Shame and Guilt - Wesley and Andrew
Feb. 3rd, 2004 03:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyThis all stems from something that I learned in counseling - shame is other-based, guilt is self-based. Shame is when you feel bad because you violated society's rules and you feel the society looking down on you because of it. Guilt is when you feel bad because you've violated a personal code.
Now, and this is key - shame is almost never necessary - shame doesn't motivate change, it motivates repression. Guilt, on the other hand, tends to be much more useful.
For example, self-injury is looked down on by society - the reaction by SI'ers is not to stop hurting themselves, but to hide the results. And this is doubly bad, because not only is the damage still happening but it isn't being dealt with by the individual or the society. That's shame.
Andrew and Wesley (S4, BtVS) act much the same, but their reasons are very different. Andrew is just the way he is - he doesn't try to excuse himself or change himself. Wesley, on the other hand, was the way he was because he was trying to live up to his father's expectations and not embarrass himself. Andrew kills Jonathan and spends a lot of time trying to convince himself that it was out of love. Andrew's motivation is inner - he needs to believe that he acted in the right way. When he realizes the truth of his actions, guilt is what overwhelms him. He knows he did wrong.
Wesley stole Connor. In return, he was punished and shamed out of his community. All of that came from outside himself. He made a mistake, but I doubt that Wesley thinks that, given the information that he had, that he should have done anything other than he did. Another great example of what shame does to a person - Wesley in Lineage.
Shame versus guilt. Andrew has the acceptance and trust of the Scoobies because he has shown that he a) knows in his own heart that what he did was wrong and b) that when placed in a similar situation, he'll make the other choice now. Wesley does not have Angel's full trust and he doesn't even know what he did wrong anymore.
Now, and this is key - shame is almost never necessary - shame doesn't motivate change, it motivates repression. Guilt, on the other hand, tends to be much more useful.
For example, self-injury is looked down on by society - the reaction by SI'ers is not to stop hurting themselves, but to hide the results. And this is doubly bad, because not only is the damage still happening but it isn't being dealt with by the individual or the society. That's shame.
Andrew and Wesley (S4, BtVS) act much the same, but their reasons are very different. Andrew is just the way he is - he doesn't try to excuse himself or change himself. Wesley, on the other hand, was the way he was because he was trying to live up to his father's expectations and not embarrass himself. Andrew kills Jonathan and spends a lot of time trying to convince himself that it was out of love. Andrew's motivation is inner - he needs to believe that he acted in the right way. When he realizes the truth of his actions, guilt is what overwhelms him. He knows he did wrong.
Wesley stole Connor. In return, he was punished and shamed out of his community. All of that came from outside himself. He made a mistake, but I doubt that Wesley thinks that, given the information that he had, that he should have done anything other than he did. Another great example of what shame does to a person - Wesley in Lineage.
Shame versus guilt. Andrew has the acceptance and trust of the Scoobies because he has shown that he a) knows in his own heart that what he did was wrong and b) that when placed in a similar situation, he'll make the other choice now. Wesley does not have Angel's full trust and he doesn't even know what he did wrong anymore.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-03 04:09 pm (UTC)He made a mistake, but I doubt that Wesley thinks that, given the information that he had, that he should have done anything other than he did.
Which, if true, is part of the problem. Because one of the things he didn't do, is talk to anybody else about the situation - such that even if he were right - he put himself in an unsupported position. Such that, even if his strategy was correct, his tactics weren't.
We don't know how Wesley really feels about that event - as he's never really elaborated. And Wes himself, as you've noted, doesn't know anymore either. And because of that, Angel himself doesn't know. And therefore, he can't trust him.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 04:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-03 05:05 pm (UTC)Big dumb hairloaf.
deficiency in oneself or in one's actions?
Date: 2004-02-04 03:58 pm (UTC)I think the arguments about shame-based vs. guilt-based cultures are considered kind of out-of-date and ethnocentric (characterizing most Asian societies as shame-based, for instance, and Western Europe and the U.S. being seen as guilt-based), but we were still learning about those early theorists when I took a course on Shame and Guilt back in 1996, and I recall that the distinction was at least partly based on whether the group or the individual was the focus of society. If you don't fit in with or measure up to the needs of your group in a group-oriented society (where the family or the clan or the village or the nation is more important than any individual), you feel shame, the argument went. But in a society where the needs and talents of the individual are valued above the ability to fit in with the group, getting in serious trouble is defined in terms of guilt. Could it be argued, then, that Andrew -- who wants to be a follower, to fit in with and be accepted by some idealized group or individual -- is much more other-oriented (and therefore possibly shame-oriented) than Wesley, who breaks with the group and does his lone ranger thing to save Connor, living according to his own code and only RESENTING his friends' failure to respect that, rather than being shamed by their disapproval?
I don't know. What always struck me about the difference between shame and guilt (and the reason why you can DO something about guilt, while extreme shame is much more likely to lead to depression, rather than change or repentance) is that shame says "I am wrong, bad, or deficient," while guilt says "I DID something that was wrong, bad, or deficient." With guilt you still have hope, while shame, at its worst, says that no matter how good your actions may be NOW, you can never make YOURSELF right. Working with that definition, I suppose it could be argued that Angel is much more shame-inclined than Spike -- or at least that Angel SEES it that way (Angel broods and hides from humanity for a hundred years after getting his soul, out of an overwhelming sense of shame and hopeless guilt, while Spike, according to Angel, spends three weeks moaning in a basement and is then ready to change his ways and feel fine about it).
Re: deficiency in oneself or in one's actions?
Date: 2004-02-06 10:07 pm (UTC)It could, but though Andrew longs to be accepted, he doesn't ever try to change himself to fit - whereas Wesley is constantly shifting and changing. Andrew wants to be accepted for himself, Wesley wants respected and is willing to make some sacrifices in order to be.
shame says "I am wrong, bad, or deficient," while guilt says "I DID something that was wrong, bad, or deficient."
Right, yes, exactly. And in a sense, Angel vs Spike is also shame versus guilt. Spike saw the dirty things that he did, Angel saw what a dirty thing he was. Though it's much more complicated than that - which is why I love this show so much.