That's a wrong question.
— unenlightened

Sorry 'bout that, boss. ;) — Baden

Ah, perhaps that was too telegraphic. I've decided to be ill for a bit, so I'll maybe explain later if anyone is bothered.

If dignity is a zero sum game, then humiliation is how the dignity one is self-evidently born with is taken from one.
— unenlightened
Then equality is a pipe-dream for we can only increase our freedom by taking other's away? If that is the case, then it's survival of the fittest.

It isn't a zero sum game. I don't believe it is because I can talk highly of myself without bringing others down — Harry Hindu

I agree - dignity is not a zero sum game, nor something that we are self-evidently born with. We are born naked, vulnerable and utterly dependent on others for our every need. Our dignity is in our potential, and our potential is not self-evident, but realised in interaction with others. There is no dignity in isolation - nor is there identity or humiliation, for that matter.

Humiliation is the denial of one’s status claims: destroying or tearing down the various structures of identity that protect us from this experience of being naked, vulnerable and utterly dependent on others to achieve anything. We feel humiliated whenever this truth about us is exposed, because our sense of dignity is apparently built into these structures of identity.

As Whitney Houston said, ‘you can’t take away my dignity’: but I must recognise that my dignity is not built into structures of identity, but inherent in the unlimited human potential that is often concealed or inhibited by these structures.

My identity as a ‘white Australian’, for instance, conceals a greater potential afforded to me than my identity as the child of an Asian migrant, but less than my identity as a human being. And my identity as ‘Catholic’ would likely inhibit your view of my potential as a philosopher, and open my presence in this forum up to humiliation by those who would destroy the status claims of Catholicism or Christianity - should I choose to defend either, or stake my sense of dignity or pride on them. The more I define my identity, the more I build my sense of dignity into these structures, and the further I get from the truth of my humanity: not only from my nakedness, vulnerability and dependence, but from my unlimited potential.

If you take away the clothes I am wearing that protect me from nakedness in public, you apparently take away my dignity, and thus humiliate me. And if a kind soul then approaches and wraps a cloak around me, he appears to restore that dignity. But if my own sense of dignity is in my potential and not in the clothing, then I lose nothing of value. That is not to say that this act of kindness meant nothing - on the contrary, one must first recognise in this naked, vulnerable form, the dignity and potential of a human being, before interacting to help restore their sense of dignity in the minds of others.

A human being who retains their own sense of dignity despite recognising themselves as ultimately naked, vulnerable and dependent has more potential (ie. capacity to develop, achieve and succeed) than one who has built the most powerful, autonomous and popular identity structure on the planet. And in this one human being’s courageous interaction with the world (much of whom would see only the humiliation), they can also help many others to realise their own potential in the process.

Our aim is not to increase our freedom from, but to increase awareness of our potential by developing our interconnectedness. We feel most ‘free’ when we are naked, vulnerable and unashamedly connected with the universe in every possible way - then anything is possible.

I always thought of you as a woman. — unenlightened

If it really is the "us" that defines the "me", then how is it that you (part of the "us") got this wrong?

How is it that social constructions get anything wrong? How is it that society got the origin of humans so wrong for so long? The answer is that there is this underlying physical reality that relates to the social construction (group-think) in it's degree of accuracy, or truth.

Who is more humiliated here?
— Baden

That's a wrong question. — unenlightened

There is a confusion; if as I have been suggesting, humiliation is loss of status - a public matter, if somewhat nebulous, of social standing, then we can answer the question. And the answer will have to do with how the incident feeds out into the wider world, who controls the story, how the other managers and other workers respond.

The confusion, though is that the question seems to want to measure personal feelings. As though the incident has no external consequences, but is a matter of states of mind. Suppose I say, 'I am very sensitive, so I suffer more humiliation than you would in the same situation.' And you might reply, 'Actually you are wrong, you think you are very sensitive but actually you are rather insensitive and don't even notice the sensitivity of others.' Perhaps I have been like Nelson all these years...

There is the status you have in the community, official and unofficial.
There is the status you perform in the community that you believe or not
There is the status of the heart, what you say to the mirror.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I'm always stuck in these conversations at the beginning. I assume you have a state of mind, I assume you live in a society. I'd like to be able to assume that you understand that nationality is a social construct, and that this means something.

It means you don't generally get to choose your nationality, you don't get to ignore it. It is something that affects your life, where you can live, what you can do. It also means it is made up by humans, and is something you can be stripped of at the stroke of a pen.

You might have a deeply held belief in the oneness of humanity, to the extent that you claim citizenship of the world. This is a personal construct. It only becomes a social construct when the border guards will let you pass.

" If dignity is a zero sum game... ", I said in my second post. And since then there has been a fruitless discussion of whether it is or it isn't.

As if there were a fact of the matter. :roll:

There is no fact of the matter because it is a social construct and can be constructed either way. And that was the point of mentioning its featuring on television, a major means of social construction.

It's time to get used to the fact that you live in a world where most of the facts are made up, but are still facts in the way they impinge on you, and the way you have no choice about them.

So here's how it goes down. You're a tv executive with time to fill, and you decide to make a programme about needlework. God, that's about as dull as ditchwater, how can we spice it up? I know, we'll introduce some 'experts' and have them set tasks for this other group of 'ordinary people' with a time limit , and then their work will be judged, and they'll gradually be thrown off until the last on is the winner... call it the Great British Prick off. So the excitement of jeopardy needs to be added to needlework in order to make it worth watching rather than doing. Winners and losers, zero sum. One does needlework to make a product, and that is not zero sum, but this is television, not needlework. The nature of the flickering screen dictates the game, and the game that we watch for half the day, is liable to become the game we play for the other half. And you see it here - conversation becomes battle, we are not looking together, but competing.

" If dignity is a zero sum game... ", I said in my second post. And since then there has been a fruitless discussion of whether it is or it isn't.

As if there were a fact of the matter. :roll:

There is no fact of the matter because it is a social construct and can be constructed either way. And that was the point of mentioning its featuring on television, a major means of social construction. — unenlightened

'can be constructed either way'

One part of me - the sensitive, sad - really wants this to be true. Another part - the agonistic, eristic - doesn't. The reflective part of me isn't sure, but skews pessimistic.

Reading groups can be collaborative, a community of the mutually dignifying, but only if they keep out those who get in the way of collaboration. Access has to be regulated, some must be excluded.

Who gets access? Even if someone's not intentionally sowing seeds of discord, they may still have an unsavory tendency to try to steer conversation toward the 'wrong' topics. 'I think Melville was trying to say the same thing I was in My Theory of Why Time is an Illusion....I think Conrad was trying to say the same thing I was in My Theory of Why Time is an Illusion.... 'I think you raise a good point, Mike, i think it helps illustrate how Austen seems to have a sense that time isn't what it seems.'

But how do we know that we aren't as misguided as that guy? He's so in it, he has no way to get outside it to see himself. There's no way around it - we have to take into account the reactions of those in the group. But if they react the same way to everyone, how can we tell what's real and what's mere politeness? One of my earliest threads on the old forum was something like- Are movies Hegelian sublations of sublations? A: No, what does that mean, seems unlikely you've actually read Hegel, you're trying too hard. The only way to determine where we're at (barring some innate, infallible inner-genius) is to see who gets shown respect and who gets shown the door.

But is it that stark? What if, for those who show genuine good-will, we have a multitiude of different groups where each person will have a place appropriate to what they want to discuss? All good, as long as no one feels like they're not being excluded from a certain group not merely because its simply a bad fit, but because they're not up to those standards. Competition arises organically. TV Producers, like tribal leaders, make use of that. Plato frames the true/false in terms of claimants. Before that, in China, leaders clamored to prove they had the mandate of heaven.

Just as you differentiate yourself by being the one who both (1) understands what others were saying about the banned poster but (2) has an additional understanding of the underlying dynamic of humiliation, I try to differentiate myself with regard to your post in the same way. Rich (or socially established) whites maintain their identity by denying it and decrying identity in general. So too maintaining and denying dignity-through-de-dignifying.

Is it escapable? In the vale of tears?

The second is rejection by a superior, for example, the moderator deletes your pearls of wisdom. — unenlightened

So, moderators are superior now, are they? How convenient! :joke:

The Japanese feel that one should have enough grace to allow an opponent to save face. But they used to have a tendency to go straight for ritual suicide when things weren't going well, so maybe that's why.

It involved stabbing and then pulling the blade sideways. The goal was to cut the abdominal aorta.

'can be constructed either way'

One part of me - the sensitive, sad - really wants this to be true. Another part - the agonistic, eristic - doesn't. The reflective part of me isn't sure, but skews pessimistic. — csalisbury

I don't understand all your references, I'm sorry. But read that 'can be' in the light of the necessary limits exemplified by television. If I am heading towards a conclusion, I suppose it is an attempt to understand my own other.

Rich (or socially established) whites maintain their identity by denying it and decrying identity in general. So too maintaining and denying dignity-through-de-dignifying.

Is it escapable? In the vale of tears? — csalisbury

Well that is your judgement to make. I will defend and deny my identity by not arguing either way. Indeed, I am not arguing against competition and zero sum games. I'm just saying that when I was a kid, we used to go to the beach and build a sandcastle, and pick up some pretty wet stones and go for a swim. and nobody won, and nobody lost, and everyone got a prize of an ice cream. And that was an exciting wonderful day, even though when the stones dried out they looked rather dull. And once a year, there would be a ploughing competition, and someone would win and the others lose, but the rest of the time folks would just plough as needed, and it would be good enough. And I make bread every few days, because I like to, and sometimes it is just so, and sometimes it is a bit not quite, and sometimes I make something a bit fancy. But I don't plan to be on the Great British Bake Off, any more than I plan to be on the Great British Fuck Off. They actually turn a joy to a misery for the titillation of spectators.

Now, if one reflects that back onto identity, then the wisdom of Harry:

I can talk highly of myself without bringing others down, — Harry Hindu

... while I might quibble with the hierarchical reference, is my own view exactly. My bread is good, and it really doesn't matter if someone else's bread is better or worse, as long as there is cheese.

My bread is good, and it really doesn't matter if someone else's bread is better or worse, as long as there is cheese. — unenlightened

Cheese for everyone, or only for those whose bread is "worse"?

Some people don't like bread and like only cheese. Some people are lactose intolerant.

Are you saying humiliation is socially constructed? If so, are you saying it's a recent thing? I find it hard to understand your position or what this thread is about.

Rich (or socially established) whites maintain their identity by denying it and decrying identity in general. So too maintaining and denying dignity-through-de-dignifying. — csalisbury

Nobody decries identity, I assume you mean they decry group identity and by group identity, you mean that they decry the notion that they should be dealt with purely based on what groups they belong to. Is that correct?

Some people don't like bread and like only cheese. Some people are lactose intolerant. — Harry Hindu

Well they can all just fuck off and die, can't they?

Are you saying humiliation is socially constructed? If so, are you saying it's a recent thing? I believe that's what you're saying but I need confirmation. — Judaka

No. I mean yes. I mean no. If you haven't experienced humiliation, then clearly you are too fuck-witted to follow this discussion, never mind participate in it.

D'you see what I did there? I attempted to invoke a sensation of momentary humiliation in you, in order to demonstrate that it is a feeling, a sensation, a psychological condition or relation to oneself. But it is also a social effect, because it involves me, in this case, presenting you with an image of yourself from my p.o.v. in conflict with the one you propose by posting. The social world is not a clean world; it is infected with the physical and with the psychological, and in turn infects them. There is the physical shrinking shamefaced hangdog behaviour that dogs exhibit as well as humans, there is the psychological experience that that behaviour expresses, and there is the social interaction that produces it.

And nothing is new about this, it is as old as Adam or older. All I am saying about modernity is that it moves in a certain direction ideologically because of the exigencies of modern media. Another amusing example is that the need of the porn industry to get a clear shot has produced the strange aesthetic of pubic shaving. It becomes the norm because that's what everyone sees... and try and ignore the itching, rashes, and infections that result, or buy some 'product'...

Which direction is that?

The direction of sensationalism, melodrama, zero-sum competition with winner takes all, along with isolation, passivity and despair.

What do those things have to do with humiliation and what makes you believe that we didn't always have a penchant for things like sensationalism and melodrama? If society is trending towards isolation, passivity and despair, why is the media partly to blame for this and why do you think society is trending towards those things?

Usually, by this point, I'd be responding to you with my own opinions but I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to have opinions about yet.

What do those things have to do with humiliation — Judaka

Humiliation is the feeling of loss of status. In a zero sum game the winner gains status and the losers lose it in proportion.

and what makes you believe that we didn't always have a penchant for things like sensationalism and melodrama?

I don't think that. People have aways tended to like sugary foods, modern people tend to eat more of them, because bla bla.

If society is trending towards isolation, passivity and despair, why is the media partly to blame for this and why do you think society is trending towards those things?

Media need to excite because viewing is passive. Specifically, watching a food programme does not tickle the taste buds or satisfy hunger. So they need to make a bland experience exciting by turning it into a competition with winners and losers. So the topic of food is no longer ideologically about sharing, meeting each others needs, cooperating, but about competing to impress the experts and win the Masterchef crown, or apron or whatever it is. And there can only be one winner, so it mainly about people losing and leaving.
So it's exciting, and people watch, and while they watch, they learn that cooking food is very difficult and dangerous, and they'd better get in a takeaway.

It's like the facebook effect. The only thing facebook wants is to grow facebook, and make everyone look at facebook and facebook ads, and give facebook their information. They don't do this by making everyone happy, but by making everyone anxious, just as every advert humiliates you a little. "You're so dumb, you you can't even brush your own teeth. But with Dr Foul's patent tooth brushing device, even you can brush like a pro."

I agree on what humiliation is if we add that humiliation is the feeling of perceived loss of status. When I think about the things people feel humiliation about, cooking is one of them. If we had a philosophy forum get-together and I cooked meal for everyone or baked some cookies and you told me it was inedible, I might feel humiliated about that.

I watch a lot of anime and this is actually a trope where female characters will cook badly and either the men will say it was good to avoid humiliating the woman or the female character will notice it was bad and feel embarrassed about it. I suppose it's up to them whether they are embarrassed or humiliated.

It's also a trope in anime for women to feel very competitive about cooking and particularly feeling insecure if they can't cook as well as another woman.

I don't believe that cooking shows are responsible for cooking being perceived as competitive. I think that competitions do humiliate people but I think if cooking shows humiliate people for being awful at cooking then this is actually a good thing for people who suck at cooking because it lowers the bar for them and gives them more confidence in themselves (unwarranted confidence).

I think in general our society is actually becoming more ideologically disposed against competition. Instead, we tell everyone that it's not about winning but having fun, everyone is special and great. There's a growing victimhood culture where losing is being celebrated and it's not just on the left. Look at the "incel" community, where status is achieved by failing at literally the most core competition on Earth which is reproduction rights, many there brag about being low-status, undesirable men. You are shamed if you are a "chad" and everything is just easy for you and you get all the women so we don't like you.

Ideas like race/gender quotas and equality of outcome which attempt to lessen competition in the workplace. These are ideas pushed by the mainstream media too.

I would be surprised if nothing became more competitive due to the kinds of stuff you're talking about but in general, I think the media is against competition. The reason zero-sum competitive cooking, singing and talent shows are popular is most likely because people are more inherently interested in such things. Anime is another example, there's another trope of "self-insert" characters where the protagonist just kind of goes around being awesome and styling on all his adversaries.

People have always and will always think about things in competitive terms and will enjoy competition and the public humiliation of not just losers but anyone really. There is a LOT of tv focused on the humiliation of people besides competition, though again, I think people just always wanted this and now TV are just trying to give the people what they want.

I think in general our society is actually becoming more ideologically disposed against competition. Instead, we tell everyone that it's not about winning but having fun, everyone is special and great. — Judaka

Yes, I have heard that rhetoric too. I remember there was a version I heard at school - "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. However, the way the school was organised was that everything from building model aeroplanes to drama to tying your tie was made into a competition and winning was made really really important, with cups, with prize-giving, with social status, little privileges, and losing was punished in little ways too. It's called doublespeak, and there's a lot of it about.

People have always and will always think about things in competitive terms and will enjoy competition and the public humiliation of not just losers but anyone really. — Judaka

You'd be amazed at how even tv has changed in just a few years. Cookery programmes in the 60's were ... educational! Like, one person, demonstrating a recipe. They were like cookery classes at school, which were also a thing, because there weren't any celebrity chefs, any more than there were celebrity bin-men. But people needed to eat, so they needed to cook. Hurrah for ordinary! Not a slogan you are probably familiar with.

if as I have been suggesting, humiliation is loss of status - a public matter, if somewhat nebulous, of social standing, then we can answer the question. And the answer will have to do with how the incident feeds out into the wider world, who controls the story, how the other managers and other workers respond. — unenlightened

I was interested in the discussions regarding humiliation and identity. Trying to entice more discussion of this, some opinions:

Humiliation can be defined as depriving someone of their previously held pride. Double-checking with Wiktionary, it can also be defined as making someone humble, i.e. endowing them with humility.

Here’s a possible monkey wrench thrown in: humility is not always a personal negative, as humiliation is understood to always be.

Speaking from some personal experience, a person can gain great happiness from being made more humble by other’s actions and abilities—given that what humbles oneself is the ability of some other which one greatly reveres in society at large, as well as in oneself. A trite example: I’ve been known to like and to dabble in poetry. I can distinctly remember times I was elated at being humbled by others’ poetry at poetry readings. Same can hold true for most any other talent or ability. It elates the spirit to know that what one values in the world is not only present in it but excels what one previously was aware of as being present. One is here humbled and simultaneously enlivened with verve, hope, and, sometimes, rekindled aspirations.

On a different train of thought: Christian doctrine is fond of saying that the meek (the humble) shall one day rule the world (paraphrasing—and leaving the issue of historical hypocrisy out of it). Here, humility, the state of being humble, is pivotally valued (at least in speech).

However, for some—and going by dictionary definitions, for many—to be made humble is necessarily synonymous to being humiliated (in the negative connotation sense). And, in the process, one is made subservient to that which one was once not subservient to. Hence being made humble—aka, humiliation—is here synonymous to abasement and loss of power (i.e., ability to accomplish).

Tying this into identity:

Personal identity can be thought of as that which one at core is, which to me can be made into a dichotomy. In one train of thought, there’s identity of character: this can be one’s affinities and aversions, and, hence, one’s sum intentions: i.e., one’s character. Here one identifies which others of like characters (e.g., people who like the same music for the same roundabout reasons, who hold the same roundabout values for life, who make the same decisions one would oneself make (were one to be in the same situation), etc.) and will not identify with others of unlike characters (e.g., people who proudly cheat, steal, lie, deride, murder, etc.). In a different train of thought, there’s identity of physicality: the core of what one is is here intuited as consisting of physical elements: ones skin/hair/eye color, one’s height/size (e.g. midgets as the “other”), one’s sex, one’s owned possessions, etc.

Its complex due to the two stated forms of personal identity always being to some extent converged, but to keep things on the simple side: Where race plays a crucial factor to personal identity, one will tend to favor others of unrelated characters—say, unethical individuals—just as long as they are of the same race, this by comparison to those individuals of related characters (say, ethical individuals) who differ from you in their racial makeup. The converse applies for those who self-identify most with their own propensities of intention: here, one tends to form bonds of empathy, etc., with those of like natures regardless of their race, nationality, economic class, etc.

Re: identity and humiliation

Those who identify with a zero-sum worldviews shall always be humiliated in being made humble. In this worldview, to not be on top of others is to necessarily be trampled by those who are on top. Here, to be humble is to be trampled upon as someone else’s inferior (and being trampled upon is here always shame-worthy).

The same entailment does not apply to those who do not so identify with zero-sum worldviews (egalitarians included, I presume). More likely, here the “other” is found to be those who strictly pertain to a zero-sum worldview of winner/looser relations—regardless of their physical attributes (be they rich or poor, etc.). That guy who was filmed standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square (hope most know of him) seems to serve as an example of this personal identity type: He didn’t lose pride in so doing, though he likely knew he was taking the risk in losing all his social capital, if not also his very life (potentially via torture). Else said, he wasn’t humiliated by the powers that disdained him and wanted him to be “put in his place” of subservience, this while seeming to retain his humility (and dignity in so being)—and the risks he took were for others of the same character which he himself identified with (those who desired non-autocratic governance), rather than people of particular colors, ethnicities, etc.

Place IMOs wherever you may; and, again, I know its complex; society has always been a conflux of these two personal-identity worldviews; and the two identity types can be easily found comingling in most individuals to different extents.

In short: The less humble, the greater the ego(ism), and hence the greater the potential humiliation—and, thereby, the greater the want/need to crush others who could make one humble. (acknowledgedly, this coming from someone with an ego of notable size, me thinks). Those who are humble in dignified manners, however, will in due measure not be humiliated by ridicule (though they might lose their ability to accomplish what they want).

I’ll cut these opinions short. Still, I’d like to read more views out there concerning identity and humiliation in general. Nice topic.

In general, I think people are born competitive and most animals are extremely competitive besides humans. It's just how things are and culturally cooking may have been portrayed in television as educational and non-competitive but what we're seeing now is just the natural progression of things.

I think you are reminiscing about a past that never really existed but perhaps I'm wrong. It's just unsurprising to me that a treasured skill is thought of competitively. I'm a rather competitive person myself, I don't like to lose and if I don't think competitively about something it's just because I don't care about it. It's been like that since I was young and since then I've met kids who were exactly like me - can't stand to lose, in anything and the cultural representation of this is a product of our biological values interpretative proclivities.

In short: The less humble, the greater the ego(ism), and hence the greater the potential humiliation—and, thereby, the greater the want/need to crush others who could make one humble. (acknowledgedly, this coming from someone with an ego of notable size, me thinks). Those who are humble in dignified manners, however, will in due measure not be humiliated by ridicule (though they might lose their ability to accomplish what they want). — javra

I think you'll actually find the greatest potential humiliation comes from not big egos but weak egos and insecurity. Imagine this, a girl has been trying to choose a dress for the prom, she thinks about it really hard and goes with this yellow dress, she's really not sure about whether others' will like it but she hopes they will. She goes to prom with her yellow dress and walking in she sees one of the most popular girls in school. She laughs and says "omg what a disgusting dress" in front of everybody.

She's horrified! All of her worse fears came true.

What if it wasn't an insecure girl though, someone who wore this yellow dress and didn't care at all. She thinks "who does this bitch think she is, making fun of my dress?"

More examples like imagine you really enjoy tennis, your new friend from work hears about this and asks you to fill in for his partner who can't play, you agree - confident in your skills. You rock up, thinking you will be showing off your skills but quickly as you start to play, you realise these guys are much better than you.

Your co-worker is watching you mess up all the time and saying "don't worry about it" but you feel you're letting him down. Everyone from work thinks you're really good at tennis, how would you feel thinking you'll be exposed when you go back to work after the game? Did he tell anyone?

What's the difference between feeling embarrassed and humiliated?

It's about whether you perhaps think your teammate is not actually fine with you making mistakes, you wonder if he is thinking "oh god, this guy sucks, I should have asked someone else" or not. This feeling of losing status. I agree with unenlightened on this. People who think their high status is untouchable are less likely to feel humiliated than people who care about their status and fear to lose it. So whether you've got a big ego or not, only impacts how likely you are to perceive loss of status, bigger ego mightn't see it as easily because they always see themselves in an unrealistically positive light.

Well that is your judgement to make. I will defend and deny my identity by not arguing either way. Indeed, I am not arguing against competition and zero sum games. I'm just saying that when I was a kid, we used to go to the beach and build a sandcastle, and pick up some pretty wet stones and go for a swim. and nobody won, and nobody lost, and everyone got a prize of an ice cream. And that was an exciting wonderful day, even though when the stones dried out they looked rather dull. And once a year, there would be a ploughing competition, and someone would win and the others lose, but the rest of the time folks would just plough as needed, and it would be good enough. — unenlightened

I am rarely sincere, or direct on here. So this won't sound like it's either of those things.It will sound rhetorical. It isn't, but I can't prove that.

I think about these kinds of memories a lot, I have a few important ones I return to. I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that all I ultimately care about is getting back to the feeling I think you're describing.

And it also isn't a rhetorical thing when I say that I'm realizing more and more that I've unconsciously edited out the negative parts of these memories. Kids are dicks, kick over other kids sandcastles. Perfect memories usually are founded on near-perfect repressions. These idylls feel uncomfortably close to the idylls of nostalgic germans or russians circa when its relevant

A lot to go at here, so forgive me if I ignore some stuff. First, a defence of my memory, from a very brief google:

I think you are reminiscing about a past that never really existed but perhaps I'm wrong. — Judaka

And if that doesn't teach you to respect your elders, I don't know what will.

Humiliation can be defined as depriving someone of their previously held pride. Double-checking with Wiktionary, it can also be defined as making someone humble, i.e. endowing them with humility.

Here’s a possible monkey wrench thrown in: humility is not always a personal negative, as humiliation is understood to always be. — javra

I think this is more or less in line with what I have beens saying: I want to stay away from positive and negative, because these constructions are reflexive. If humility is a virtue, then it gives status and is a source of pride. This is a rabbit hole of paradox I acknowledge but would like to simply avoid because the conversation will become impossible.

But generally, we are playing in the field of competing images, and some images are supported by power structures. So if I think I'm a damn fine philosopher, but everyone else on the site thinks I'm a pedantic old fart and not worth talking to, then my self image is liable to be challenged. I don't know really if I want to say that there is a fact of the matter or not - I have in mind Van Gogh not selling a painting in his lifetime... Still he had artist friends. Here, the images with power are those of the moderators and any who already have their respect (see the feedback again?). If they think I'm not worth talking to, then that cannot be ignored the way an ordinary member's opinion of me can.

Those who identify with a zero-sum worldviews shall always be humiliated in being made humble. In this worldview, to not be on top of others is to necessarily be trampled by those who are on top. Here, to be humble is to be trampled upon as someone else’s inferior (and being trampled upon is here always shame-worthy).

The same entailment does not apply to those who do not so identify with zero-sum worldviews (egalitarians included, I presume). More likely, here the “other” is found to be those who strictly pertain to a zero-sum worldview of winner/looser relations—regardless of their physical attributes (be they rich or poor, etc.). That guy who was filmed standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square (hope most know of him) seems to serve as an example of this personal identity type: He didn’t lose pride in so doing, — javra

This is quite interesting to me. It looks as though there are in the case of the guy in front of the tanks, 2 conflicting world views, both of which might be zero sum, but with opposing signs ... the guy is hero or villain he is humiliated or the army is humiliated.

If so, then it doesn't quite get to the place I am wanting to contrast with zero sum. There is nothing ordinary about the guy or his act.

And it also isn't a rhetorical thing when I say that I'm realizing more and more that I've unconsciously edited out the negative parts of these memories. Kids are dicks, kick over other kids sandcastles. Perfect memories usually are founded on near-perfect repressions. These idylls feel uncomfortably close to the idylls of nostalgic germans or russians circa when its relevant — csalisbury

Yes, I'm not really in the nostalgia business as such, because (a) it was crap at the time, and (b) it lead to this. I hope I'm doing something more interesting, which is to start to tease out some of the forces behind social change. I am partizan in finding a certain worldview abhorrent and destructive, but I'm not promoting the good old days at all; they were worse in many ways and more competitive in someways, more humiliating, more cruel. I'm only trying to illustrate a distinction, and open up a possibility.

I think you'll actually find the greatest potential humiliation comes from not big egos but weak egos and insecurity. — Judaka

You bring a good counter example. I’m tempted to theorize that we are humiliated in the examples you’ve given on account of valuing the opinions of those who humiliate us to the point that our self-esteem is dependent on their opinions. Were we to not value their opinions, we’d be injured, hurt, would possibly lose social capital, but not in modes that represent (at least what I interpret to be) humiliation—which, to me, indicates a loss of personal dignity.

Or—my ego sayin’ this might be an even better rebuttal—big egos necessarily require insecure egos to be subservient in order to so be or become big egos. Deprived of subservient insecure egos, big egos become insecure egos themselves, that are then subservient to other big egos. If true, it’s the flipside of the same coin, or of the same worldview. Insecure egos require praise from without in order to feel dignified—and will often become big egos themselves when this praise is consistent (thereby safeguarding that they no longer feel insecure by means of being big egos).

Gandhi might exemplify someone who was neither. The guy was humble (not weak, but quite confident and capable without being inflated) and was ridiculed galore at the time by his oppressors. His self-esteem was not contingent on popular opinion. And, although he ended up winning his battle, there was no guarantee of this. If he would have lost, he would have lost big time. But I doubt he would have died feeling humiliated.

So if a person wears extravagant clothing not to show off or to get compliments but due to it being an honest portrayal of what they deem to be aesthetic, and is well grounded in their reasoning and emotions, some popular other claiming the attire to be awful will not humiliate the person—because the person will know better. No big ego required. Though the experience would likely yet be unpleasant for the individual.

What's the difference between feeling embarrassed and humiliated? — Judaka

Hm. I can only speak for my current state of understanding. To me humiliation cuts to the very marrow of bone, such that one’s sense of dignity becomes lost, whereas embarrassment does not. One can be embarrassed and still hold dignity in so being.

People who think their high status is untouchable are less likely to feel humiliated than people who care about their status and fear to lose it. So whether you've got a big ego or not, only impacts how likely you are to perceive loss of status, bigger ego mightn't see it as easily because they always see themselves in an unrealistically positive light. — Judaka

In the book/movie Dangerous Liaisons, the villainess had one of the bigger egos one can imagine. Yet when publicly booed at the end of the story, was mortified by humiliation. Does this seem unrealistic to you? (Other easily expressed examples don’t currently come to mind).

At any rate, I’ve mentioned a simplified theory of what I think might be going on. Though, again, I’m aware that human psychology is very complex.

What do you make of the above? Would you say Gandhi had a big ego and, if so, why?



I’ll get back to your post at a later time.

People who think their high status is untouchable are less likely to feel humiliated than people who care about their status and fear to lose it. So whether you've got a big ego or not, only impacts how likely you are to perceive loss of status, bigger ego mightn't see it as easily because they always see themselves in an unrealistically positive light. — Judaka

Trump might be a good example. He’s continually ruthlessly ridiculed and yet appears to remain ever confident. Sociopathic narcissism could make him a special case, however, if that’s an accurate diagnosis.

Tangled up in the blue humiliation game is the factor that is applied to oneself by oneself.
Somewhere in the formation of identity in the Erik Erikson sense of the development of personality, individuals start kicking their own asses.
The activity is closely related to social norms and structures of value. But it has a life of its own. It is difficult to describe by itself. It is mostly known as attempts to circumscribe or negate an agent.
To explain it puts it a distance. To not explain it lets it rule without protest.
There it is.

Humiliation definitely isn't predicated on valuing other peoples' opinions it's predicated on caring about other peoples' opinions. That care is not necessarily based on respect either.

You can feel humiliated by messing up in front of someone you look down on precisely because you look down on them and you don't want them thinking you're not better than they are. That's why people with big egos can be very defensive and insecure, they have to be the best at everything, never admit they're wrong, they are never graceful in defeat and don't like to praise others.

Or—my ego sayin’ this might be an even better rebuttal—big egos necessarily require insecure egos to be subservient in order to so be or become big egos. Deprived of subservient insecure egos, big egos become insecure egos themselves — javra

Big ego comes from a feeling of superiority which is generally reinforced either with biological proclivities or interpretative reinforcement. That can be a belief in your intellectual superiority, the superiority of your character or beliefs but those are just relatable examples, there are lots.

Lots of people thinking you're awesome can create that feeling of superiority but it isn't the only pre-requisite.

So if a person wears extravagant clothing not to show off or to get compliments but due to it being an honest portrayal of what they deem to be aesthetic, and is well grounded in their reasoning and emotions, some popular other claiming the attire to be awful will not humiliate the person—because the person will know better. No big ego required. Though the experience would likely yet be unpleasant for the individual. — javra

Goth culture is a classic example of this being true. They expect others not to like their attire, it's not something they predicate their ego on that everyone will like it and I suppose they become desensitised to it. Someone like Gandhi is an example of a very strong ego, which means, it's based on very strong and stable things. Things like his beliefs, his morals and his motivations - not things which people other than himself can challenge easily. Compare that to how cool you think you look, well, people can contest that very easily and that's a huge problem for you. It means you need to take those kinds of criticisms seriously. They assault your belief in yourself, your pride and your identity.

In the book/movie Dangerous Liaisons, the villainess had one of the bigger egos one can imagine. Yet when publicly booed at the end of the story, was mortified by humiliation. Does this seem unrealistic to you? (Other easily expressed examples don’t currently come to mind). — javra

@praxis gave a perfect example of Trump, a person who isn't fazed whatsoever by criticism because it appears he views a failure to see him as a great guy is a character deficit in of itself. He calls the media liars, he gives racist explanations for why African-Americans didn't vote for him and he insults his opponents viciously.

Much like a Goth, Trump is still not like Gandhi in having a strong ego, it's just that Trump has become desensitised and dismissive of most criticism from most people. Your villainess may have predicated her ego on a perceived outward perception of her which when undermined caused humiliation. I think doing this to some degree is normal and healthy but having a big ego makes you more susceptible to it and not less. Only people who have conditions for their ego which preclude certain criticism or criticism from certain people can make those ideas irrelevant. I think truth is an example for most people, that's why being in denial to avoid humiliation is so common.

But generally, we are playing in the field of competing images, and some images are supported by power structures. — unenlightened

I very much agree with this.

This is quite interesting to me. It looks as though there are in the case of the guy in front of the tanks, 2 conflicting world views, both of which might be zero sum, but with opposing signs ... the guy is hero or villain he is humiliated or the army is humiliated.

If so, then it doesn't quite get to the place I am wanting to contrast with zero sum. — unenlightened

For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to try to distill two identity types and hope the end result won’t sound too fictitious. On one side is the authoritarian; this guy can only be when and if there are subordinates/losers/weaklings/idiots/etc. by which his proud title of dominator/winner/strong guy/intellectual that is of a different class than the inferiors is gained; here is found supremacist attitudes and autocratic governance. On the other side is the egalitarian; this guy believes in the ideal that we are all at least birthed of equal value and deserve to be treated impartially for what we are as persons, at the very least before the law; here is found a far more complex grouping of beliefs that include those of multicultural attitudes (even if it only means not visiting a foreign country as though one were taking a trip to Disneyland), democratic ethos and governance, and a valuing for objectivity, impartiality, and truth … here you can on occasion also find tree-huggers and we-are-all-one-ers … it’s a complex bunch.

The two are in conflict, because their wants are directly antagonistic. To the authoritarian, the egalitarian’s want to make his environment more egalitarian indicates that the equalitarian is a direct threat to the authoritarian’s wellbeing; the more egalitarian things become, the more the authoritarian loses his status of supremacy and hence his very being; the equalitarian is a source of terror, and the sole roundabout means at the disposal of the authoritarian to safeguard his very life and identity is to destroy the egalitarian’s identity as such—either via death or via some form of enslavement. Ditto for the equalitarian; he too finds the authoritarian guy to be a threat to his life and identity; only that the egalitarian tends to want to turn the authoritarian into someone who is also egalitarian, for that’s what in the nature of egalitarians to want. The egalitarian thinks, we’ll then be buds and both enjoy the gist of John Lennon’s “Imagine”. But what he often does not see is that, were he to be successful, he’d destroy the authoritarian’s identity as such—turning him into something he has so far not been.

The authoritarian does his best to humiliate the equalitarian by trying to make him feel like an inferior, which can include leaving him penniless—unless the equalitarian starts playing the authoritarian’s game of giving homage to what the authoritarian wills (much like a mafia cartel, this is when the authoritarian claims to be responsible for keeping his subordinates safe from harm and whatnot).

The equalitarian does his best to humiliate the authoritarian by shouting things like, “shame, shame, shame!” when the authoritarian lies, cheats, steals, etc. … not really carrying that the authoritarian couldn’t give two dimes about this word which reference an emotion he’s never personally experienced. Still, egalitarians for the most part don’t find great conform in humiliating others. Restraining others when appropriate, sure, but with as much dignity as is feasibly possible.

But to shorten this up: the two are, in an odd enough way, themselves stuck in a zero-sum dilemma of sorts. The authoritarian must destroy the identity of the egalitarian if the authoritarian is to maintain his way of life—and this by making the equalitarian into a fearful inferior that learns to love kissing ass and Big Brother. Conversely, the egalitarian can only maintain his way of life if he destroys the present identity of the authoritarian—this by turning the authoritarian into that which the authoritarian has always despised as being weak, stupid, mushy, etc.

Still, two authoritarians in the same room will antagonistically conflict till one is the top dog over the other. Here, there can be only one winner in the zero-sum game—with quote unquote lesser winners being those who kiss ass properly.

Two egalitarians in the same room will do their best to coexist, and will often be benefited by their efforts, with mushy aspects such as gained wisdom, fraternal love, etc. Here, the zero-sum game is won when everyone becomes, or else is, of an egalitarian ethos.

Humanity has always been composed of both characters, and these have always been antagonistic toward each other in their own ways. I’ll add my observation that villains most always tend to be of an authoritarian slant.

To get back to the example of the guy who stood in front of a tank. Because he was antagonistic to the authoritarianism of his environment, I place him in the egalitarian camp. But I still don’t believe that he stood any chance of being humiliated. Suppose a tank ran over a leg. He’d have felt pain galore, but, I’m thinking, not humiliation because his ideals (and his accordance to them) would have remained intact.

It’s the ideal of being top dog (and accordance to this ideal) that becomes damaged when one loses material things, be this legs or wealth or the popular opinion of the times (here thinking of abolitionist in the US: they were in the minority, and initially didn’t have popular opinion on their side). This causing autocrats, roughly speaking, to be humiliated by such events—but not egalitarians. The egalitarian black slave who was caught in the act of being of an egalitarian ethos and then viciously whipped may have lost a great many things, but not their dignity.

My late night way of going about my reply.



I'll reply later.

I don't want to dismiss the personal side of identity, but lest you get too comfortable there, consider the character of someone in Nazi Germany - It matters little their personality type, their belief, confidence, humility or any other psychological condition, if the SS declares them to be a Jew then off to the camps they go. Or if you are aware, the various folks who for one reason or another are stripped of their citizenship, and sent somewhere, or forbidden to go somewhere 'My home' can remain my home in my imagination, but can be removed from me physically anyway. And that is unavoidable humiliation; you can think what you like - in Lala land.

Having by now read your post, I agree with most everything you’ve stated. Goths can serve as a good example of strong but not big egos, yes.



To be in pain, pissed, or even in states of despair over the injustice that befalls oneself is, to you, to be in states of humiliation without exception. OK

Your argument for this in simplified format:

I don't want to dismiss the personal side of identity, but [...] you can think what you like - in Lala land. — unenlightened

OK

Not much left to discuss on my part.

Your argument for this in simplified format:

I don't want to dismiss the personal side of identity, but [...] you can think what you like - in Lala land. — javra

No, I don't think you're catching my drift. What I think of myself, that I am British, that I am a fine philosopher, red hot lover etc. is important, but there are others, faceless bureaucrats, moderators, the lovely local ladies, who by their actions confirm or deny that identity. That the lovely ladies like to visit confirms my identity and realises it. makes it a reality, rather than my fantasy. There is personal identity, and there is social identity and it is in the interaction or reconciliation between them that humiliation or elevation takes place.