NCJ Number
142021
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 33 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1993) Pages: 1-18
Date Published
1993
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This article considers the arguments of Elias that shame became more important in the affect structure of citizens with the demise of feudalism and argues that shame has social power to control crime in both cities and small towns.
Abstract
Elias did not consider the movement away from shame and toward brutal punishment in crime control directed at the lower classes in the 17th and 18th centuries. During this period, the problem of crime was most visibly identified as a growing lower class problem in urban areas that required suppression with maximum brutality. This period also demonstrated the failure of stigmatization and punitive excess and opened the way for reintegrative ideals to gather support in the Victorian era and beyond. In viewing shame as a fear experience which generates self-control, Elias did not distinguish between shame and guilt. The Victorian era was one in which the policies of outcasting were gradually replaced by integration, first in the form of private charities which attempted to make the poor reputable and deserving and eventually by integrative ideology of the welfare state. Concomitantly, criminal justice policies became more humane and integrative. In the 20th century, many politicians believe that informal social control is a luxury only small communities can use to secure the dominion of their citizens. In large industrialized nations, many government officials contend there is no choice but to give up on communitarianism and sacrifice freedom to a strong centralized system of formal social control. The author disputes this pessimism about the role of community in contemporary mass societies. He concludes that there is no structural inevitability about the impotence of shaming in industrialized societies and that modernization does not necessarily result in a society where shaming does not count. 44 references