被緊縛的花房: 仙境中的“恥”女郎[1]·恥感文化

After Altamira, all is decadence。阿爾塔米拉之後，一切藝術都衰落了。

— — 巴勃羅·魯伊斯·畢加索（西班牙語：Pablo Ruiz Picasso，1881年10月25日-1973年4月8日，西班牙著名的藝術家，法國成名，和喬治·布拉克同為立體主義的創始者，是20世紀現代藝術的主要代表人物之一）

恥感文化

In anthropological studies of different cultures the distinction between those which rely heavily on shame and those that rely heavily on guilt is an important one. A society that inculcates absolute standards of morality and relies on men’s developing a conscience is a guilt culture by definition, but a man in such a society may, as in the United States, suffer in addition from shame when he accuses himself of gaucheries which are in no way sins. He may be exceedingly chagrined about not dressing appropriately for the occasion or about a slip of the tongue. In a culture where shame is a major sanction, people are chagrined about acts which we expect people to feel guilty about. This chagrin can be very intense and it cannot berelieved, as guilt can be, by confession and atonement. A man who has sinned get relief by unburdening himself. This device of confession is used in our secular therapy and by many religious groups which have otherwise little in common. We know it bring relief. Where shame is the major sanction, a man does not experience relief when he makes his fault public even to a confessor. So long as his bad behavior does not ‘get out into the world’ he need not be troubled and confession appears to him merely a way of courting trouble. Shame cultures therefore do not provide for confessions, even to the gods. They have ceremonies for good luck rather than for expiation.

True shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good behavior, not, as true guilt cultures do, on an internalized conviction of sin. Shame is a reactio nt oothe rpeople’s criticism. A man is shamed either by being openly ridiculed and rejected or by fantasying to himself that he has been made ridiculous. In either case it is a potent sanction. But it requires an audience or at least a man’s fantasy of an audience. Guilt does not. In a nation where honor means living up to one’s own picture of oneself, a man may suffer from guilt though no man knows of his misdeed and a man’s feeling of guilt may actually berelieved by confessing his sin.

The early Puritans who settled in the United States tried to base their whole morality on guilt and ali psychiatrists know what trouble contemporary Americans have with their consciences. But shame is an increasingly heavy burden in the United States and guilt is less extremely felt than in earlier generations. In the United States this is interpreted as a relaxation of morals. There is much truth in this, but that is because we do not expect shame to do the heavy work of morality. We do not harness the acute personal chagrin which accompanies shame to our fundamental system of morality.

The Japanese do. A failure to follow their explicit signposts of good behavior, a failur et obalanc eobligatio ns or to foresee contingencies is a shame (haji). Shame, they say, is the root of virtue. A man who is sensitive to it will carry out all the rules of good behavior. ‘A man who knows shame’ is sometimes translated ‘virtuous man,’ sometimes ‘man of honor.’ shame has the same place of authority in Japanese ethics that ‘a clear conscience,’ ‘being right with God,’ and the avoidance of sin have in Western ethics. Logically enough, therefore, a man will not be punished in the afterlife. The Japanese-except for priests who know the Indian sutras-are quite unacquainted with the idea of reincarnation dependent upon one’s merit in this life, and-except for some well-instructed Christian converts-they do not recognize post-death reward and punishment or a heaven and ahell.

The primacy of shame in Japanese life means, as it does in any tribe or nation where shame is deeply felt, that any man watches the judgment of the public upon his deeds. He need only fantasy what their verdict will be, but he orients himself toward the verdict of others. When everybody is playing the game by the same rules and mutually supporting each other, the Japanese can belighthearted and easy. They can play the game with fanaticism when they feel it is one which carries out the ‘mission’ of Japan. They are most vulnerable when they attempt to export their virtues into foreign lands where their own formal signposts of good behavior do not hold. They failed in their ‘good will’ mission to Greater East Asia, and the resentment many of them felt at the attitudes of Chinese and Filipinos toward them was genuine enough.

— — Ruth Benedict，The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

在人類學對各種文化的研究中，區別以恥為基調的文化和以罪為基調的文化是一項重要工作。提倡建立道德的絕對標準並且依靠它發展人的良心，這種社會可以定義為“罪感文化”。不過，這種社會的人，例如在美國，在做了並非犯罪的不妥之事時，也會自疚而另有羞恥感。比如，有時因衣著不得體，或者言辭有誤，都會感到懊惱。在以恥為主要強制力的文化中，對那些在我們看來應該是感到犯罪的行為，那里的人們則感到懊惱。這種懊惱可能非常強烈，以至不能像罪感那樣，可以通過懺悔、贖罪而得到解脫。犯了罪的人可以通過坦白罪行而減輕內心重負。坦白這種手段已運用於世俗心理療法，許多宗教團體也運用，雖然這兩者在其他方面很少共同之處。我們知道，坦白可以解脫。但在以恥為主要強制力的地方，有錯誤的人即使當眾認錯，甚至向神父懺悔，也不會感到解脫。他反而會感到，只要不良行為沒有暴露在社會上，就不必懊喪，坦白懺悔只能是自尋煩惱。因此，恥感文化中沒有坦白懺悔的習慣，甚至對上帝懺悔的習慣也沒有。他們有祈禱幸福的儀式，卻沒有祈禱贖罪的儀式。

真正的罪感文化則依靠罪惡感在內心的反應來做善行。羞恥是對別人批評的反應。一個人感到羞恥，是因為他或者被公開譏笑、排斥，或者他自己感覺被譏笑，不管是哪一種，羞恥感都是一種有效的強制力。但是，羞恥感要求有外人在場，至少要感覺到有外人在場。罪惡感則不是這樣。有的民族中，名譽的含義就是按照自己心目中的理想自我而生活，這樣，即使惡行未被人發覺，自己也會有罪惡感，而且這種罪惡感會因坦白懺悔而確實得到解脫。

移居美國的清教徒們曾努力把一切道德置於罪惡感的基礎之上。所有精神病學者都知道，現代美國人是如何為良心所苦惱。但是在美國，羞恥感正在逐漸加重其分量，而罪惡感則已不如以前那麼敏銳。美國人把這種現象解釋為道德的松弛。這種解釋雖然也包藏著很多真理，但這是因為我們沒有指望羞恥感能對道德承擔重任。我們也不把伴隨恥辱而出現的強烈的個人惱恨納入我們道德的基本體系。

日本人正是把羞恥感納入道德體系的。不遵守明確規定的各種善行標志，不能平衡各種義務或者不能預見到偶然性的失誤，都是恥辱。他們說，知恥為德行之本。對恥辱敏感就會實踐善行的一切準則。“知恥之人” 這句話有時譯成 “有德之人”，有時譯成 “重名譽之人”。恥感在日本倫理中的權威地位與西方倫理中的 “純潔良心”、“篤信上帝”、“回避罪惡” 的地位相等。由此得出的邏輯結論則是，人死之後就不會受懲罰。日本人 — — 讀過印度經典的僧侶除外一一對那種前世功德、今生受報的輪回報應觀念是很陌生的。除了少數皈依基督教的以外，他們不承認死後報應及天堂地獄之說。

恥感在日本人生活中的重要性，恰如一切看重恥辱的部落或民族一樣，其意義在於，任何人都十分註意社會對自己行動的評價。他只需推測別人會做出什麼樣的判斷，並針對別人的判斷而調整行動。當每個人按照同一規則玩游戲並相互支援時，日本人就會愉快而輕松地參加。當他們感到這是履行日本的“使命”時，他們就會狂熱地參加。當他們試圖把自己的道德輸出到那些並不通行日本的善行標志的外國時，他們就最易遭受攻擊。他們“善良”的“大東亞”使命失敗了。許多日本人對中國人和菲律賓人所採取的態度實在感到憤慨。

— — 魯思·本尼迪克特. 菊與刀

羞恥心

子曰：“道之以政，齊之以刑，民免而無恥；道之以德，齊之以禮，有恥且格。”[譯文]孔子說：“以政令來管理，以刑法來約束，百姓雖不敢犯罪，但不以犯罪為恥；以道德來引導，以禮法來約束，百姓不僅遵紀守法，而且引以為榮。”

— — 論語‧為政

關註我，我們一起看花開花落；分享我，此生艱難，唯有結緣；

— — 繁花走線