Annotations
In her book Naked: The Dark Side of Shame and Moral Life (2018), the philosopher Krista Thomason introduces the concept of ‘moral self-defence’. In paradigmatic self-defence, you protect your physical self from an aggressor. But in moral self-defence, you protect your moral standing, which refers to the perceptions of your status in society.
As the philosopher Pamela Hieronymi observes, wrongdoing suggests ‘that you can be treated in this way, and that such treatment is acceptable’.
So our moral standing can be affected by the wrongs done to us, and therefore needs to be defended. This is where outrage comes in. The individual acts that contribute to public shaming – criticism, mockery, expressions of anger and disgust – can help defend our moral standing.
Victims of systemic injustice can engage in ‘confrontational coping’: expressing outrage, anger, or opposition towards wrongdoers. Another option is ‘avoidance coping’: doing nothing or trying to forget.
Some studies have found that confrontational coping helps victims overcome feelings of helplessness, creating positive emotions and, surprisingly, facilitating forgiveness. In contrast, avoidance coping in cases of racial injustice can worsen the psychological effects of discrimination.
Public shaming is a form of confrontational coping that can be particularly powerful because of its larger audience. When a person engages in public criticism or other expressions of anger, they affirm their own self-worth and give themselves a chance to be heard.