I thought it would be interesting to write about other topics I read. My aim is to read more philosophy (rather than just science and math): in particular, I have read Camus, Marcus Aurelius, a bit of Schopenhauer, and Gros, yet I would like to read Russell, Kierkegaard, and some more modern authors.
I named it Morelliana, akin to Rayuela (Hopscotch) by Cortázar, because of the meta nature of the posts.
On an attempt to reconnect with my hispanic-y upbringing, it was of interest of mine to read Don Quijote de la Mancha. As picky as I could be–-and juggling the blessing of having enough income–- when buying books, I decided to get the fourth centenary edition of the book published by the Real Academia Española (RAE). In one of the many introductory essays, Darío Villanueva writes about the marginalization of the novel from the English-speaking world. Moreover, a peculiar point is made about the precinematographic nature of the novel, on par with the renowned works of Shakespeare. These topics on the modern nature of the novel are further explored from the perspective of Mario Vargas Llosa: the topic of freedom and self-determination arise as one section of the essay. The fictionalization of reality is a key point in the novel, and it is well highlighted by Vargas Llosa: the characters of the novel engage in the realization of Don Quijote's fictions, and this fictionalization is one of the main driving forces of the protagonist.
Compare this with Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Without delving into what is the meaning of life, both authors advocate to self-determination and self-preservation–-either to find life's meaning, or to just deal with its absurdity. Making emphasis on Camus' work (which aims to be a case against suicide), it is made the point that a reason to live for is a reason to die for, and viceversa.
All of this leads to an interesting convergent point, as this process of fictionalization, is, in some sense, a Sisyphean task: the bounds of reality, the laws of what is material, they cannot change what is actually is. In the rebel cause against injustice, absurdity, and trivial modernization, it seems that a displacement of this not-so-alien yet burdensome shame is performed against the institutions, the people that commit the injustices, and the triviality of the world itself: thus, empowering ourselves with self-determination, it becomes relevant to talk about what disgusts us, what is source of shame.
If the meaning of life is–-at best–-ours, then, in our rebellion, we must displace the shame brought onto us: a Quixotesque task. [1]
Gros aims to distinguish shame from guilt, and to reason on the sources of shame itself. A brief description of shame is given by four qualities: shame is objective, tangible, collective, and reversible. Here, objective is to be interpreted as not subject to personal interpretation in an emotional dimension: there is a mechanism that triggers, perpetrates, or establishes objectively a matter of shame. Along similar lines, tangible refers to the consequences of the above established event of shame. There are real consequences, these consequences are not just in a person's inner dimension, bet they are perceived by others, and can be propagated to other due to association with the entity that holds the shame. This association makes shame a collective matter: it affects the collective entity. Finally, shame is not stagnant–-it is reversible. Under a proper understanding of the circumstances, and a proper vindication of the entity that holds the shame, it can be reversed.
Under this brief and butchered description of shame, we can see that there is redemption under proper understanding of the materialization of shame (and the mechanism that triggers its materialization), the collective that bears the shame by association, the consequences of the cause of judgment, and the shifting methods to vindicate itself.
"The existence in the gaze of others is our hell, our loss of innocence", says Gros. Comparison is key to the realization of a judgment: a cause-effect relationship must be established, and some observable must be realized (this is, the exposure of an event to the public eye). It is then, when, under some framework, a judgment is made.
It is important to note that the framework is not necessarily shared by all parties: the judging party may have a different framework than the judged party. What is relevant is the perception and vocalization of the judging party: the event is concrete, thus, objective and tangible; the shame is real.
To alienate oneself from the collective is an impossible. The social–-and even animal–-nature of humans makes us intrinsically collective beings: the scale of our current societal structures makes us unable to escape the collective nature of our existence, even when the system might remind us of its absurdity and smallness[2]. To claim that shame can be isolated is a futile effort–-or a purposeful deception, as we will see comment on later–-, because it ties with the nature the association to the entity bearing the shame.
As unavoidably collective experience, shame propagates by association, and a disgraceful act that may be isolatedly experienced by a person may (inadvertently) affect the cloud of people associated with the person. This highlights the importance of ownership of our actions, as we do not live in isolation: our actions have consequences, and these consequences have ripples that affect the ones around us.
Low-hanging fruit examples of this can be enumerated:
A politician engaging in corruption may affect the public's perception of the political party they belong to.
A celebrity engaging in a disgraceful act may affect the public's perception of the brand they endorse.
An actor engaging in a disgraceful act may affect the public's perception of the movie they starred in.
A quick browse of The Guardian should suffice[3] to find concrete examples of this.
When judging or being judged, it is important to be aware of the load, the weight of the judgment. This awareness may be key to reconfigure the framework under which the judgment is made, and to prevent the materialization of the shameful act. The intent is to atone and highlight the true nature of the subject in question, opening the ways for different shame-shifting mechanisms, as well as a focalization of who, in fact, should bear the shame. Awareness steps ahead of the analysis of shame itself, as it presents with the means to concretely shift shame.
Sadly, shame is often weaponized or tabooed: the intent of the judging party may be not to resolve, but to punish and ostracize. Shame on them.
Shame occurs upon the observation of a concrete event, and the judgment of such event. Upon thought analysis (and, perhaps, dialogue and awareness), a more reasonable explanation of the event may arise, which may lead to a reconfiguration of the framework under which the judgment was made, yielding a vindication of the entity bearing the shame.
Gros identifies four strategies for "turning things around": inversion, projection, subversion, and purification.
Inversion is based on the idea of turning the tables when referring to the framework of judgment: the bearer of shame has nothing to be ashamed of as the judgment framework is flawed upon inspection. Ownership of one's actions is allowed: it never made sense to be ashamed of them because we have inverted the understanding of the current situation.
On the other hand, projection is based on the idea of blaming others–-usually, those who blamed us in the first place–- for the shameful act of which we were to be ashamed. In here, the reversal occurs on the parties involved: the judging party is now the judged party, and viceversa. Here, it is important to note that projection may be a deliberate strategy to avoid shame, as it may be easier to blame others than to own one's actions, but when the projection is valid, it may lead to a vindication of the collective bearing the shame.
Subversion is based on accepting one's shame, with the rebellious connotation of one's actions. It realizes on the juxtaposition of the accepting the shame while acting with determination, defying the judgment framework. On accepting the shame, there is a space (say, validation of the current context) created, irrupting the status quo, which is then subverted by the rebellious action of bearing the shame (which, in itself, may be an unjust act), and thus, reframing the judgment framework.
Finally, purification is based on the idea of atoning for the shameful act. This act of unconditional acceptance and ownership may lead to a vindication of the entity bearing the shame, as it shows a true understanding of the circumstances, and a true willingness to change the situation: anger, frustration, indignation, and other emotions are channeled into productive actions that lead to a vindication of the entity bearing the shame.
It is to be noted that these strategies are not mutually exclusive: it would be shameful of you to think that they are...
| [2] | This can be tied with Camus' absurdity, but I would highlight that this |
| [3] | A mathematician's answer... (Just check the news.)[https://www.theguardian.com] |
| [1] | This is an attempt to make no judgment on the subject itself. |