"THE BOOK is an outgrowth of a seminar I taught at Stanford for many years. There are many books on guilt but none that I know of deals with the subject from a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from the psychological and biological to the religious and philosophical. That is what I try to do in this book."
Why is that important?
Guilt, a complex human emotion, cannot be understood from a single disciplinary view. Individual and cultural aspects must be integrated; scientific and humanistic approaches are complementary.
Your book discusses how concepts of guilt and shame vary in different cultures. As people from distinct cultures intermingle more, are these differences blurring or growing more rigid?
Globalization is certainly changing things, and differences are blurring. However, this mostly takes the form of the rest of the world becoming more Westernized. We could also learn a good deal from Asian concepts of guilt and shame, particularly those based on the traditions of India and China. That would provide a healthy corrective on some of our more dysfunctional ideas on these moral emotions.
To what extent are these differences based on religion?
Religious traditions must be understood in their own terms as well as part of a larger system of social regulation. In that sense, Christianity has been historically viewed as the most focused on guilt as the guardian of morality, making it a good thing. By contrast, Buddhism considers guilt to be a poison that is destructive to the self; it is said that there is no guilt in Buddhism. On the other hand, it is simplistic to single out a religion, for instance Judaism or Catholicism, as singularly burdened with guilt.
What makes guilt dysfunctional?
Like other basic emotions, guilt as such is neither good nor bad, healthy or unhealthy. Think of fear. It serves an important function in alerting us to danger, but it becomes inhibiting if we are needlessly fearful. One important criterion for guilt being dysfunctional is a matter of degree. As Aristotle noted, a virtue becomes a vice by being either excessive or deficient. Feeling overly guilty—in terms of what triggers it, how bad it feels, for how long, and so on—sucks the joy out of life. On the other hand, a deficient sense of guilt turns us into psychopaths.
How did Stanford students relate to guilt in your classes? Why did they take your course?
They took the course for one of two main reasons. Some were interested in it intellectually, for instance being psychology majors. Others had a more personal interest because they were feeling burdened by an excessive sense of guilt. They were like people paying income tax on money they were not making. (Those cheating on their taxes stayed away.)
At the beginning of each course, I asked the students to describe, writing anonymously, one experience of guilt, and one of shame. As you would expect, most episodes involve minor transgressions but some going back to their childhood, and most often involving parents and siblings.
Were there any surprises?
Yes. One of the most commonly cited reasons for feeling guilty was, "being at Stanford." I thought people might feel guilty for not getting into Stanford. But why feel guilty over a good thing? One reason students give is the financial burden it puts on parents; especially for middle-class families. Another is the feeling that one did not deserve to be there; or for not making the best use of it; the sense that one does not belong there (students call it the "imposter syndrome"). However, such guilt could also be a part of a larger category called guilt over positive inequity—simply being better off than others. I discuss this in the chapter on guilt without transgressions.
How do you think electronic social networks such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter and their impact on privacy are affecting the way people feel, deal with or incite guilt, shame and embarrassment?
Interesting question. I have not seen specific studies on the impact of the social networks you mention. My guess is that the key element here would be the issue of privacy you refer to. Public exposure of the vulnerable self is a key consideration in how guilt, shame and especially embarrassment are generated. I will not be surprised if there are unintended consequences that may result from these novel ways of communication, but what those will be remains to be seen.
Incidentally, I do discuss in my book how guilt may function in a virtual world situation where people interact through their avatars—self-created fantasy selves. I came across specific instances where a person would feel guilt for cheating on his or her real-world spouse by having an affair with an avatar. In one case, when a wife discovered that her husband had had virtual sex with an avatar, she divorced him—even though he had never been unfaithful to her in real life. Fantasy and reality seem to merge in these situations.
What is the greatest insight you gained through writing this book?
Like my students, I gained from it both professionally and personally. As a psychiatrist, I had a rather narrow conception of guilt based mainly on its pathological potential and its psychoanalytic interpretations. A more extensive reading of the psychological literature broadened my perspective, as did a better understanding of evolutionary views on guilt. What I found especially compelling was a better understanding of the religious conception of guilt not only in Christianity but Judaism and Islam; and even more so in Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism, about which I knew very little to start with. A more systematic study of major moral philosophers completed the circle from the more secular perspective.
I am grateful to my Stanford colleagues who are expert in these fields for educating me. At the personal level, like some of my students, I too have been prone to pay tax on money I have not made and have now gotten a better handle on keeping those tendencies in check.
