Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair

by Sarah Schulman

This question of shame seems important in escalation. Why does one person approach a situation and want reconciliation and peace, while another approaches the same situation and needs to shun, destroy, and thereby feel victorious? The business of psychological studies is a messy one. There are so many and they contradict each other, but like poetry, they can stimulate thought. I read a study by June Price Tangey and Patricia E. Wagner published in 1996, and another by Hadar Behrendt and Rachel Ben Ari written sixteen years later that pointed to a similar answer. Both teams felt that people who come at conflict from guilt approach it very differently than people who come at it from shame. In fact, both studies found that people who come from guilt very much want to negotiate, are able to apologize and admit fault, can make concessions, and are invested in positive resolution. People coming from shame, on the other hand, direct anger, aggression, and blame towards the other party. This difference was explained by the assessment that people who feel guilt experience less emotional stress and anxiety than those who feel shame. And guilty people can therefore focus more on the implications of their own actions on others. They found that those who feel shame also feel more threatened and are deeply concerned about what other people think of them. Behrendt and Ben Ami write in the Journal of Conflict Resolution: Guilt plays a pro-social function in strengthening relationships; it...