Musing on guilt (second in a series)
Oct. 31st, 2005 08:59 amOnce again, this is a think piece intended both to help me record things in my head for later reference and to encourage the sharing of opinions and experiences by my readers. I found the dialog last time incredibly helpful, not least in showing how I was mis-stating things and mis-reading people.
Thesis: guilt is an illusion. There is no such thing, really. I've been fond of saying that "no one can make you feel guilty nonconsensually" and I still believe that. It requires at the very least collusion if not outright acquiescence on my part for someone else to engender feelings of guilt in me. If someone says "I can't believe you _did_ that!" and I start feeling guilty then I have at least somewhat bought into the hypotheses that (a) I shouldn't have done that, and (b) no one who behaves in the right/proper/appropriate manner would do so. And then I further buy into the judgment that the proper response to committing such a misbehavior is shame, and guilt.
If I refused a or b or the consequent I would likely not feel guilty. I might feel regret, particularly if my action caused harm, but not guilt.
So, why do I/we do this? I think it's because we're not dealing with our angers. Guilt is misplaced anger.
I may be angry with myself for behaving in ways I know I should not. I may be angry at the person who points my bad behavior out to me, or who demands I make recompense. I may be angry with a third party; for example, someone who is harmed or frightened by what I intended as a jest or prank. Because I don't admit, deal with, experience, or (yes,
sweetmmeblue I'll say it) _process_ my anger properly it hides itself in clothing of guilt.
Being guilty is a form of self-punishment and we learn (I'm watching my kids learn it now) that punishing ourselves is a way of trying to dodge punishment from adults, or our superiors. Bad behavior is punished, and if people are angry or otherwise fail to be contrite after bad behavior we punish them more. The lesson we learn is to hide angers inside our guilts.
An interesting question in here is: If we _did_ learn to deal with our angers, would we be better at shedding our guilts? I think so. I think this has the potential to be incredibly productive.
Thesis: guilt is an illusion. There is no such thing, really. I've been fond of saying that "no one can make you feel guilty nonconsensually" and I still believe that. It requires at the very least collusion if not outright acquiescence on my part for someone else to engender feelings of guilt in me. If someone says "I can't believe you _did_ that!" and I start feeling guilty then I have at least somewhat bought into the hypotheses that (a) I shouldn't have done that, and (b) no one who behaves in the right/proper/appropriate manner would do so. And then I further buy into the judgment that the proper response to committing such a misbehavior is shame, and guilt.
If I refused a or b or the consequent I would likely not feel guilty. I might feel regret, particularly if my action caused harm, but not guilt.
So, why do I/we do this? I think it's because we're not dealing with our angers. Guilt is misplaced anger.
I may be angry with myself for behaving in ways I know I should not. I may be angry at the person who points my bad behavior out to me, or who demands I make recompense. I may be angry with a third party; for example, someone who is harmed or frightened by what I intended as a jest or prank. Because I don't admit, deal with, experience, or (yes,
Being guilty is a form of self-punishment and we learn (I'm watching my kids learn it now) that punishing ourselves is a way of trying to dodge punishment from adults, or our superiors. Bad behavior is punished, and if people are angry or otherwise fail to be contrite after bad behavior we punish them more. The lesson we learn is to hide angers inside our guilts.
An interesting question in here is: If we _did_ learn to deal with our angers, would we be better at shedding our guilts? I think so. I think this has the potential to be incredibly productive.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 06:23 am (UTC)I think guilt comes from recognizing that habits or patterns that produced inappropriate conduct remain in place, so there is a risk of repeating the error. In this sense, it is an emotion for triggering changes in those habits or patterns. Sometimes we are unaware of what behavior would actually be appropriate in difficult situations (even if we know what we've done certainly isn't it), making it difficult or impossible to actually improve those habits or patterns. In that circumstance, guilt can linger for an extended time, because the problem has not been resolved (and hence still needs conscious attention).
I know that's a weird definition of guilt, because it seems disconnected from the past event for which one feels guilty. But on reflection I think that makes sense. If I make a mistake or do something wrong, recognize the error, and change myself so I do not repeat the error in a similar circumstance, then I do not feel guilty. I may feel regret or remorse, but I do not view myself as a flawed person, and I think that sense of self-perception of flaw is an essential element of guilt. I have changed, I am no longer the person who made the mistake, and I do not carry the burden of those past errors if I am not a person who would make such an error now. But if I still would repeat them, then I recognize the seed of future error in myself, and feel guilt for still holding the patterns that led me to do wrong. That response is centered on a rememberance of the past incident that made the nature of error apparent.
I have no idea whether anyone else thinks of guilt in a similar way, or if I'm even using the word in the common sense.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 12:53 pm (UTC)