Abstract: This article identifies some of the characteristics associated with individuals of shame cultures. Distinctively different from western culture, organizations engaged in cross-cultural communication and global enterprise with individuals from this culture must understand its attributes and gain competencies that surpass the verbal exchange of words. The repercussions in the business world for not being cognizant of these distinctives can be financially ruinous. However, for those sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, the consequences can have eternal ramifications. Remaining firmly anchored in our own cultural patterns, believing they are the best and only way, ultimately leads others to conclude we are arrogant, egocentric, and our intentions purely self-seeking.
Keywords: Shame culture
Guilt culture
Saving face
Honor
Introduction
DEFINITION: Shame. 1.1. The painful emotion arising from the consciousness of something dishonouring, ridiculous, or indecorous in one’s own conduct or circumstances (or in those of others who honour or disgrace on regards as one’s own), or of being in a situation which offends one’s sense of modesty or decency (The Oxford English Dictionary).
When conflict arises, individuals of shame cultures put a high value on saving face. This cultural concept has existed for centuries yet has not been fully understood by those from western countries. A value distinctively different from our western culture (typically identified as guilt cultures), understanding the culture of shame helps provide the insight needed to interact in the global marketplace. Unless we recognize that communication is more than the verbal exchange of words and grasp this concept and the ramifications of dishonoring another, our endeavors will be impeded or abruptly terminated.
Organizational survival and effectiveness increasingly depends on the ability of its leaders to interact and manage people of different cultures.1 With increased multicultural connections, leaders from western countries must understand the cultural distinctive known as the culture of shame so communication and relationship building efforts are not rejected because of misunderstandings or missed cues. It is therefore necessary to understand the concept of saving face when investing in cross-cultural relationships, understand it is not a new concept, and that it is not limited to just a few people groups.
Culture of Shame
In the January 16, 2008 edition of the Jordan Times (Amman, Jordan), the author cites the Prime Minister’s criticism of unemployed citizens who shun jobs due to their culture of shame.2 In a 2006 North American Journal of Psychology, the authors emphatically state that Japan is a shame-based culture, 3 as does Cooke in his writings.4 Hollander contends, “Anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers have apparently concurred that shame is the most social and the most visually conveyed of all emotions. It is directly involved with one’s social serf”.5 Stephen Greer explores the topic of shame in first-century Jewish culture and Christianity in his research article6 and Konstan investigates shame in ancient Greece.7
People groups identified as having a culture of shame have existed for centuries. From ancient Greeks to first century Jews to modern day Jordanians and Japanese, this cultural distinctive is a deeply rooted social trait. Culture, defined as “the context in which we live, the windows through which we experience the world; our attitudes (judgments about people, places, and cultures), our values (desires, wants, and needs), and our identities (who we are and who they are),” influences the way we think, act, react, and interact with others.8 Thus, the need to recognize how other peoples function within their cultures is paramount if our organizations are to compete in the world marketplace.
A culture of shame is unlike a culture of guilt. Understanding this distinctive is important since western culture is considered a culture of guilt and others (some mentioned above) are considered cultures of shame. Cooke differentiates these cultures as follows:
“A society which inculcates absolute standards of morality and relies on men’s developing a conscience is a guilt culture by definition. Whereas a man who has sinned can obtain relief by confession and remorse, a man who is shamed cannot unburden himself by contrition. Consequently, shame cultures do not provide for confessions even to gods. They have ceremonies for good luck rather than expiation. Shame is a reaction to other people’s criticism. A man is shamed either by being openly ridiculed or rejected or by fantasying to himself that he has been made ridiculous. In either case, it is a potent sanction. But it requires an audience or at least a man’s fantasy of an audience. Guilt does not.” 9
Shame always comes from outside, a result of some type of public exposure. It lays in the power of others and an individual has no control to decide if they are shamed or not. In fact, it may not be one’s own actions that bring about shame but the actions or words of others.
Shame and Honor: The Connection
To help understand the concept of shame, it is beneficial to understand its counter: honor. Honor can be described as the value of a person in his or her own eyes plus that person’s value in the eyes of his or her social group. It is the claim to worth along with the social acknowledgement of that worth. Since the focal institution around which these societies are structured is kinship, the family is everything. As such, when the family is the highlighted institution of concern in the society, shame and honor are central cultural characteristics.10
The connection between these two concepts is borne out daily in the Middle East. Arabs and Muslims generally live in a shame society in which the acquisition of honor and the avoidance of shame are key motivators. As such, these values distort reality and obligate them to cancel out feelings of shame by engaging in acts of heroism. These acts are seen primarily as face saving / shame avoidance “heroics.” Although noble to them, this violence (i.e. suicide bombings) is retaliation for having their honor and dignity questioned or attacked.11
The concept of shame and honor is also a distinctive in most Asian, Hispanic, South Pacific, and African cultures, where the family is typically central. In Japan, for instance, it has been surmised that the shame of being inferior to foreigners followed the 200 years of isolation and strong family bonding during the reign of the shogun.12 Although terrorist acts of “face saving” are not typical of these cultures, other expressions are significant. For instance, during World War 2, thousands of Japanese pilots committed “hara-kiri” and hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers fought to the death instead of allowing themselves to be captured (though they had exhausted their munitions) to save their honor and the honor of Japan.
An example of this cultural trait amongst today’s Japanese is their concepts of Wa and Kao. Wa or harmony is the most valued principle in Japanese society. It is reflected in the avoidance of self-assertion, individualism, and the preservation of good relationships. As such, this concept is reflected in their indirect expression or avoidance of saying “no.” Kao is the notion of saving face. Preservation of a person’s pride / reputation / social status is achieved through avoiding confrontations and direct criticism.13
As western organizational leaders realize that the cultural value of shame and saving face is not emotionally based, but centered in the old imperatives of honor and shame, our approach to building relationships will change. As such, we must recognize that the very qualities that make us successful in the west often hinder success in cultures of shame and result in missed opportunities. Not taken into account is the way an individual from shame cultures think, feel, and react. Although directness is a virtue in our culture, they will typically avoid conflict at all cost.14
Our culture does not typically foster the personal side of business relationships. This trait is quite the opposite in many cultures imbedded with the idiosyncratic notion of shame and saving face. It is through relationships that ‘things get done’ in their culture. Our success in these cultures will depend on the depth and quality of the relationships we establish. Thus, developing cross-cultural competencies and investing in understanding different cultures are essential for global success.15
Implications for Business Organizations
Al St.Cyr works with AIB (American Institute of Baking) International and inspects food preparation facilities throughout the world who export their products to the U.S. During a recent conversation, Al spoke of the difficulty he had dealing with individuals from Asian countries. Specific to each business transaction was the difficulty to determine if “yes” would result in a definitive agreement or action on the part of his Asian counterparts. Most negotiations / interactions did not result in the “agreed upon” action. 16
After a number of attempts to resolve this impasse with a Japanese company, St.Cyr sought the assistance of an American born Japanese colleague who explained to him the cultural trait of shame and the significance of saving face. In some instances, St.Cyr’s Japanese counterparts did not understand what he was requesting. Even through they spoke excellent English, they did not want to shame themselves before a “foreigner” by admitting they did not know precisely what was being asked of them. In other instances, they had no intention to do what was being asked. However, in both situations, they did not want to shame themselves or their organization by saying “no” or indicating they did not understand.17
While reading Duane Elmer’s book titled Cross-Cultural Conflict, I was reminded of an incident that occurred while serving with Bridgestone/Firestone in Liberia, West Africa. We hired a Liberian woman to help my wife care for the house since it is a cultural expectation to hire Liberians to work as house help, yard workers, and night security. Margaret was an excellent worker and we entrusted her with the safekeeping of our household. We never questioned her loyalty and compensated her more than was customary because of her integrity.
As a westerner, whenever something breaks, I typically ask what happened and who broke the item. Although there no intention of reprisal or blame, it is just my nature (custom) to get a “truthful” answer. On one occasion, Margaret was helping bake cookies and accidentally dropped a mixing bowl. When I heard the noise, I walked into the kitchen and asked Margaret if she had broken the bowl. “No, Bossman (their customary term of respect), the bowl fell and broke.”
I thought, “Of course it fell; you dropped it, it hit the floor and it broke. No big deal – no one was hurt and it can be replaced. Why can’t you just acknowledge it slipped out of your hands and broke when it hit the floor? Accidents happen all the time.”
Although there was no further discussion about the broken bowl, Margaret’s response resonated with me. “Why was she unable (or unwilling) to admit it was just an accident in which she was the human component?” It was just recently I fully understood her response. Because she lives in a culture where saving face is a social characteristic, she would have felt shame had I persisted in getting “the correct response” from her. Similar to Elmer’s situation, if I could have changed her to think and act like me, I could have avoided some of the awkwardness of adapting to her culture.18
These situations, through different in their impact, represent how cultural traits influence relationships and, ultimately, business. St.Cyr’s efforts to conduct business with his Japanese counterparts were not hindered by language but by differences in culture, which ultimately affects communication. Since he was properly instructed, his subsequent business dealings were successful. Similarly, if I had known about this cultural distinctive when living in Africa, my interaction with Margaret would not have resulted in misunderstanding.
The impact of cultural differences between westerners and those from societies where a culture of shame exists is escalated when conflict occurs. As Gudykunst and Kim posit, “our cultures influence the ways we think about conflicts and our preferences for managing them.”19
To illustrate the diverse ways different cultures respond to conflict, Gudykunst and Kim explain that members of individualistic cultures (westerners) often separate the issue on which they have conflict from the people with whom they are in conflict while members of collectivistic cultures (i.e. Japanese) do not separate the conflict from the person. As such, Japanese take criticism of an idea personally and will take the necessary action to save face personally or save face for their organization.20
Western organizational leaders who encounter a conflict when in business negotiations with individuals from a culture of shame can help defuse the conflict by being aware of this trait and engage in behavior that will not humiliate or embarrass but save face for their counterparts – especially when in a public setting. Since these individuals perceive their actions reflect on their colleagues and they consider their colleagues when managing conflict, westerners may suggest the use of a third party to mediate the conflict. Westerners also need to pay close attention to non-verbal behavior and listen more carefully for implicit messages. Finally, it may be necessary to let go of the conflict if it is perceived that individuals from a shame culture do not recognize that a conflict exist or choose not to deal with it (avoidance being a preferred strategy).21
The repercussions in the business world for not being cognizant of others’ cultural distinctives can be financially ruinous. However, for those sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, the consequences of not understanding different cultures can have eternal ramifications.
Implications for Religious Organizations
A number of years ago, I heard a preacher speak using the text Hebrews 12:2, “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” What he missed in the text and what I did not understand was the phrase “scorning the shame.” This phrase gives a significant clue into first-century Mediterranean culture, a characteristic that exists there today.
During the first-century, the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures (and Arab) were oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others – it was a culture of shame. This trait meant that individuals were likely to strive to embody the qualities and perform the behaviors that the group held to be honorable and avoid those acts that brought shame / reproach and caused a person’s estimation in the eyes of others to diminish.22
Honor and shame are not only about the individual’s sense of worth but also about the coordination and promotion of the group’s defining and central values. It is about the strategies needed to preserve the group’s culture in the midst of a complex web of competing cultures and about the way honor or shame are attained, displayed, and enacted.23 Consequently, the concept of honor and shame / saving face was captured by the New Testament writers.
This cultural attribute is no doubt one reason the early Christian church faced such violent opposition as their neighbors tried to reclaim these wayward members of society back into conformity with traditional Jewish values or with the Greco-Roman social order.24 The insight we gain from scripture into this cultural distinctive gives an indication how we must respond today to those who live in this shame culture.
Bruce Thomas writes a compelling article titled The Gospel for Shame Cultures. His research dealing with evangelizing Muslims reveals that, according to Islam, defilement is a human problem as serious to them as sin is to others. It is more important to be ritually clean than to abstain from lying, cheating, sexual immorality, etc. Thomas discovers that shame is related to defilement in the Muslim religion the way guilt is related to sin. Shame is the feeling of anxiety about one’s presentation, the response to disapproval of one’s peers. In contrast, guilt is the self-condemnation resulting from the violation of internalized convictions of right and wrong.25
For a Muslim, it is more important to be free from the feeling of defilement than to be free from sin. Sin does not cause defilement / shame in the eyes of others; failure to be ritually cleaned following an act that makes one unclean is more importance. For instance, a prolonged state of ritual uncleanness following sexual intercourse is more unthinkable than adultery.26
Consequently, when the writer of Hebrews states that Jesus scorned the shame, it speaks more clearly to Asians, Latin Americans, Mediterranean, and Islamic countries since these cultures place a prominent emphasis on honor, shame, and saving face.27 The concept of Jesus being defiled for us (becoming sin for us) so we might be free from defilement (the righteousness of God), as written in 2 Corinthians 5:21, speaks more succinctly to Muslims since, as previously stated, it is not sin that causes shame / loss of face.
Building relationships with those from shame cultures can also place us in awkward situations that, if not responded to properly, can shame them or put us in a compromising position. A colleague shared the following story:
“One of my lecturers in college was raised on the mission field until returning stateside prematurely and without her dad. He had accepted a mistress from the locals according to their culture and so his wife left with their child, following mission board instructions. A few years later the tribe expelled him; for they now believed the Bible and considered him a phony for accepting their heathen cultural gift, against the clear teaching of Scripture.”28
The decision not to offend the locals resulted in a compromise of biblical principles. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 9 that everything (that is not contrary to God) is permissible, but not everything is beneficial or constructive. These are negotiables. However, in his letter to the church in Rome (6:1b – 2b), he emphasizes there are also non-negotiables when he writes; “Shall we go on sinning so grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin . . .”
Elmer suggests a solution hat can help to save face for those from shame cultures when we encounter a situation that could result in compromise. Taking the one-down position means we make ourselves vulnerable to another person, indicating that without their help we are in danger of being shamed or losing face. In essence, we place ourselves in a position of debt or obligation to the other person, shifting the shame from them to us.29
As we continue to encounter these cross-cultural dilemmas, it is our responsibility not to offend while building relationships of trust. However, it is our obligation not to compromise biblical principles. There are alternatives that will not bring shame to others or result in acts of sin.
Concluding Thoughts
Protecting people’s dignity not only protects them from losing face but also preserves an openness and trust in the relationship. When westerners resist change, we wallow in myopic ignorance and forfeit the opportunity to learn from others and discover cultures that differ from our own limited experiences. When we resist change, we remain anchored in egocentrism, mistakenly believing that our cultural patterns are the best and only way.30
Organizations that take notice and adapt their strategies to the way individuals from cultures of shame say and do things will see results. However, as noted, it takes time to develop levels of trust that will result in the greatest breakthroughs and return on investments whether for a profit-oriented business organization or for a religious organization.
Addressing the cultural and communication issues that are different from ours will help us bridge the gap and promote long-term relationships. It is our responsibility to develop the cross-cultural skills if we want to be effective in this culture. We cannot change how they think or act, we must change how we think and act in their environment.
End Notes
1Robert Rosen, Patricia Digh, Marshall Singer, and Carl Phillips, Global Literacies: Lessons on Business Leadership and National Cultures (New York; Simon and Schuster, 2000).
2Mohammad Ben Hussein 2008; “PM Censures ‘Culture of Shame.’” Jordan Times (Amman, Jordan). January 16, p n/a.
3Jamie Thonney, Michihiko Kanachi, Hiroyuki Sasaki, and Toshiteru Hatayama, Toshiteru 2006; Guild and Shame in Japan: Data Provided by the Thematic Apperception Test in Experimental Settings.” North American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 85-96.
4Terry E. Cooke 1991; “The Evolution of Financial Reporting in Japan: A Shame Culture Perspective.” Accounting, Business and Financial History. Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 251-277.
5Martha Hollander 2003; “Losses of Face: Rembrandt, Masaccio, and the Drama of Shame.” Social Research. Vol. 70, No. 4, p. 1372-1352, p. 1327.
6Stephen Greer 2008; “First Century Jewish Culture and Christianity.” http://planetpreterist.com/news-5430.html, Accessed March 2008.
7David Konstan 2003; “Shame in Ancient Greece.” Social Research. Vol. 70, No. 4, p. 1031-1062.
8Rosen et al., p. 33.
9Cooke, p. 252.
10Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology – Revised Edition. (Louisville; Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).
11James Bowman 2002; “The Lost Sense of Honor.” Public Interest. Fall, p. 32-51.
12Cooke.
13Japan-Guide.com; http:www.japan-guide.copm/e/e644.html. Accessed February 2008.
14Mia Doucet 2007; “Costly Western Assumptions.” Control Engineering. October, p. 32.
15Ibid.
16Al St. Cyr, Head, Food Safety Education, AIB, interviewed by author, 18 February 2008.
17Ibid.
18Elmer, Duane Cross-Cultural Conflict. (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 1993).
19William B. Gudykunst and Young Yun Kim, Communication with Strategies – Fourth Edition. (New York; McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2003), p. 297.
20Ibid.
21Ibid.
22David A. deSilva Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 2000).
23Ibid.
24Ibid.
25Bruce Thomas 1994; The gospel for Shame Cultures: A Paradigm Shift. (first published in EQM). http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/shame.php, Accessed March 2008.
26Ibid.
27David A. deSilva Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 2000).
28Art TerMorshuizen, DSL Student Regent University, dialogue during group discussion, 25 March 2008.
29Elmer, Duane Cross-Cultural Conflict. (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 1993).
30Ibid.