The shame of existing: An extreme form of shame

Abstract

This paper presents 'the shame of existing' as a form of shame that is deeper and more extensive than those customarily encountered. 'The shame of existing' is defined as shame about existing as we are and especially at the fact that we are. It is accompanied by merciless and total rejection of the subject's self and by feelings of extreme worthlessness and inferiority coupled with the all-pervasive conviction that it would be better not to exist. On the basis of clinical material, consideration is given to the specific transference and countertransference aspects of analyses in which the shame of existing constitutes an important part of the patient's pathology. Disturbance of handling and holding by the primary objects right from birth is suggested as the earliest developmental basis of the shame of existing. This disturbance is attributed to hate and rejection of the infant by the primary objects and to the infant's not being touched emotionally and physically and not having its right to exist acknowledged. The paper begins with an introduction to shame as an affect and as a concept in psychoanalytic theory.

Szégyen és mentális egészség : A szégyenérzékeny megközelítés előtörténete

“…A rendszerint gyermekkori traumákra visszanyúló erôteljes szégyenkezésre való készenlét kapcsán hajlamosak mások megjegyzéseit elutasításként, gúnyként és korholásként értelmezni. Mindezek folytán a miképpen szégyelli magát a beteg és a hogyan segíthet a terápia a szégyenkezés önképfejlôdést akadályozó gátjainak lebontásában kérdése megkerülhetetlen a terápiában (22). A protestáns (lutheránus) pasztorál-pszichoterapeuta, Carl Schneider 1977-ben megjelent, a szégyenérzetben fontos pszichológiai érést segítô erôforrást látó Szégyen, védtelenség és privát szféra címû könyve azt jelezte, hogy a szégyenérzékeny terápia feltûnése a keresztény egyházak segítô hivatást betöltôit sem hagyta érintetlenül.…”

When psychotherapy runs into shame: A scoping review of empirical findings.

“…For example, patients’ anticipation of shame may induce them to hide sensitive themes to avoid fear of rejection and/or emotional pain: Concealment and excessive monitoring of self-disclosure may slow down the treatment process and have a negative impact on the therapeutic alliance, an established predictor of successful therapy (Sinha, 2017; Tangney & Dearing, 2011). While self-concealment can be consciously pursued, it may also be the product of more subtle unconscious mechanisms: Psychoanalytic contributions have described clinical situations displaying how shame-related aspects of the self may remain outside of the patients’ awareness in the first place (Levin, 1971). As some authors noted (Levin, 1971; Tangney & Dearing, 2011), the tactless confrontation of these shame-laden aspects of the self may promote negative therapeutic reactions, fuel resistance, and sometimes elicit aggressive responses.…”

“…While self-concealment can be consciously pursued, it may also be the product of more subtle unconscious mechanisms: Psychoanalytic contributions have described clinical situations displaying how shame-related aspects of the self may remain outside of the patients’ awareness in the first place (Levin, 1971). As some authors noted (Levin, 1971; Tangney & Dearing, 2011), the tactless confrontation of these shame-laden aspects of the self may promote negative therapeutic reactions, fuel resistance, and sometimes elicit aggressive responses.…”

“…Shame-related dynamics in psychotherapy have also been connected to broader transference-countertransference phenomena (Anastasopoulos, 1997; Hahn, 2000; Retzinger, 1998; Tangney & Dearing, 2011): Patients’ projection of critical and shaming aspects onto the therapist, as well as therapists’ inadvertent critical responses to the patients, may indeed strengthen shame reactions and amplify their negative consequences. At the same time, there is agreement that some alleviation of shame in therapy is due to the therapist achieving to provide a neutral, emotionally supportive, and accepting environment (Gilbert, 2011; Greenberg & Paivio, 1997; Hahn, 2000; Levin, 1971).…”