For Shame

The World Socialist website includes today a report on a North Carolina man, Harry Taylor, who confronted Bush during one of his recent events. Taylor

expressed the hope that the president had the “the humility and the grace” to be ashamed of himself “inside” himself.

Joan Copjec's discussion of shame in the new collection, Lacan: The Silent Partners provides an valuable counterpoint to Taylor's remarks.

I.    Here is part of the article from the WSWS:

Finally, Harry Taylor, seated in the balcony, was called on. He spoke slowly and soberly. “You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that,” he told Bush. “But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you’d like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are—”

Bush interrupted him, facetiously, “I’m not your favorite guy. Go ahead. Go on, what’s your question?”

Taylor continued, “Okay, I don’t have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I—in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and—”

Some in the audience booed. Bush intervened, benevolently, “No, wait a sec—let him speak.”

Taylor went on, in the same deliberate fashion, “And I would hope—I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself.”

Taylor voices his own shame and in confronting Bush with this hopes to incite a sense of shame in the President. The President refuses--or is pathologically unable to feel any shame at all.

II.    Copjec's chapter on shame, anxiety, and affect, "May '68, The Emotional Month,' begins by recounting Lacan's plea that his students display some shame. She writes:

The final aim of psychoanalysis, it turns out, is the production of shame.

In fact, the analyst should herself provoke shame, be an agent of it. Thus, Copjec traces the topic of shame in Lacan's writing and finds that

shame marks not the social link as such, but that particular link which analysis is intent on forging.

Indeed,

For Lacan, shame is the subject's ethical relation towards being, his own and the other's.

Avoiding shame is precipitated by superego, that is, by a transformation of anxiety into guilt and the accompanying provision of a sham jouissance (with this I've far too briefly encapsulated a more intricate argument--it involves in part the unbearableness of anxiety, an interesting discussion of the university discourse, and a critique of Levinas  that is beyond the discussion I want to introduce here). At any rate, Copjec writes:

What anxiety exposes as ungraspable or unclaimable jouissance is that which the guilty shamelessly grasp for in the obsequious respect they pay to a past sacralized as their future. The feverish pursuit of this future ... is the poor substitute...the guilty acceptance in the place of the real sweetness of jouissance.

She concludes that Lacan's call to shame should thus be understood in terms of a call to relinquish our attachment to a sham jouissance.

Shame is not a failed flight from being, but a flight into being, where being--the being of surfaces, of social existence--is viewed as that which protects us from the ravages of anxiety ... Unlike the flight or transformation of guilt, however, shame does not sacrifice jouissance's opacity, which is finally what 'keeps it real' ... But instead of inhibiting us, this opacity now gives us that distance from ourselves and our world that allows us creatively to alter both; it gives us, in other words, a privacy, an interiority unbreachable even by ourselves.

III.    Harry Taylor attempts to induce in Bush a sense of shame. This attempt is an attempt to establish a different kind of social link, one that is more ethical, more in keeping with Bush's rhetoric regarding freedom. It is remarkable that Taylor confronts his own shame, taking responsibility for his position as a citizen within a country whose electoral procedures led to Bush. He doesn't simply blame the President. Nor does he engage him with a question. That is, he doesn't carry on the pretense of some kind of democratic deliberation--having already articulated the very factual reasons that democracy is clearly the wrong word for the politics that goes on in the US today. Instead, Taylor rejects the faulty jouissance offered by the President--and eagerly lapped up by the crowd and the msm as is described in the WSWS article--indicating the possibility of something more than what we have, something that was promised, something gestured to rhetorically, but missing nonetheless.

The crudeness, the obscene, stupid cruelty of Bush's remarks are indications of his shamelessness. He has no interiority to speak of, to speak from, or to fasten a speaking that would not grasp for the horrifying future we see unfolding before us. We should take seriously the words spoken to Senator Joe McCarthy: "have you no shame sir, have you no shame?"

But, what do we do when the answer is, "No--I have none"?

Comments

[Jodi]

Roger--I'm not sure about the line between sin and shame; nor am I sure about your characterization of the evangelical minister. I can be convinced, though. Here are my doubts: isn't it the case that one needs a certain shame in order to say I am a sinner and need to be forgiven? So, didn't Bush have to feel ashamed about his drinking and decide to give his life to Christ?

Also, my experience in Southern Baptist churches in the 70s was that of ministers trying to get people to feel like they were sinners, and I guess I associate that as well with getting people to feel a sense of shame.

We can think about sexual shame: fundamentalist ministers want people to have a sense of sexual shame such that they only act sexually in very specific, narrow ways.

[Chabert]

Jodi, by pretending to think I object to deleting or banning a commentator, you are concealing that you know what I objected to was your conspiracy to 'out' someone you thought was the Troll of Sorrow and publicly accuse that person of being the author of the comments. You are concealing that I told you this could be actionable, that Matt consulted a legal expert who reaffirmed that, and that you and Matt went ahead and did it on this blog without permission from the other contributors who could also have been held liable. Beyond the vileness of such vigilantism in general, recklessly disregarding possible consequences to complete strangers, it was deceitful and manipulative vis a vis your co bloggers, myself included; you did not ask permission of the others because you knew it would have been denied; In the end I think it cost you, Jodi, less than a grand - perhaps your little moment of power was worth it - but it could have been much more, and for everyone.

I am sure you did not for a moment suppose I considered you kapos in the making for deleting comments; I made abundantly clear I thought deleting was your legitimate option and urged you to content yourself with exercising it instead of your preferred irresponsible and underhanded course. As I am sure you recall. So your pretense of innocent misreading here is rather despicable.

[Jodi]

Re 1. "Jodi, by pretending to think I object to deleting or banning a commentator, you are concealing that you know what I objected to was your conspiracy to 'out' someone you thought was the Troll of Sorrow and publicly accuse that person of being the author of the comments."

Actually, I wasn't pretending anything. I was thinking about lm's comments regarding deleting, general discussions about censorship, and different approaches to those matters. I didn't think the matter was one of continental philosophy and I wasn't sure exactly how the whole LS bunch or whatever got tied together--especially since there was disagreement about the Troll business. And, there was not a conspiracy to out someone--there was discussion about outing and escalating as a way to get the Troll to stop. There was lots of disagreement on this matter as well.

2. You are concealing that I told you this could be actionable, that Matt consulted a legal expert who reaffirmed that, and that you and Matt went ahead and did it on this blog without permission from the other contributors who could also have been held liable.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about this stuff at all. It didn't occur to me--especially after my lawyer had the suit thrown out because in fact it's not actionable. Also, Matt did not link LS to my I Cite post--I did. And, yes, there was discussion and disagreement about matters of permission and consensus.

3. Beyond the vileness of such vigilantism in general, recklessly disregarding possible consequences to complete strangers, it was deceitful and manipulative vis a vis your co bloggers, myself included; you did not ask permission of the others because you knew it would have been denied; In the end I think it cost you, Jodi, less than a grand - perhaps your little moment of power was worth it - but it could have been much more, and for everyone.

I didn't think of it as a moment of power--I might have, but since I was linking to someone else--who I admire for being brave enough to try to stop the ToS bullshit--I really only hoped that the trolling would stop since nothing else had worked. I didn't ask permission because we hadn't decided that permission was necessary. And, because there was mostly the link and little else at LS, but more at I Cite, and still more at the initial site, it didn't seem like a risk.

4. I am sure you did not for a moment suppose I considered you kapos in the making for deleting comments; I made abundantly clear I thought deleting was your legitimate option and urged you to content yourself with exercising it instead of your preferred irresponsible and underhanded course. As I am sure you recall. So your pretense of innocent misreading here is rather despicable.

I actually wasn't sure why you say kapos in the making. I wouldn't have known about it if Anthony hadn't brought it up. I thought it could have had something to do with television or Zizek, but that didn't fit the context and since no one has talked about troll outing for a long time, that didn't occur to me. But, to be clear, I don't think that outing the troll was irresponsible and underhanded. I still think it was the right thing to do. I'm sad that one blog closed down about the issue and I'm sad that people use the threat of law suits to shut other folks down, or try to.

[Chabert]

"especially after my lawyer had the suit thrown out because in fact it's not actionable"

I think you're fibbing. I think the plaintiff dropped the suit. Of course this is easily found out - court decisions are a matter of public record.

What you did at LS - doing something without consulting the others because you knew they would object if you had consulted them - is the definition of underhanded. Of course you are underhanded habitually, as far as I can see, about the pettiest things.

"I thought it could have had something to do with television or Zizek"

Eh? Look at your comment.

Is says: "That seems quite a stretch if it extends out of practices of deleting the Troll or Sorrow"

[Matt]

Hi Chabert,

I really don't have much to say here. The actions as well as sentiments you attribute to me, from almost a year ago, are indeed false, as Jodi points out. I never took part in any "outing" of anyone, and in fact for my part argued specifically against it. I'd be happy to accept your apology and then delete this exchange as pretty hopelessly off-topic, counter-productive and of--to say the least--questionable taste and tact.

[Jodi]

I'll be more precise: my lawyer informed the troll that CA law did not extend to me and that it was in his interest to drop the suit; he then drew up the relevant forms so that all the troll had to do was sign them. So, he did not go to court to get the case dismissed; that didn't arise because he informed the troll of the relevant statutues on personal jurisdiction. The suit was dropped after the lawyer intervened.

I don't understand your remark about 'objecting to lawsuits'--and sure I was interested in suing or making a complaint to the police against the Troll. It's pretty clear (at least now) that there wasn't anything police could do.

"I thought it could have had something to do with television or Zizek" Yeah--I didn't say this because it didn't fit but I wasn't sure where the kapo line could have come from--the context that I could gather with a brief glance came from lm's remarks which is how I got to the stuff on deleting. But the comment does say that if it extends from deleting then it's a stretch, which then necessarily leaves open the possibility that there are things that might not be as much of a stretch which I thought might have to do with television or Zizek since you get all riled up about these things.

[Chabert]

Anthony:

"Yes, you're right. Physical threats of violence aren't a big deal from someone who was kicked out of the army, after being trained as a sniper, for mental instability. No reason to try and get that person to leave you alone and then when they don't to turn to legal means."

Mn, well it would seem to me, as I mentioned repeatedly, the worst thing someone with kids could do, the sickest thing, would be, if there is a possibility, however remote, of real danger, to provoke someone from california, who could have a gun. But evdently Jodi didn't think it was a significant risk, to her, to anyone else on LS, or to her children. We had this conversation at the time, Anthony, as you recall I am sure. My guess is not that Jodi is unconcerned with her safety, but that she really didn't take these threats seriously, and for it seems to me pretty good reason. I myself would not have taken the same risk, as I made very clear at the time.

"Perhaps had he threatened to rape your spouse, then you'd be a Kapo to."

Well anthony, both you and the troll of sorrow have threatened to kill me on my blog. As you certainly recall. And you have left messages and sent me abusive emails informing me you have an erection. My lawyer could make much of this of course. But I really think that would be overreacting, don't you?

"For what it's worth, I thought he should have been unmasked because he uses his anonymity to be a little shit. Oh no, I said shit. Just blame my erection."

there you go again.

"People say you called Agamben an anti-Semite because you write poorly and it appeared you had said that. Only afterwards, when you were forced to be clear, was it apparent what you meant."

In fact Kostko admitted he was accusing me of having made remarks a memnber of the weblog had actually made. Of coursre you are free to produce the so badly written and misleading passage here for us to see.

"Please, by all means, keep lying. It's got you quite a few fans. And stop with the patronizing tone, really, you have demonstrated, among other things that you aren't all that perceptive.

Anthony"

Well what should I do with this anthony? Your friend Kotsko has informed me you've been lying about your financial situation. This puts several of your emails to me in a ...very dubious light. What would you think was jusftified? Shall I forward them to the Universities you apply to? Employers? Your mother? What do you think would be appropriate? Righteous troll hunters, do advise me.

[Padraig]

On Sorrow Trolls, Kapos, Quaint Etiquette, and ...

I'm not sure what Lacan might have conjectured regarding shame as the cyber-subject's ethical relation to trolling ... all the s[h]ame:

TROLLPLAY [shamelessly crossposted to the corresponding post at LCC]:

Perhaps [with the advice of long-time net colleague David Kirkpatrick] we can expand the lexicon into a six-sub-part taxonomy for purposes of distinguishing between:

Trolls: nihilistic shit-disturbers who attempt to set off flame wars for the sake of creating disruptions and discord. Are they pyromaniacs because they are voyeurs? Or because they are exhibitionists? There is pathological trolling, then there is "social trolling" (e.g. the occasional sarcastic cheap shot intended enliven a discussion by getting under someone's skin for the amusement of everyone annoyed by that someone.

Troils: true believers (the opposite of nihilistic?) who get roiled up about various issues and who therefore tend to prolong or escalate any flame war because they feel deeply about one side of an issue or another. Tend to be political ideologues. In their mildest incarnation, troils merge into the normal range of people who argue passionately,which can be a good thing. At their worst, they tend to transform debates into holy wars. And the holier the war, the less regard is paid to the secularism of Geneva convention.

Trowls: system-builders who attempt to impose their own theory on every issue; their major sin is to create a mountain out of a molehill.

Trowls are likely to stay on-topic but create the risk of making the topic itself seem tedious or distorted. Trowls can resemble troils in the ferocity with which they defend themselves, but unlike troils, they are not part of movement or religion, they are their own cult.

Trulls: the opposite of trowls, they are professional skeptics, always arguing in favor of the null hypothesis, of the improvability of any thesis, of the ineffability of all esthetic criteria. Trulls are more likely to resemble trolls than troils because there is nihilistic and anti-systematic quality to solopsism. They are true non-believers. But unlike trolls, they are more likely to hurl incomprehensible Zen koans
than familiar slogans of provocation.

Trills: cheerleaders who have nothing new to say but will join any pile-on, whether by chirping favorably in favor of their heroes or drilling their enemies for blood. They aren't trolls because they don't
initiate things, they aren't trowls because they don't have ideas of their own, they aren't trulls because they lack the superior detachment, and they differ from troils by being more like policemen than politicians or followers rather than activists.

Trules: self-appointed arbiters of any argument and dousers of any flame wars and/or correctors of any grammatical, spelling, factual or logical error. They work-to-rule, as it were. A trule can dip into any
newsgroup regardless of the topic because it is the form of the
discussion that most interests the trule, not its content. In their mild form, trules can have a civilizing effect. At their extreme, however, they give inspiration to the cry "kill the umpire!"

But for a really good, status-quo-shattering flame war, you need a rainbow coalition of trolls,troils, trowls, trulls, trills and trules. The trail they leave unavoidably precipitates quite a trial of elaborate shame displacement ...

[Chabert]

Matt, you're full of shit, as you know.

"I'll be more precise: my lawyer informed the troll that CA law did not extend to me and that it was in his interest to drop the suit; he then drew up the relevant forms so that all the troll had to do was sign them."

'More precise,' oh Jodi. Case "thrown out because not actionable" is NOT ambiguous. In fact the suit was dropped. You lied to make it seem as though you had a victory in court on this matter, which you did not.

That's par for your standard of straightforwardness.

[Jodi]

I didn't lie; I didn't put it very well but I didn't lie. The Troll wouldn't have dropped it if it were actionable--he agreed after seeing that CA law didn't apply to me because I don't live in CA.

Actually, quite a few people know about the case and know the details so it never occurred to me that folks would assume 'a victory in court'--it didn't go to court. I did have to hire a lawyer and pay not insignificant legal fees. Fortunately, I also learned a little bit about this stuff.

But, no, I wasn't lying and am not lying. I don't have anything to hide about it--for crying out loud, I was sued and that sucked and I had to get a lawyer and pay him right before Christmas for what I thought was a nuisance, bs suit. And, I still do. But, in the interests of time, money, and peace of mind, I got the suit dismissed (the lawyer called the troll etc) rather than pushing it. Not a day in court. Just a pain in the ass.

What is really weird to me is how invested you are in this matter--one that happened over 6 months ago. I was sued and don't really think about it much anymore. Yet, it seems quite fresh to you.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

I've lied about my financial situation? No, I don't think so. I don't think Adam looks at my bank records all that often and I don't really tell him what they are. Frankly, I'm a bit pissed if he did say something about this to you, but that's his want I suppose.

As to publishing a private email, well, that's really quite underhanded of you now isn't it. You twist words real well.

"Well anthony, both you and the troll of sorrow have threatened to kill me on my blog. As you certainly recall."

No, I haven't. For one - I don't know who "you" are. You know, besides "Le Colonel Chabert" and I really doubt that this is your real name. Further, I've never even taken steps to find out who you are, though apparently I could easily start by asking someone who lives with me (but frankly, I don't care). As to the other - I'm not a violent person. At all.

"And you have left messages and sent me abusive emails informing me you have an erection."

I have not informed you of any erections. The phrase "Blame it on my erection", as I'm sure you know, is mocking your very poor reading of V for Vendetta. You are the one who brought up erections. As to the so-called abusive comments and emails, you invited me to ask you for money. I did so and you declined. If you don't want to have angry comments, don't call me a Kapo. Leave it at that.

[Chabert]

MATT:
"And I would actually thank you *not* to reproduce any private correspondences between us, however long ago in the past they may have been. "

sure thing. But you see then if you have the least sense of honour, you must not make false assertions regarding what the correspondence contained.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

I am sorry for pointing out something on your site which others had missed. Apparently no one else reads LCC anymore and so I should have just let it lie. Far too stubborn and proud sometimes, a real shortcoming. I apologize for starting this whole thing.

[Matt]

Matt, you're full of shit, as you know.

So much for that apology, I guess.

You are concealing that I told you this could be actionable, that Matt consulted a legal expert who reaffirmed that, and that you and Matt went ahead and did it on this blog without permission from the other contributors who could also have been held liable.

Actually, the facts for anyone interested in rather ancient history are this: At no point did *I* post anything of the sort. The cryptic link to a less cryptic link that may have at one point been posted was rather promptly removed, as I recall. And needless to say, at no point was LS under any risk of being held liable whatsoever, outside of the most paranoid possible imaginings.

And no, I don't particularly see how the bizarre threat of dredging up old private correspondence could alter any of these facts.

This is getting pretty embarrassing for you, however cost free; might I suggest you find some better way to get attention.

[Matt]

Anthony, don't sweat it.

Padraig, thanks for posting that. Hilarious stuff.

[new york pervert]

'As to the so-called abusive comments and emails, you invited me to ask you for money. I did so and you declined.'

Anthony--that is so fucking funny, I had no idea you'd actually worked out a pitch and tried to do 'remittance man.' Good for you. Her response was surely more unsurprising, but nevertheless much more hilarious than if she'd shelled out. I wouldn't have wanted her to be too unpredictable.

[Jodi]

Well, folks, I'm closing the comments here (I did a bit earlier but then thought that I should write something explicitly saying so--especially because it would be wrong and unfair for someone else to get blamed for shutting the comments down). I'll also add that, as should be clear from the references to the fact that I was sued, I, like several other people who have been mentioned in this unfortunate thread, blog under my own name. I don't make my points anonymously.