In cultural anthropology, the distinction between a guilt society (or guilt culture), shame society (also shame culture or honor-shame culture), and a fear society (or culture of fear)
has been used to categorize different cultures. The differences can
apply to how behavior is governed with respect to government laws,
business rules, or social etiquette. This classification has been
applied especially to so called "apollonian" societies, sorting them according to the emotions they use to control individuals (especially children) and maintaining social order, swaying them into norm obedience and conformity.
- In a guilt society, control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the afterlife) for certain condemned behaviors. The guilt-innocence world view focuses on law and punishment. A person in this type of culture may ask, "Is my behavior fair or unfair?" This type of culture also emphasizes individual conscience.
- In a shame society, the means of control is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. The shame-honor worldview seeks an "honor balance" and can lead to revenge dynamics. A person in this type of culture may ask, "Shall I look ashamed if I do X?" or "How people will look at me if I do Y?" Shame cultures are typically based on the concepts of pride and honour, and appearances are what count.
- In a fear society, control is kept by the fear of retribution. Fear-Power worldview focuses on physical dominance. A person in this culture may ask, "Will someone hurt me if I do this?"
Guilt societies
In a guilt society, the primary method of social control is the inculcation of feelings of guilt
for behaviors that the individual believes to be undesirable. A
prominent feature of guilt societies is the provision of sanctioned
releases from guilt for certain behaviors, whether before or after the
fact. There is 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)
Geographical distribution
- Guilt-Innocence: more associated with Judeo-Christian religions
- Shame-Honour: more associated with Arabic culture and Eastern religions
- Fear-Power: more associated with animist and tribal societies
England
Anglo-Saxon England is particularly notable as a shame culture, and this trait survived even after its conversion to Christianity, which is typically a guilt culture. Other examples of shame culture under Christianity are the cultures of Mexico, Andalusia and generally Christian Slavic and Mediterranean societies.[9][10]
China
In China, the concept of shame is widely accepted due to Confucian teachings. In Analects, Confucius is quoted as saying:
Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously.
Japan
The first book to cogently explain the workings of the Japanese society for the Western reader was The Chrysanthemum and the Sword by Ruth Benedict. 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 impossible to do field research in Japan.
Without being able to study in Japan, Benedict relied on newspaper clippings, histories, literature, films, and interviews of Japanese-Americans.
Her studies came to conclusions about Japanese culture and society that
are still widely criticized today, both in America and Japan.
