The thing about shaming Aella for her actions is that shame is probably the very thing that lead her to where she is now, having grown up in a Conservative Protestant Christian household.
Her whole project is to reduce the shame we feel around sex, and while her project is sinful, it is rooted in trauma. Like Mark said she’s a “lost sister”, and I think an argument against Aella should be focused on conveying the fruits of the sin that she has unintentionally sowed as opposed to shaming her for her actions.
While shame is a very useful cultural reinforcement tool, it works best in collective societies (Western society is guilt-based, Eastern society is shame-based), hence Japan’s emphasis on shame and dishonoring; their culture is so coherent that when one does a culturally dishonorably thing, the collective psyche almost unconsciously rejects them to re-affirm the social norm.
I find it difficult to use shame-based tactics in a highly individualist and Western culture that has been fragmented for ages. While I agree that her behavior is shameful, I think we would all agree because our sub-culture is Christianity.
So if you are speaking to Christians, this article resonates, but who is your audience? Are you writing to Christians who are already in on the fundamental claims, or are you writing to convey a fundamental fault to anybody?
To do so I think would require additional length that extrapolates on the mechanisms of shame, how we have evidentially lost it in lieu of Aella’s work, and how we can foster healthy shame again in a way that re-frames it as a temporary falling from grace that can be mended as opposed to complete social ostrasization.
Very interesting. I would love to see a Christian tell their female friend counterparts that they’re fat and not very pretty in response when they just spent an hour getting ready trying to look their very best. Any Atheist overhearing would surely become a born again follower. And please tell me how to respond to my best friend when they ask how to act on a first date??? Regardless, your examples go from enabling drug users to petty social responses? If you’re going to be the next Thomas Aquinas step your game up. Your article is counterintuitive to many basic Christian philosophies and really needs a re-evaluation, just showing love a-la the fat girl that can’t find a date. Do you honestly think Jesus Christ had limited compassion and negatively evaluated Mary Magdalene into becoming a follower?
> Very interesting. I would love to see a Christian tell their female friend counterparts that they’re fat and not very pretty in response when they just spent an hour getting ready trying to look their very best.
I would love it too! Perhaps not in a cruel way, but again, I do think truth should often trump compassion.
Also, not everything a Christian does is about evangelizing to others. It's about becoming like Christ.
You make a good point with Mary Magdalene, and it's definitely not a super well thought out piece I'll admit. I'm working through this myself.
That being said - Christ absolutely shamed people! He shamed the religious hypocrites of his day, and while He was kind and loving towards prostitutes, He did strongly encourage them to sin to more and live a better way of life.
I'm mostly just poking the bear. Your piece is nicely written and well meaning, I just don't think it does justice to the complexities of real-world interaction while incorporating one's values, especially with something as highly interpretive as Christian values.
I certainly don't disagree that there's room for more truth. But what's the goal of that truth? What form is that truth conveyed? To what end are we conveying it? To shame people and let them know your moral superiority? To introduce people to Christianity because we love God's most precious creation and want to become closer to him by doing so? Whatever that goal is should be driving the interaction, at least in my opinion.
>That being said - Christ absolutely shamed people!...
I think you highlight the point here. Using this example, Jesus Christ gives shame to some and a compassionate, constructive love to others. With this we establish a variable, but why? and what are the parameters?
Maybe because the pharisees, sadducees, and religious elders already should know better? Because they're supposed to set an example for others? Because thiefs, prostitutes, and beggars perhaps are ignorant and wayward? And rather shame, deserve compassion. Again, what's the goal here? Which does your online prostitute deserve? She was shamed into stopping her actions but would it have been better for her to have stopped on her own accord because she was a born-again Christian now due to being shown a better way? I truly don't know, but all questions worth asking and would again be driving how I interact with a given individual.
Of course you may ask! Short answer is no. Longer answer is still no, but complicated
The thing about shaming Aella for her actions is that shame is probably the very thing that lead her to where she is now, having grown up in a Conservative Protestant Christian household.
Her whole project is to reduce the shame we feel around sex, and while her project is sinful, it is rooted in trauma. Like Mark said she’s a “lost sister”, and I think an argument against Aella should be focused on conveying the fruits of the sin that she has unintentionally sowed as opposed to shaming her for her actions.
While shame is a very useful cultural reinforcement tool, it works best in collective societies (Western society is guilt-based, Eastern society is shame-based), hence Japan’s emphasis on shame and dishonoring; their culture is so coherent that when one does a culturally dishonorably thing, the collective psyche almost unconsciously rejects them to re-affirm the social norm.
I find it difficult to use shame-based tactics in a highly individualist and Western culture that has been fragmented for ages. While I agree that her behavior is shameful, I think we would all agree because our sub-culture is Christianity.
So if you are speaking to Christians, this article resonates, but who is your audience? Are you writing to Christians who are already in on the fundamental claims, or are you writing to convey a fundamental fault to anybody?
To do so I think would require additional length that extrapolates on the mechanisms of shame, how we have evidentially lost it in lieu of Aella’s work, and how we can foster healthy shame again in a way that re-frames it as a temporary falling from grace that can be mended as opposed to complete social ostrasization.
Very interesting. I would love to see a Christian tell their female friend counterparts that they’re fat and not very pretty in response when they just spent an hour getting ready trying to look their very best. Any Atheist overhearing would surely become a born again follower. And please tell me how to respond to my best friend when they ask how to act on a first date??? Regardless, your examples go from enabling drug users to petty social responses? If you’re going to be the next Thomas Aquinas step your game up. Your article is counterintuitive to many basic Christian philosophies and really needs a re-evaluation, just showing love a-la the fat girl that can’t find a date. Do you honestly think Jesus Christ had limited compassion and negatively evaluated Mary Magdalene into becoming a follower?
> Very interesting. I would love to see a Christian tell their female friend counterparts that they’re fat and not very pretty in response when they just spent an hour getting ready trying to look their very best.
I would love it too! Perhaps not in a cruel way, but again, I do think truth should often trump compassion.
Also, not everything a Christian does is about evangelizing to others. It's about becoming like Christ.
You make a good point with Mary Magdalene, and it's definitely not a super well thought out piece I'll admit. I'm working through this myself.
That being said - Christ absolutely shamed people! He shamed the religious hypocrites of his day, and while He was kind and loving towards prostitutes, He did strongly encourage them to sin to more and live a better way of life.
May I ask if you're a Christian?
I'm mostly just poking the bear. Your piece is nicely written and well meaning, I just don't think it does justice to the complexities of real-world interaction while incorporating one's values, especially with something as highly interpretive as Christian values.
I certainly don't disagree that there's room for more truth. But what's the goal of that truth? What form is that truth conveyed? To what end are we conveying it? To shame people and let them know your moral superiority? To introduce people to Christianity because we love God's most precious creation and want to become closer to him by doing so? Whatever that goal is should be driving the interaction, at least in my opinion.
>That being said - Christ absolutely shamed people!...
I think you highlight the point here. Using this example, Jesus Christ gives shame to some and a compassionate, constructive love to others. With this we establish a variable, but why? and what are the parameters?
Maybe because the pharisees, sadducees, and religious elders already should know better? Because they're supposed to set an example for others? Because thiefs, prostitutes, and beggars perhaps are ignorant and wayward? And rather shame, deserve compassion. Again, what's the goal here? Which does your online prostitute deserve? She was shamed into stopping her actions but would it have been better for her to have stopped on her own accord because she was a born-again Christian now due to being shown a better way? I truly don't know, but all questions worth asking and would again be driving how I interact with a given individual.
Of course you may ask! Short answer is no. Longer answer is still no, but complicated