The Voice of Shame

Silence and Connection in Psychotherapy

Robert G. Lee, Gordon Wheeler, Robert G. Lee, Gordon Wheeler

• Publisher: Gestalt Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135061722
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Emotionen in der Psychologie

Shame and shame reactions are two of the most delicate and difficult issues of psychotherapy and are among the most likely to defy our usual dynamic, systemic, and behavioral theories. In this groundbreaking new collection, The Voice of Shame, thirteen distinguished authors show how use of the Gestalt model of self and relationship can clarify the dynamics of shame and lead us to fresh approaches and methods in this challenging terrain. This model shows how shame issues become pivotal in therapeutic and other relationships and how healing shame is the key to transformational change.

The contributors show how new perspectives on shame gained in no particular area transfer and generalize to other areas and settings. In so doing, they transform our fundamental understanding of psychotherapy itself. Grounded in the most recent research on the dynamics and experience of shame, this book is a practical guide for all psychotherapists, psychologists, clinicians, and others interested in self, psychotherapy, and relationship.

This book contains powerful new insights for the therapist on a full-range of topics from intimacy in couples to fathering to politics to child development to gender issues to negative therapeutic reactions. Filled with anecdotes and case examples as well as practical strategies, The Voice of Shame will transform your ideas about the role of shame in relationships - and about the potential of the Gestalt model to clarify and contextualize other approaches.

Part I

Theory

1

Shame and the Gestalt Model

Robert G. Lee

Everyone is familiar with the experience of shame. It starts with that cringe we feel when we discover or imagine that the connection we desire is threatened or impossible. It can be activated by something as trivial as noticing a friend on the street, starting to wave, and discovering that it's not our friend at all (an example given in Nathanson, 1992). We quickly avert our eyes, wince, and hope our error went unnoticed. It can happen with any real or imagined sense of rejection, any sense of exposure to others or ourselves of a yearning that we believe inappropriate or more than we deserve. Shame can be triggered by saying something we think of as “stupid” or “silly,” evoking a self-critical judgment such as, “Oh, why did I say that!”—perhaps when we struggle with not wanting to appear too interested in the new woman or man in our life, perhaps when we ask our boss for a raise and are met with a disapproving glance, or when we share a yearning with a friend and notice her discomfort. Shame is that sinking feeling we experience when we want intimate contact, sexual or otherwise, and discover that our partner does not—or vice versa. It is the “air being taken out of our sails” when we seek approval from a teacher, mentor, supervisor, or other respected person and instead are met with indifference or, worse yet, disdain. At this level, our experience of shame is probably mild, perhaps in the realm of embarrassment, shyness, or discouragement.

Longer lasting, more profoundly painful episodes of shame include the experience of being “dumped” by a spouse or lover, of being laid off from a job, or of having the custody of your children awarded to your former spouse. Even more severe examples of situations of shame are the experience of continually having to contend with unmet needs and desires as the child or partner of a substance abuser or, similarly, the experience of victims of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or of prejudice. Kaufman (1980) gives an eloquent description of the experience and effects of repeated or severe shame when it is more deeply integrated into the experience of self and becomes, as Kaufman states, a “sickness of the soul,” without parallel:

The binding effect of shame involves the whole self. Sustained eye contact with others becomes intolerable. The head is hung. Spontaneous movement is interrupted. And speech is silenced. Exposure itself eradicates the words, thereby causing shame to be almost incommunicable to others. Feeling exposed opens the self to painful, inner scrutiny. We are suddenly watching ourselves, scrutinizing critically the minutest detail of our being. The excruciating observation of the self which results, this torment of self-consciousness, becomes so acute as to create a binding, almost paralyzing effect upon the self…. Shame so disturbs the functioning of the self that eventually distinct syndromes of shame can develop. (p. vii)

Once we become attuned to the occurrence of shame, we discover its ubiquity, noticing its presence throughout our own and others' experience. The pervasiveness of shame in human experience is indicated by the number of affective states that have been identified as variants of shame: shyness, embarrassment, chagrin, humiliation, low self-esteem, feeling ridiculous, sheepishness, discomfort, disconcertedness, abasement, disgrace, ignominy, dishonor, mortification, degradation, self-consciousness, discouragement, guilt, feeling “lousy” or “funny”—and the list goes on (Kaufman, 1989; Lewis, 1971; Retzinger, 1987).

In fact, the experience of shame is even more ubiquitous than this. Cook (1994) says the experience of shame is what follows the experience of any positive affect, as well as what may accompany negative affects. Thus, shame is with us a significant portion of our total experience, perhaps in such forms as mild embarrassment, shyness, or disappointment—or worse.

How can this be? And if this is so, what would be the self-organizational function of shame? And then why aren't we more aware of our and others' experiences of shame? Tomkins ( 1963) provides some answers to these questions. He postulates that shame is a part of the affective survival kit with which we all are endowed at birth. Shame's function, according to Tomkins, is to regulate the affects he calls interest-excitement and enjoyment-joy—the affects connected with our desires, hopes, urges, yearnings, dreams, goals, loves, and so on. These are the affects that constitute our zest for life. Tomkins states, “The experience of shame is inevitable for any human being insofar as desire outruns fulfillment sufficiently to attenuate interest without destroying it” (p. 185). Which brings us to Kaufman's (1980) conclusion that we are only vulnerable to the experience of shame when we care about something; the experience of shame is only possible to the extent that something matters to us.

At first glance, this understanding of shame seems to be far from the popular folk notion of shame as the regulator of moral transgressions, in which form it is known as guilt (Kaufman, 1989; Nathanson, 1992; Tomkins, 1963). But consider that when someone says, “You should be ashamed of yourself,” what he or she is trying to convey is that you should control (through shame) whatever desire led you directly or indirectly to harm or potentially harm another. This fits with Tomkins's sense of shame.

But does Tomkins's understanding of shame fit with the often-quoted definition of shame as a felt sense of defectiveness of the self? In this regard, consider that the effect of feeling defective is to pull in and away from others. Thus, when one feels defective, one conceals one's desires. Again, this fits with Tomkins's sense of shame.

Following what Tomkins tells us, we can say that shame in its simplest forms (for example, shyness and embarrassment) is a natural process of retroflection, or holding back, that serves a protective function throughout life. It guards our privacies around such areas as friendship, love, spirituality, sex, birth, and death, and it provides a protective screen for the ongoing process of self-integration (Schneider, 1987).

Because the nature of shame is to hide, particularly in U.S. culture, and because everyone attempts to conceal his experiences of shame from others, as well as himself, we are each left with the shameful sense that I am the only person who has such experiences, or has them to this extent, whatever that might be.

And because the experience of shame tends to be concealed, the normal signs of shame—again, a general retroflection or pulling in and away from others: head hung, downcast or averted eyes, changes in skin tone, lowered voice or silenced speech, frozen facial expressions, slouched posture, and so on—are often not so evident. Instead, what might be noticed during a person's actual or anticipated experience of shame are the strategies and defenses the person employs to cope with and avoid her experience of shame. These strategies include deflection, rage, contempt, control, striving for perfection, striving for power, transfer of blame through projection, internal withdrawal, humor, denial—all the way up to violence and destructiveness to oneself or others (Bradshaw, 1988; Fossum & Mason, 1986; Kaufman, 1980, 1989; Lansky, 1991; Nichols, 1991; Retzinger, 1987). With such distortion and camouflage, the person attempts to distract others and herself from noticing her experience of this most miserable and shameful feeling state and leave her shame and her underlying desire unacknowledged.

As we become more familiar with the phenomenon of shame, we become more and more aware of its relational character. Kaufman (1980, 1989) speaks of the experience of shame as a rupture in the “interpersonal bridge” between us and another. Jordon (1989) discusses the disconnections in relationships that trigger and accompany shame. In fact, shame always occurs in the context of a relationship. Even when shame is experienced in solitude, it is experienced relationally with reference to the feelings, desires, standards, rules, principles, limitations, and so on of a larger relational context—friend, lover, colleague, spouse, family, community, ethnic or social or professional group, social class, country, and so on.

Shame and the Gestalt Model

If shame is a relational phenomenon, if it is a regulator of social interactions, it would best be viewed and understood from a psychological perspective that has a relational foundation. Correspondingly, a theory with a relational base would by nature have to account for and be descriptive of the phenomenon of shame in some manner, if not by name.

It is not surprising, then, that Gestalt theory has long addressed the phenomenon of shame, although often without mentioning shame by name (Lee, 1994a, 1995). Gestalt theory originates from a relational conception of human experience. The heart of the Gestalt model is a field representation of experience that includes the experience of both oneself and one's environment as a relational whole (Lewin, 1935). And Gestalt's main focus is an analysis of contact processes, the interactional processes between self and other that shame governs.

It is also not surprising that the function of shame can be derived from basic Gestalt principles. (For a fuller discussion of Gestalt's unique placement in relation to other theories in this regard, see Chapter Two, this volume.)

Shame's Function in Contact Processes

Gestalt's holistic stance holds that people endeavor to unify or map their entire “field” of experience, which includes their experience of themselves and their experience of their environment in relation to themselves (their whole context of perceived risks and resources), according to their own felt needs and goals (Goldstein, 1939; Koffka, 1935; Lewin, 1935). The organizer of this field is the self. This organization or mapping of the field is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of experience in the field, which is known as contact (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951). With any contact or meeting between self and the world, the whole field is resolved anew with respect to one's relevant felt needs and goals (Lewin, 1935; see also discussion in Wheeler 1991, 1994a, 1994b; and Chapter Two, this volume).

In the Gestalt perspective, one's sense of both self and other arise, phenomenologically, in the same experiential, interactive act of contact. In the experience of contact, the “self boundary” is constructed and continually refined. People live and grow in the context of relationships (Perls et al., 1951; see also discussions in Wheeler, 1994a, 1994b). Self and other are always interdependent. For the self-organizational process (the continual mapping of self and other) to progress and develop in healthy directions, people must find/receive enough support in the field, including enough support to know what they want or need. Finding/receiving enough support¹ leads to fulfillment of needs and goals, a good fit between inner and outer worlds, growth, and a sense of satisfaction. To this point, the presentation of the basic tenets of Gestalt is in line with the revisionist theory of Wheeler (1991, 1994a, 1994b).

The opposite of finding/receiving enough support in the field is the experience of frustration. One result of frustration is shame (Tomkins, 1963). Shame is the experience that what is me is not acceptable, that this is not my world. As such, shame signifies a rupture (or threat of a rupture) between the individual's needs and goals on the one hand and environmental receptivity to those needs and goals on the other. There is a breakdown (or threat of a breakdown) in the self-process, the process of organizing the field into self and other. Under these conditions, resolution of the field can be accomplished only through distortion of the self-other boundary: the need that is not received by the other is disowned and made “not me.” Thus, the field is brought back into alignment through shaming and, in the process, disowning the unacceptable need (establishing a linkage between shame and the need that is not supported by the other or by the environment).

With low levels of frustration, the linkage between shame and the unacceptable need is temporary. The shame that is experienced may be in the form of embarrassment or shyness, pulling the person back from an unsupported endeavor (Tomkins, 1963). In such a case, the person may simply find another way or form in which her need may be addressed by the environment; alternatively, she may attend to needs of the environment that must be addressed before she can proceed with pursuing her own need or goal.

In cases of more severe frustration and shame (stemming from harsh enough abuse, neglect, or loss), however, the rupture in the self-process is bridged but not healed, because the price of the bridging is an ongoing connection being made between shame and the unacceptable need, with the consequent loss of access to the need (Kaufman, 1989). As a result, the person “loses a voice” for this need and is left with a sense of worthlessness, inadequacy, and/or isolation. This is the price of the fit between self and other, when the needs of the self are felt to be rejected, wholly or in part, by the other.

In addition, this manner of resolving the field requires continual maintenance. The shame-linked need does not disappear (although awareness of it might). Any time it emerges (awares or unawares), the person experiences shame in order to continue the perception of the need as “not me” and in order to live in harmony with an environment perceived as not supporting or accepting the need. Thus, such resolution of the self-other field carries with it a continual vulnerability to “shame attacks,” in which the individual's chief focus is attempting to abate, escape, or avoid the experience of shame and, in the process, to pull back from pursuing the unacceptable need.

Thus, as stated from a Gestalt perspective, shame is a major regulator of the boundary between self and other. It is a field variable, a ground condition that is the opposite of support. And together with support, shame is an integral aspect of all contact processes, continually informing the self of the possibilities of contact in the field.

The shame-support polarity, when functioning optimally, allows the person to be at the edge and to venture beyond old organizations of the field—that is, to grow. Together, shame and support have the potential of enabling contact. Support allows the person to take risks; shame (perhaps in the form of embarrassment, shyness, or mild disappointment) induces the person to pull back when there is no immediate support. Shame in this form (Kaufman's [1980] “shame as affect” ) is continually useful to us in our everyday lives. For example,...