We are past the point of normalized hatred against certain groups in society, and it's worth asking when this new generation of Jacobins will take the next step and move from the figurative guillotine to the literal one. A high school friend's social media post provided a stark reminder of how acceptable open bigotry is depending on who it's aimed at:
"Stop shaming the poor for buying things that may not be necessary and start shaming the rich for profiteering off of things that are essential."
There is so much wrong in this statement that it's hard to know where to start deconstructing it, so let's begin with the most obvious point – encouraging rank bigotry against anyone is a bad look. Doing so does not make one morally superior; it's just a cheap way of trying to look that way on a social media platform. Before digging deeper into this rancid pile of self-righteousness, it is worth exploring how society has been made the poorer for abandoning the use of shame as the single greatest force for behavior control.
I don't mean the shame one person feels toward another. I mean that inner compass that stopped us from doing stupid things that would reflect poorly not only on us, but also on our parents, our communities, and so forth. The ability to repress the momentary urges of a person's id was once a sign of maturity and an understanding that not everything is about you. Our actions often impact others, whether directly or indirectly, and understanding prevented a fair amount of injury and sorry.
The death of shame as a behavior modifier coincided with the start of believing actions have no consequences and that each of us should be free to live in the moment and express ourselves. This death also triggered a resurrection of shame in a much different application - the problem is not engaging in destructive conduct, but in calling out that conduct. This story has a textbook example of this dynamic. The article frames the incident so that the issue is not the preschool teacher who produced online porn content while working, but rather, the person who noticed and told school authorities. For further confirmation of this change, see fat shaming or slut shaming, and pay attention to who is held to what standard.
Back to the example from my friend's post. It's not "shaming" to suggest that a person of limited resources not squander those resources on wasteful things. That's called common sense; it's called being a friend to someone who could use one. No normal person encourages anyone in a situation often characterized by bad choices to make more bad choices. I realize that poverty is not always a self-inflicted condition, but people usually find themselves in situations that largely arise from the decisions made along the way. Spending scarce funds on something frivolous is not an act to be celebrated. Semantics aside, maybe the poor should be shamed a bit. It might result in the country having fewer of them.
Approaching poverty as a social issue to be resolved by govt has not worked. What it has done is spawn a massive industrial complex with about 100 programs at the federal level alone. The result of that is a hundred fiefdoms that are all dedicated to their survival, which means there is far greater incentive to perpetuate poverty than to resolve it. Far from shaming the poor, we have institutionalized the encouragement and subsidy of the activities that make and keep them poor. On what planet does doing that make anyone the good guy?
On the other end of the equation is "the rich," a concept so vague that it's like eating soup with a fork. Someone who has made a business providing life's essential products and services is not someone to be hectored; it's a person to be applauded. That individual is making available things that consumers believe are necessary. Would life be better without such people? The usual response to that has something to do with greed, as if there can be no other explanation for the profit motive that every business in operation relies on to stay open.
Greed is also treated as this mystical characteristic that only applies to others, never to us or anyone like us. Presumably, it's not greedy to seek a higher salary, shop for the best deal, or take advantage of every tax break and loophole available. There is also the inference that greed is quantifiable and only kicks in once a certain income or profit level has been reached. Does it apply to insurance salespeople who provide an essential product and make a nice living from that? How about realtors who do likewise? Car dealers? Grocers? No one selling anything, whether it's essential or frivolous, is acting out of altruism.
The larger point is that when it becomes acceptable to scapegoat any segment of society, it opens the door to far more sinister things. Today, it's okay to 'shame' the rich; tomorrow, it's okay to steal their stuff, physically assault them, and maybe even arrest them. This tale is as old as history; creating an outgroup against whom hatred is encouraged never ends well. It was tried again during Covid when a significant part of the population wanted punitive measures taken against the unvaxxed. It's been a staple for a president who hates half the people he works for. This condition virtually defines academia, where it took talk of genocide against a specific ethnic group for people to take notice.
When hate is normalized, violence tends to follow. Knowing the guy who posted this, he would probably recoil in horror. "I would never want to see people hurt." Maybe not, but when you encourage treating a segment of society as unsuitable to live among the rest of us, what do you think might follow? And this leaves out the economic ignorance of equating profit to evil and all providers of life's necessities as robber barons.
If there is a poverty worthy of being shamed, it is a poverty of the spirit that is pervasive in our society, and I don't mean spirit in a religious sense. A few weeks ago, a reader said that a previous article had jarred her inner optimist somewhat. Every day, there are stories that challenge one's faith in humanity. Maybe this is where shame has become perverted. Seeing things go off the rails inspires a desire to control the conduct of others while ignoring our own.
I am sure my old schoolmate sees himself as one of the good guys. At heart, he probably is. But it's a bad look when you're advocating the mistreatment of a certain group of people. It indicates a moral compass in dire need of recalibration and a society far removed from its moorings and any ability to engage in self-reflection. That old remedy for self-regulating behavior prevented an incalculable number of bad decisions and spared untold people from potentially life-altering consequences. Today, it's one more relic of a past that isn't coming back, and that's, well, a shame.
"Today, it's one more relic of a past that isn't coming back, and that's, well, a shame." What a beautiful conclusion to an incredibly poignant and well-written piece. Bravo Alex. Bravo.
Such a great recap of what we are experiencing in our society. Thank you. It is truly an appalling thing to see happening every day in the news, on social media and in politics. It was so obvious in the comments this past week with the approach of the super bowl and its aftermath. Two particular people have been called out repeatedly for being in the news, for how they spend their money, who they endorse politically, their belief in the Covid vaccine and what ever other picky thing people can think of. They aren't criminals. They haven't littered the planet with children. They do things that bring joy to many peoples lives and yet, they are reviled and judged. How did we become so small minded? When did this become the Christian way? How far we have fallen. There are evils in our world that we ignore and there is plenty of shame to go around but the personal shame is the saddest. Thanks for the reminder.