Two Sides to Every Coin

So... the following argument has gotten me into trouble a few different times, so please be warned that what I'm about to say might be what some call a "spicy take." I advise those of you who are inclined to be frustrated or angry about spicy topics to read something more soothing - like perhaps a short story or some holiday-themed poetry. :) 

Alright, is everyone braced? Are we all ready? 

Okay, here we go. 

I propose that in every conflict, there are at least two sides, sometimes more. 

I further suggest that in every conflict, even one where a certain party is "obviously the victim," there are choices being made on both sides of the conflict. 

And to conclude, I would put forth the idea that, victim or not, every person involved in a conflict should be expected to take responsibility for the choices they made and the actions they took. 

Now, the most common argument I hear in response to these points I made above is that I am "victim-blaming," which is entirely missing the point of what I said. Not that the victims are responsible for their own suffering - not at all. But that BOTH sides of the conflict were active participants in a conflict. 

If you say a thing, do a thing, or donate to a thing, you should reasonably be held accountable for the thing you said, did, or donated to. Sometimes the accountability boils down to "you were operating on incomplete information." Other times, it's a rewarding, satisfying feeling for doing, saying, or donating to "the right thing." 

Being held responsible for your choices should not be an automatic negative. In the worst scenarios, of course, there are folk that need to be held responsible for actions that were indisputably bad. Actions that result in the harm or death of other human beings, for example, or words that make others hurt in inside places that don't heal easily. Even when performed without ill intent, or without knowing that harm was coming of their choices, actions that result in harm should be considered the responsibility of the person who performed them. 

I'm not going to site a specific situation, conflict, or topic. I'm sure you can think of several without very much effort at all. And I will admit that there are some circumstances where the victim in a given situation was not an active part in anything, but is suffering due to someone else's reaction to their existence. But these are certainly exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. When I feel myself in the position of the victim, I ask myself "what have I done, said, or implied that might have made this worse, and is there something I can do to make it better?" Obviously, sometimes I'm too upset to think this at the time, but it is a change I am trying very hard to implement in myself. And more often than not, I can identify in my own actions some things that might have provoked or aggravated the unpleasant situation. 

I cannot change the choices of others. Only my own. 

So when I can, I try to look at both sides of the coin before I decide how to react. 

CRAFTING

 This year, I decided to make my own Christmas cards and OMG this is so much fun!! :D 

So just before I moved earlier this year, I bought a used Cricut machine from a friend of mine, along with some accessories (like a scoring stylus and some markers). This allowed me to start in on making my own stickers, personalizing my tee shirts, and making cards at home. 

So when the Christmas season rolled around, I said "Don't spend money on cards we don't really like all that much. I'll just get some card stock and make a whole bunch of them for us!" 

I don't think I'm going to get them all done in time, honestly, but I'm excited anyway. :D 

And on top of that, there's just something really satisfying about spreading my crafting stuff all over the apartment. It's a bit like I'm claiming the space as mine. No one else can use it until I'm done. 

It is a bit of a pain to clean up afterward, but I think that's a price worth paying, honestly. 

Silly Ideas

 My November was spent engaged in NaNoWriMo - National Novel Writing Month. And my idea for the month was "Harry Potter, but Better." I basically took the premise of "magic school" and said "what if politics, and also dealing with nonmagic folk, and also gay?" 

I really enjoyed it. It was funny and silly and a real challenge to actualize not only the characters I sympathized with but also the ones that I didn't. After November ended I was tired, and a little burnt out on that plot, so I decided to take a step back and start on a different project, just to give my brain a little room to breathe. 

What did I start? 

"Twilight, but Better." 

Because I looked at my HP but Better setting and said to myself "I could use this for other urban fantasy stories, too." 

And I did. 

So now I have two stories in the works that are honestly very fun and that I'm invested in seeing actually complete (which is hard for me - finding an ending that is satisfying is just difficult). 

But I have to ask myself if these stories are as interesting as I think they are. And if I'm not planning to/able to publish, were these stories worth writing? 

Shame vs. Shaming

In an episode of a podcast called "Harry Potter and the Sacred Text," one of the hosts made a point about how shame is the longest-lasting emotion she knows of. As an example, she cited memories from high school. 

I don't remember any of the tests I was proud of getting an A on in high school, but I definitely remember those times I embarrassed myself in public. I still look back on them sometimes.

I'd like to take a look at the difference between shame (the emotion you feel) and shaming (the action of trying to make another person feel shame). To get to my point, I think I will have to approach it through a metaphor, because of course I will. What do you think I am? A normal person? 

Shame as a Tool

I think it's important to think of shame as a tool. We can use it to incentivize good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Or, more accurately, we can use it to promote *effective* behavior and to make *ineffective* behavior less appealing. 

When I tell a joke and it makes people laugh, I have performed an effective action, achieving the goal I had in mind. When I tell a joke and no one laughs, I have performed an ineffective action, failing to achieve my goal and in addition feeling some amount of shame for having been exposed as ineffective in front of other people. 

There are two distinctions that need to be made, though: 

First, that shame is a social emotion. It is an emotion of comparison, which while deeply unpleasant, is not something we should disregard. Without the comparison of "should" (I should have done this instead of that) the emotion of shame does not happen. 

Let me reiterate. If you do not feel like you have fallen short of a standard or expectation, you cannot experience shame. Now, you may feel vicarious shame, for someone else's failure to fulfill expectations or live up to a standard, but without the social expectations imposed on us from outside and internalized in our own lives, shame cannot exist. 

Second, that shame is an internal comparison. When used externally, it is no longer a tool. It's a weapon. 

Shame as a Weapon

The act of shaming another person is the attempt to make them feel shame. I have perceived that this person fell short of a standard or failed an expectation, and I want them to know it. I am shaming them. 

There is a difference, of course, between constructive criticism and shaming. One is intended to help a person improve. The other makes a person suffer. They may have the same motivation, but they do not have the same outcome. While shame (the emotion) often has a social, comparative element to it, shaming (the action) presents itself as sitting on a moral foundation. This removes the subject's ability to defend themself against the shame being imposed on them by framing the failing as one of personality or character. 

Again, I want to emphasize that shame is not an inherently bad thing. It is unpleasant, but it serves a purpose. Shaming, on the other hand, is unproductive, unhelpful, and often destructive. It serves no purpose other than the temporary satisfaction of people who feel better about themselves through making others feel worse. 

Cringe and Embarrassment

If we see shame as a spectrum, from extreme to mild, I think we might argue that the range of emotion that might qualify as "shame" is actually quite narrow. Too mild, and it's merely embarrassment. That's still unpleasant, but has little element of "should have," instead focusing on the perceived reactions of others to the embarrassing action. Too severe, and the shame becomes cringe, which can be personal or vicarious, depending on the situation. 

The lovely and intelligent Contrapoints has made a video explaining the internet phenomenon of cringe, but allow me the pleasure of attempting to describe it here. While shame is comprised of comparison, seeing what I did beside the idealized thing I should have done but didn't, cringe is the quality of a past action that makes one feel regret - not necessarily for the action itself, but for being associated with the group or idea represented by the action. It is shame of a sort, but a shame of association, rather than a shame of "should have"s. 

Shame is a useful tool. 
Shaming is an inexcusable weapon. 
Cringe can be harmful if taken too far. 
Embarrassment is mostly harmless. Mostly. 

At least, that's where my thoughts have brought me on this chill winter day. What are your thoughts?