Throughout Hiding from Humanity, Nussbaum recurrently argues two things: (1)
shame has no place in punishments, whether they are legal or in other forms,
and (2) hate crimes are especially sinister due to their tendency to shame
historically oppressed communities. However, I don’t feel as though any of
Nussbaum’s arguments really refute the idea of potentially shaming the “shamers”
themselves.
Nussbaum
calls for some sort of distinction of hate crimes from other, less pointed
offenses. But what could this be, if not the addition of some sort of shaming
punishment? Let’s compare a heinous non-hate crime murder committed by A to a
hate-crime murder committed by B. As of right now, assuming both are deemed
competent and sufficient evidence of the crime is provided, both A and B would
be sentenced to life in prison. However, Nussbaum sees B as more problematic at
the societal level—most people have a solid understanding that murder is
generally wrong and can understand why A must be punished. Conversely, people with
similar notions as B towards particular minority groups may see what B did as
justified due to their hatred. The murder itself is only a means, and the “hate”
part is what fuels the desire of B to degrade and shame the targeted community
of his hate crime. So how do we send the message that the murder aspect of the
crime is not the only wrong, and that the “hate” aspect is also not okay?
We can’t
lengthen B’s jail time past “life.” In many places, we can’t sentence B to
death. Perhaps we can send B to counseling for his hatred, but it is not
difficult for B to figure out what he is supposed to say to seem reformed. But
it is possible to incorporate shame into B’s punishment. This not only distinguishes
non-hate crimes from hate crimes, but also sets precedents for onlookers that
treating minorities as lower citizens will not be tolerated, and that the crime
itself isn’t the only punishable component. Moreover, it eludes Nussbaum’s
concerns of perpetuating shame of an already oppressed group—instead, it shames
the “shamer,” or the person in power doing the original shaming who is not
particularly vulnerable.
This need
not simply apply exclusively to law. What if teachers were taught to shame the
students who use the n-word, who taunt the gay kids, who alienate the poor kids?
This could perhaps instill values into rich, white, straight kids from a young
age that perpetuating shame of their less privileged peers is not tolerated by
allowing them to see how it feels to be shamed themselves.
I understand what your argument is trying to get at but I find it very problematic to use shame as a means of punishment. In the case of it being used in schools when kids discriminate against historically oppressed groups, I believe that the reason for this discrimination would most likely be due to ignorance. I think shame in this setting would cause the kid to become defensive. In order for change to occur, the kid should experience some sort of punishment and private apology but there should also be some form of education to explain why this behavior is wrong. When applying this ideology to the law, I think it is important to keep shame out of punishments. Ideally, this discriminating way of thinking would not occur but unfortunately it still does. The first step to changing this way of thinking is through education at a young age to discourage these ideas. Punishing hate-crimes more harshly is a way to discourage the crimes from occurring; even though it does not necessarily affect people’s way of thinking it is still protecting people in historically oppressed groups with the hope that eventually this way of thinking will not even occur. I do not believe that shame should be incorporated into these punishments either. People should be punished harshly and there should be an attempt to reform their way of thinking, but public shaming people for their crimes seems very problematic and I do not find it to be a moral way of punishment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Krista and I think that her example of a child becoming defensive is a good one. Unfortunately shaming shamers is not an adequate way of enforcing ideals on people for the same reason that shaming in itself is not adequate. If someone is shaming a shamer then they obviously think that there is something that sets them apart from the shamer in what type of shaming is okay. If the initial shamer is told that they are wrong they will probably get defensive because it would seem hypocritical to be told that shaming is wrong through them being shamed. I also find this problematic because what is considered a hate crime may change depending on where you live and what that culture's ideals are. This shaming could therefore not be enforced cross-culturally. Groups who are punished through shame for hate crimes could become defensive and hostile, creating even more problems than there were initially.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time jumping onto your team because of the 'shaming shamers' aspect of your argument. People who shame others often do so in the face of ignorance and their own personal oppression. We also have to take into account the generational factor with this argument. We forget that not that long ago, it was considered socially acceptable to oppress and shame people based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. We are just now coming into an era where the majority finds these practices wrong and unjust. If we continue the shaming practice on the now minority of people who find these practices acceptable, it could create a spiral effect to right back to where we started. Shaming those who shame others is no better than actually shaming minorities (of race, gender, etc) yourself. To me shaming is clearly not a viable option because of the lack of humanity it reveals within the shamer and the highly uncomfortable position it puts the person being shamed in. It is not a productive emotion or action for legal or personal purposes.
ReplyDelete