Respond To At Least One Peer And The Instructor. Please Writ ✓ Solved

Respond to at least one peer and the instructor. Please writ

Respond to at least one peer and the instructor. Please write a minimum of five complete sentences for your one peer posting. Reference information from the course textbook, lecture lessons, or a scholarly source to support your response. Writing requirements: Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside scholarly source). Use APA format for in-text citations and the reference list. This discussion focuses on shame.

Paper For Above Instructions

Model Peer Response: Opening Reply (minimum five sentences)

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful reflections on shame; your examples highlighted how shame shapes both private experience and public behavior. I agree that shame often functions as a relational emotion that signals perceived failure to social or moral standards (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Where you emphasized the isolating quality of shame, it is also important to note shame’s regulatory role: it can deter harmful behavior but also produce withdrawal and self-attack when chronic (Lewis, 1971; Nathanson, 1992). Drawing on course materials and additional literature, I suggest we differentiate shame from guilt because each has distinct ethical and therapeutic implications (Rachels & Rachels, 2019; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Finally, considering both social-contextual and intrapsychic dimensions helps clinicians and ethicists design responses that reduce toxic shame while preserving conscience and repair mechanisms (Uebel, 2019; Bateman & Engel, 2018).

Conceptual Overview of Shame

Shame is commonly defined as a painful self-conscious emotion centered on the experience of being seen (or imagined as seen) as defective, inadequate, or morally compromised (Uebel, 2019). The literature distinguishes shame from guilt: guilt typically involves regret over a specific harmful action, motivating repair, whereas shame involves threatened self-worth and often motivates hiding or escape (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Classic psychoanalytic and affective science texts emphasize that shame is embodied, relational, and culturally patterned, shaping how people present and regulate themselves in social space (Lewis, 1971; Gilbert, 1998).

Functions and Ethical Significance of Shame

Shame performs multiple functions. Ethically, it can alert individuals to social norms and motivate moral growth when experienced reflectively (Uebel, 2019). Socially, shame reinforces group norms and can bind communities, but it also has a coercive face when used as public punishment or ostracism (Bateman & Engel, 2018). Uebel (2019) describes shame’s performative dimension—an internal spectator watches the self—producing a doubled awareness that can catalyze transformation or paralysis. Importantly, shame’s moral relevance differs from guilt’s: shame concerns selfhood and status, while guilt concerns specific wrongdoing and relational harm (Tangney & Dearing, 2002).

Clinical and Social Risks of Shame

Unchecked shame contributes to psychopathology, including depression, social anxiety, and interpersonal withdrawal (Nathanson, 1992). Shame-based responses to trauma or social stigma often perpetuate silence and secrecy, which can obstruct help-seeking and recovery (Lewis, 1971). Socially, institutionalized shaming—public naming or humiliation—can backfire, harden identities around shame, and reduce opportunities for repair (Bateman & Engel, 2018). Clinically informed approaches therefore aim to transform toxic shame into empathic self-awareness, encouraging responsibility without global self-condemnation (Tangney & Dearing, 2002).

Implications for Practice and Ethical Decision-Making

When responding to a peer’s dilemma or to cultural practices that provoke ethical conflict, distinguish justified moral critique from destructive shaming. For example, in debates over culturally fraught practices, health professionals must balance respect for cultural difference with commitments to nonmaleficence—avoiding both unjust condemnation and complicity in harm (Ruggiero, 2012; Bateman & Engel, 2018). Practitioners should employ reparative conversations that name harms, offer apology where appropriate, and foster opportunities for restitution rather than resorting to public shaming that forecloses reconciliation (Uebel, 2019).

Practical Reply Strategy for Discussion Boards

To meet the assignment requirements: begin by addressing your peer directly, summarize their key point in one to two sentences, then add at least three new substantive sentences that reference course readings or a scholarly source (e.g., Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Use APA-style in-text citation when drawing on sources. Close by inviting further dialogue or asking a question that encourages reflection, such as how the peer believes shame could be transformed into constructive moral learning within their example.

Conclusion

Shame is a complex, socially embedded emotion with both ethical potential and clinical risk. A careful reply to a peer should acknowledge their perspective, integrate at least two credible sources (one course/assigned reading and one outside scholarly source), and avoid reinforcing toxic shame while promoting moral insight and practical repair. Applying course concepts—such as the distinction between shame and guilt and the performative nature of shame—helps produce responses that are compassionate, analytical, and ethically constructive (Rachels & Rachels, 2019; Uebel, 2019).

References

  • Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press.
  • Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. International Universities Press.
  • Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the self. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Gilbert, P. (1998). What is shame? Some core issues and controversies. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 3–38). Oxford University Press.
  • Uebel, M. (2019). Dirty rotten shame? The value and ethical functions of shame. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 59(2), 232–251.
  • Bateman, M., & Engel, S. (2018). To shame or not to shame—that is the sanitation question. Development Policy Review, 36(2), 155–173.
  • Israeli, A., & Raveh, I. (2018). "He did not embarrass her": Motherhood and shame in Talmudic literature. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues, 33(1), 20–37.
  • Ruggiero, V. R. (2012). Thinking critically about ethical issues. McGraw-Hill.
  • Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • The School of Life. (2018, August 9). The problem of shame [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-0D2jV0pYw

Related Assignments