In Defense of Social Shaming
While bullying can be harmful, the right amount of social shame can be important for regulating unwanted behavior
While the “diversity” and “equity” parts of DEI are rightfully targets of ire for their role in undermining merit and positive outcomes, less attention has been paid to the harmful impact of “inclusivity” on social and personal outcomes. I have previously argued the inclusion creates conditions where disputes become unresolvable and that it promotes narcissism by placing the self above situational constraints, there is more to digest.
Inclusivity contributes to the larger push away from self-critique and social judgement. In modern discourse, the concepts of social shaming and public judgment are often treated as relics of a less enlightened past—remnants of a culture that suppressed individual freedom and was not accepting of difference. While excessive shaming can be harmful, its fundamental role in society remains crucial. Social judgment and shaming serve as essential mechanisms for reinforcing moral standards, discouraging harmful behavior, and promoting accountability. Without these informal social tools, communities struggle to maintain cohesion, ethics, and mutual responsibility. In fact, social judgment promotes inclusivity by allowing group members to learn what counts as acceptable behavior and adjust their own to meet standards based on feedback from others so that they can become functioning members of a group or society.
The Social Function of Shame
When one experiences social judgement, it is generally accompanied by emotional responses such as guilt or shame. Because shame signals a deviation from accepted social norms, it serves as an important guide for learning behavioral standards. Unlike formal legal punishments, which require institutional enforcement, shame operates informally by coming from peers, family members, or the community at large. This social feedback mechanism is an evolutionary tool that helps regulate behavior and ensure cooperation.
Throughout history, societies have relied on shaming to dissuade individuals from actions that harm the group. From ostracizing those who betrayed trust in ancient tribes to the informal shunning of people who disregard basic courtesies today, shame has been a means of maintaining social harmony. It acts as a deterrent, signaling that certain behaviors—whether dishonesty, exploitation, or recklessness—are unacceptable. Imagine how much more reliable the MSM would be if its ideologues and activists felt shameful about their contempt for the truth and pressure to adhere to journalistic ethics?
Shame as a Moral Compass
Modern society depends on collective values to function. While not everyone must be in full agreement all the time, shared standards are essential. For example, a shared sense that corruption and cruelty are wrong motivates the regulation of such actions. However, laws alone are insufficient to regulate all undesirable behaviors. Some manipulative business practices, ideological distortions of truth, or wearing inappropriate clothing might not be illegal but it can still cause a significant amount of damage to individuals or groups. Public judgment fills this gap by exerting pressure on individuals to reconsider their actions and re-align with societal expectations.
An entirely inclusive world, one without judgment of any actions undertaken by others, would be a world without consequences for harmful actions. It is also a world in which the more dysfunctional, irresponsible and cruel are likely to take over. Without social or legal repercussions, shared space becomes the domain of the lowest common denominator. Just look at the destruction in CHAZ in Seattle or the open air drug zones in San Francisco. In many cases, community disapproval serves as a useful partner to legal enforcement in regulating behavior.
Shaming as a Nonviolent Alternative to Behavior Control
One of the strongest arguments for social shaming is that it provides a nonviolent means of discouraging harmful conduct. Instead of relying on physical coercion or legal action, societies can use reputation, criticism, and exclusion to guide individuals toward better behavior.
As an example, consider the anti-smoking campaigns of the past few decades. While legislation restricted smoking in public spaces, it was widespread social judgment that made it culturally unacceptable. Smokers faced disapproving glances, exclusion from social circles, and public criticism, which encouraged many to quit. Similarly, social media movements against sexism, environmental irresponsibility, and fraud have pushed corporations and individuals to change their ways—without requiring direct government intervention.
Part of the modern epidemic of ill health is rising rates of obesity and decreasing physical activity. Inclusivity warriors have tried to tell society that “big is beautiful” and, while there can be room for differences in size preference, it is not the case that most people find obesity to be attractive. Beyond that, advocates claim that one can be “healthy at any size,” which is a pure fiction. These arguments hold weight in the DEI space, because to criticize someone is to be non-inclusive. But criticize we should.
Striking the Right Balance
While shaming and judgment can be useful, they must be applied judiciously. Mob mentality, excessive punishment, and baseless accusations can turn legitimate criticism into cruelty. And, importantly, this is not an endorsement of the cancel culture tactics that have been used to ruin the lives of many over the past few years. Rather, it is a call for a return to standards and their enforcement. The goal of social judgment should not be to destroy lives but to encourage reform and responsibility.
The most effective forms of shaming allow individuals the opportunity to change. Instead of permanent exile or relentless ridicule, shame should be a temporary response that invites reflection. When used constructively, it can guide individuals back into society as reformed, responsible members.
It is also important to note that the current inclusivity movement has worked to remove any separation between public and private behavior. There are many things that individuals can choose to do behind closed doors without judgment. That does not mean that those same actions are appropriate for public spaces. Social shaming helps to create the boundaries between public and private and maintain standards of appropriateness in shared, public space.
Conclusion
Judgment is a necessary tool for a civilized society. Far from being an outdated or harmful practice, social judgment and shaming remains a necessary tool for guiding appropriate behavior. It reinforces ethical standards, discourages harmful conduct, and holds individuals accountable in ways that laws often cannot. While it must be wielded with fairness and restraint, social judgment remains a fundamental aspect of any responsible society.
By embracing shame as a corrective force rather than rejecting it outright, we can foster a culture that values accountability, integrity, and collective well-being.