywhere you find animists or primal religions you find people living under the influence of a fear-based culture. Burnett goes on to state, Power can be understood in many ways: physical, political, economic, social, and religious. The secular worldview tends to regard all power as originating from within the material world. In contrast, primal worldviews see such powers not only as being real within the empirical world but as having their primary origin outside the visible world. In this way, those whose lives operate in the fear/power paradigm see themselves living in a physical world that co-exists and is influenced by unseen powers. These powers may be present in people or animals or even in inanimate objects like trees or hills. In some cultures, powers may be perceived in personal terms such as we would use for living beings. These powers are often regarded as having their own particular character, feeling, and ability to relate to others, and often, even have a will of their own. Like people, they may be angered, placated, or turned to in time of need. Power is an important concept in fear-based cultures. In the Pacific Islands it is often called mana, while the Iroquois of North America call it orenda, which particularly refers to the mystic power derived from a chant. The Eskimos have the notion of sila, a force watching and controlling everything. The Chinese have the concept of fung shui, or the powers within the earth and sea. In folk Islam the term baraka  (blessing or holiness) sometimes embraces many of these concepts. In most fear/power cultures, the main way of dealing with a power is to establish rules to protect the unwary from harm and procedures to appease those powers that are offended. These rules and procedures are generally referred to as taboo. Taboos come in the form of things like special people, forbidden or unclean foods, sacred objects, special acts or rituals, and special names. Appeasements are usually made in the form of sacrifice or dedication to the invisible powers. These powers can take various forms, such as: ghosts, demons, ancestors who live around people, spirits in trees and rocks, and totems (clans associated with certain animals or inanimate objects. ) In order to deal with these powers, rituals are established which people believe will affect the powers around them. Rituals are performed on certain calendar dates, and at certain times in someones life (rites of passage), or in a time of crisis. In order to appease the powers of the universe, systems of appeasement are worked out. They vary from place to place. Some civilizations offer incense while some offer their children as sacrifices to gods. However it is done, a system of appeasement, based on fear is the norm for their worldview. Wherever this system of appeasement comes into being, religious persons come to the forefront to control these systems. In some cases they are known as priests. In other cases they are known as witch doctors, or shamans. Whatever their title, their role is the same. They are the ones who hold power. Often they are the only ones who understand the needs of the gods or demons, and they are the ones through whom the demons or gods communicate. In every fear-based culture, the pattern is much the same. The witch doctor, priest, or shaman controls people through the use of fear. They are very effective in their roles, and as a result, whole cultures and people groups are held in their iron grip. Early Religion As archeologists and historians have dug through the sands of time, they have uncovered temples and signs of religious activity that reflect strong fear-based elements in early civilizations. Along with this, the structure of civilizations where rulers held absolute power reflects a fear-power base for their civilization. Kings, pharaohs, and rulers held supreme authority and wielded power through the fear that they instilled in the members of their civilization. This allowed civilizations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others to conquer wide areas of their world. While we can deduce the fear-power aspect in these civilizations from ancient buildings and military records, it is much harder to detect the importance of shame and honor. Shame-Based Cultures Our taxi screeched to a halt. Lying in the middle of the street was a teen-age girl, dying. She had been shot in the head four times. Just then her brother walked across the street with two policemen and stated, There she is. I killed her because she was in an immoral situation with a man. Under the laws of the country, the young man was innocent. He had not committed murder but had preserved the honor of his family. In another case, a girl ran away from home. Later her family learned she had married someone from another religion. They were furious. The police imprisoned the girl so that she would be protected from her family. Elderly grandmothers taunted the brother and father. How long do we need to keep our heads to the ground in shame? Wont you do something to cleanse the shame from our tribe so we can raise our heads and live in honor once again? The family finally agreed to pay the police a $50,000. 00 guarantee that they would not hurt her and she was released into their custody. Within hours her father and brother shot her thirteen times. The entire family was pleased that honor had been restored. The guilt/innocence perspective in which westerners live dictates much of our thinking in the west. However, not everyone in the world operates within this paradigm. As I mentioned earlier, while living in the Middle East I noticed that when the lifeguard at a swimming pool blew his whistle, the westerners all stopped to see who was guilty, but the Arabs kept right on swimming. As I observed this and other phenomena, I began to realize that Arabs and Arab society were operating in another whole dimension. Guilt did not have the same power and influence as it did in the west. While they were aware of guilt, it didnt have the same strong connotations for them as it had for me. If a policeman pulled me over, I immediately felt guilty, thinking that perhaps I had done something wrong. But when my Arab friends were pulled over, they didnt display any sign of guilt. They talked boldly to the policeman, and even argued loudly with him over the issues at hand. It was only after many years of living in a Muslim culture that it started to dawn on me that the Arabs around me were not operating on a level of guilt versus innocence. Nor were they operating in a fear versus power paradigm. I had heard much about this from missionaries living in Africa but it didnt seem to apply to the Arabs of the Levant. Rather, I discovered that Arabs were living in a worldview where the predominant paradigm was shame versus honor. Once I clued in to this, I began to explore this concept and tried to verify it on all social levels. I was amazed to discover what I found. When I would visit my friends, I would try to act correctly and they would try to act honorably, not shamefully. I was busy trying to learn the rights and wrongs of their culture, but somehow my framework of right versus wrong didnt fit what was actually happening. The secret wasnt to act rightly or wrongly in their culture. It wasnt that there was a right way and a wrong way of doing things. The underlying principle was that there was an honorable and dishonorable way of doing things. Every part of the Muslim culture I lived in was based on honor and shame. When I visited my friends I could honor them in the way I acted. They could honor me, in the way they acted. Three cups of coffee bestowed honor on me. The first, called salam (peace) was followed by sadaqa (friendship), and the third cup of coffee was called issayf (the sword). The meaning was clear in their culture. When I arrived I was offered a cup of coffee that represented peace between us. As we drank and talked, the cup of friendship was offered. The last cup, the sword, illustrated their willingness to protect me and stand by me. It didnt matter if I was right or wrong, they were bound by their honor to protect me. Everywhere I moved in the Middle Eastern culture there were things that pointed to honor or shame. What chair I chose to sit in, who entered the door first, the way I expressed myself in Arabic, the very way I walked and held myself, all communicated to others around me my place in the world. The cultures of the Middle East are filled with thousands of tiny nuances that communicate messages about shame and honor. Shame is a popular topic today in western society. Shame, however is closely identified with a lack of self-esteem. Shame often stems from some form of abuse where children fail to learn trust. This is quite different from the shame societies of the east where shame and fear of shame are used as controlling forces in peoples lives. (As compared with right and wrong being used as a controlling factor. As western parents, we teach our children to act rightly. If they dont, we teach them that feelings of guilt are the proper response. In a shame-based culture however, children are taught to act honorably, and if they dont, feelings of shame are the proper response. But it goes farther than just feelings. Shame and honor are positions in society, just as being right (and justified) is a position in our western culture. In the west, young people are free to act as spo ntaneously as they want, as long as they are within the framework of right and wrong. They can be loud, boisterous, and happy, as long as they dont break things, or abuse others. Our rule in the west is As long as I dont hurt someone else or their property, Im generally ok. Young people in a Muslim setting are different. Wherever they go, they represent their families and tribes. Young people are not free to act as they want. They must always act honorably, so that the honor of their family and tribe is upheld. If they act shamefully, then the family or tribe will react against them. Shameful deeds are covered up. If they cant be covered up, they are revenged. It is the unwritten rule of the desert. The whole concept of shameful deeds can be traced back to the early Bedouin code of practice, which existed even before Islam arrived. This code, still much in existence today, affects not only the way individuals act, but also the actions of entire nations. As I have visited with people from other eastern countries, I have continued to explore the concept of honor and shame among these other countries. It has helped me understand and communicate with people from places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, and Korea. In fact, I have discovered that the concept of shame and honor makes a great discussion topic. I have often asked people from shame-based cultures what are honorable or shameful acts or actions in their cultures. The discussion that follows is often highly stimulating, and usually reflects or contrasts similar attitudes right across the shame- based countries of the world. In some cases however, there are distinct differences between cultures. As I mentioned earlier, if someone is badly shamed in an Arab culture and the shame cannot be hidden, then it is revenged, and the person responsible for the shaming is killed. In many eastern cultures, if a shame cannot be hidden, the way out is suicide. Even here, however, there are many similarities, as I have known of a number of students in Jordan committing suicide because of their poor school marks, just as happens in Japan. In order for shame-based cultures to work, shame and honor are usually attached to something greater than the individual. Honor is almost always placed on a group. This can be the immediate family, the extended tribe, or in some cases, as large as an entire nation; as was demonstrated in Japan just previous to World War Two. In most Middle Eastern cultures, honor is wrapped up with ones tribe. Everyone grows up within a tribal concept. If someone is from the Beni Hassan tribe, he thinks and acts, and dresses as a Beni Hassan. His actions reflect on the honor the Beni Hassan tribe. If he acts honorably, the Beni Hassan tribe is honored. If he acts shamefully, the whole tribe is shamed. If the act is vile enough, the Beni Hassan tribe will react, and execute the offender, even though he is a member of their own tribe, and perhaps even their immediate family. Thus the honor of the tribe is restored. Many years ago an Arab soldiers gun accidentally discharged and killed his friend and companion in the army. After serving seven years, he was released on condition that he leave Jordan. He lived for nearly twenty years in the United States, but decided to return one day to see his family. When it was learned that he had returned, several young people, some of whom had not been born at the time of the killing, surrounded the house where he was and riddled his body with bullets. Their honor was restored, and shame removed. If someone shames another tribe, tribal warfare could result, and often only the skilful intervention of a third party ends the strife. Arab lore is full of stories of how wise and skillful men have intervened in difficult situations. In fact, many national rulers gain their fame and reputation from their skills at ending tribal strife. In the Middle East two methods are recognized. First, a skillful ruler, through diplomatic efforts and displays of great wisdom, can end disputes. Solomons dealings with the two mothers who claimed the same baby displayed the kind of wisdom that Arabs appreciate and desire in their rulers. The second kind of ruler crushes all of the tribes and by force makes them submit to himself. Peace may then rule, but once the controlling power is removed, old animosities return. This is well illustrated in the Balkans conflict where the domination of communism brought about a measure of peace. Once freedom returned however, old conflicts and animosities flared again. The storytellers who frequent the coffeehouses of the Middle East excel in telling stories of both kinds of rulers and heroes, especially heroes who can effectively deal with shame and restore honor. This is very different from the entertainment styles of the west, where the hero determines who is guilty, and punishes him, and right and goodness reign again. This is because in our worldview, we try to hang onto the concept that in the midst of a crooked and perverse world, right still reigns and has the upper hand. Those from a shame-based culture, on the other hand, cling to the idea of maintaining honor, in the midst of a shameful and alienated world. For many western people it is very hard if not impossible to try and comprehend a culture that is based on shame, not right versus wrong. In most western cultures, telling the truth is right and telling lies is wrong. In the Middle East, people dont think of lies as being right or wrong. The question is, Is what is being said, honorable? If a lie protects the honor of a tribe or nation, then it is fine. If a lie is told for purely selfish reasons, then it is shameful. Thus, in the west we debate ethics, by trying to determine if things are right or wrong. In the east, they debate ethics, by trying to determine if things are honorable or not. Shame in Western Culture In the past, shame has played a role in western culture. One has only to read Tolstoys  Anna Karenina, or any of Shakespeares works to see the role that shame used to play. Shakespeare uses the word shame nine times as often as he does guilt. In time, however, our culture has changed and guilt has become much more important. Then, during the last twenty years, we have begun to move away from such a strong guilt-bases for our culture. Why is this? I suspect that the popularity of Freuds teachings is one reason. Sociologists generally credit Freudian psychology for the removal of guilt from western culture. Since his teachings have become popular in many universities, the concept of guilt has become unpopular and guilt has been assigned to others, such as our parents. Other factors, like the lack of responsibility within modern politics have influence young people today. Nixon and Watergate, and Clinton and Lewinsky have illustrated to people today that right versus wrong is not the only way to think. During the period of 1960 to 2000 western civilization has begun a slow but steady shift away from the right versus wrong paradigm. Today young people are very reluctant to label anything as right or wrong. Instead, things are assigned the label as cool or not cool. In the eyes of many high school students, being cool is equivalent to being honorable. Being not cool is the equivalent of shame. I believe that this slow shift in worldview is responsible for many of the differences between boosters, boomers, busters, and Generation Xrs. Shaming in History Early Roman culture started out in the fear/power paradigm. Events of nature and history were interpreted within this paradigm. The worship of a pantheon of gods carried on during their whole civilization until Christianity became the state religion. When the Romans adopted the Greek pattern of placing the law above the emperor, they began to interpret events in their society on the guilt/innocence paradigm. This soon came to the forefront of their civilization, and fear/power was pushed to the back. When the Romans conquered shame-based civilizations the people they conquered had a profound impact on their own culture. Shame was always present in Roman culture, but it slowly came more and more to the forefront and eventually into Mediterranean culture today. In republican Rome, criminals had the doors to their houses burned as a public sign that a criminal was living there. Those who had been wronged could legally follow the criminal around, chanting and accusing him in public places. The concept of public shaming carried on into the Middle Ages, and even into Victorian England where criminals were put into stocks. These stocks were located in public places, so that the criminal would be known and shamed before all. Pillories were rife during the Victorian age, when those who were pilloried had to endure the shame of publicly having rotten vegetables thrown at them. Branding criminals was practiced in England until the eighteenth century. Brands were often placed on the hands or face, so that the criminals would be publicly shamed wherever they went. The major difference between east and west, however, is not the presence of the shame concept, but rather, the structure of society around either the group mentality or individualism. Eastern shame became much more powerful than western shaming activities, simply because in the east the shame rests on the persons group rather than the individual. Since many eastern society functions in a group setting, the whole group suffers rather than just the individual. If the crime is bad enough, the group itself may oust or, for a severe offense, kill the offender. In 1999 at least twenty-five women were killed to maintain the honor of their families in the country of Jordan. Hundreds of others were killed in countries like Egypt, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. In many countries where shame-based culture is predominant, the names of criminals and those being ousted from their families for shameful activities are publicly printed in the newspapers. In western countries we tend to isolate criminals from their surroundings, and then determine if they are guilty. Criminals are then locked away out of sight, rather than publicly shamed in stocks in the public square. Its interesting to notice that in the Crow Indian culture in North America, mocking of some one elses inappropriate behavior effects shaming. This is sometimes called buying-of-the-ways. If you imitate someone elses inappropriate behavior, you are buying his ways. In some cases a person actually offers money to buy someone elses inappropriate behavior. This is the ultimate shame. In many shame-based cultures, rather than encourage others, people criticize and question others. This is seen as positive, as it keeps them from becoming too proud. In the same way, Arabs are often quick to criticize leaders, especially elected ones, if they perceive that they are too ambitious or proud. They are sometimes publicly questioned or shamed, and often they leave public life. Even new language students discover that their neighbors are quick to point out that someone else speaks better than they do, or they are asked why they speak so poorly after being there for a whole four months! The criticism is often meant to keep them from being proud of how well they have done. Arabs understand that the criticism may be a compliment, but the poor westerner is often crushed. Clash of World Views As I mentioned earlier, there are three basic planes on which worldview, function. On each of these planes, there