Shunning is mostly performative and the left has usually opposed it
Both of these [ theological and pragmatic] rationales emerge time and time again in modern liberal-left advocacy for shaming and ostracization as tools of social engineering and personal discipline. And yet strangely enough, anyone at all familiar with the standard left critiques of shunning should have rejected both long ago.
To take the second point first, there is little reason to believe that shunning actually has any kind of rehabilitative effect on its target, and considerable reason to believe that it can actually amplify the problem. Delaney notes that “the effects on the shunned person can be devastating…[and] akin to psychological torture.” Tanaka notes research on shunning that
“indicates a severe distortion of the self image, for example, ‘I am a type of person that everyone hates’…This long-term effect suggests a huge impact on one’s identity…[it] has a strong impingement on emotional development, which as Kahn points out is the essence of cumulative trauma. “
Tanaka goes on to add that as a defense mechanism, the target of shunning may “develop a victim’s identity…[that] may fix and solidify further their negative identity.” This should be an all-to-familiar experience for anyone who has tried to shame an offender, only to watch them double-down and embrace the attack. The point here is not to argue that shunning is simply mean- it’s to point out that it’s often directly counterproductive in terms of its supposed goal. Instead of rehabilitating the offender, it can just as easily harden the offender and give him a powerful psychological / emotional stake in continuing his behavior. As Massaro observes,
“Psychological accounts of shame suggest that the behavioral consequences of this emotion are unpredictable, and may include anger and a desire to retaliate against the one inflicting the shame. The shaming advocates’ relative indifference to these concerns suggests that they likely are not particularly concerned with rehabilitating the offender.”
Massaro adds that this unpredictability also comes into play regarding rationale - that we should shun people as an exercise in social engineering:
“ Both the psychological and the anthropological works indicate that the general deterrence and expressive effects of shame measures are likely to be highly contextual and unpredictable…shame penalties often will have multiple potential meanings, depending on the communities to which these expressions are directed, and thus will have an uncertain impact on the targeted audience’s behavior”
Again, this just confirms experiences that everyone is already familiar with. Efforts to shun someone may effectively remove them from discourse and community and attach a social taboo against their behavior - but it is just as likely to do the exact opposite. Frequent readers will probably recognize in this line of criticism frequent skepticism about discourse gaming. The implicit theory behind rationale (1) is that instead of reasoning with people, and persuading them to avoid certain types of behavior, we tactically use all kinds of psychological tactics, like shaming, to manipulate them into behaving appropriately. Say what you will about the ethics of this approach, but as a matter of basic pragmatism there’s no compelling reason to believe that it actually works.
This is great.
I would add that shunning (and “deterrence” style punishment) seems to fall into the typical ideological mystification.
Is the motivation for shunning consequentalist? Then why do it when the consequences are so uncertain and often bad. The pro-shunning person would say “it’s just the right thing to do, even if the target responds badly.”
Okay, if the reason to shun is “it’s the right thing to do”, then you are basically giving a deontic reason to inflict pain (and the many small acts of pain that are necessary to enforce this.) Cruelty is very unlikely to ever be morally good in the deontic sense.
The pro-shunning person just switches back to “well it’s hard, yes, but it’s for the good of the community.”
And you get this back and forth, always hiding the true motivation, that is so common with ideological reason.
Speaking as someone who’s no fan of ideological shunning…
…I think there’s a certain amount of failure-to-steelman going on here, in a way that’s actually relevant.
All the research cited talks about the practical effects of shunning-based punishment on the offender who’s being punished. And, yes, those effects are usually just straight-up terrible without any redeeming features. But I think pretty much everyone knows that, including most of the shunning enthusiasts.
(There are undoubtedly a few naively earnest souls who think “I hate to do this, but it’ll be better for you in the long run!” – and some number of people who disingenuously appeal to such a justification to explain why they’re not doing anything that will have any negative consequences. Neither of these things is at the heart of Shunning Theory, though, and knocking them down doesn’t get you very far.)
Shunning is not about rehabilitation. To some extent it’s about incapacitation, in the sense of “at least he won’t be bothering our community anymore.” But mostly it’s about deterrence. It sends a warning message to everyone who sees it. It’s engineered to change the behavior of the spectators.
How well does it do that, as a matter of serious social science? I don’t purport to know. My guess is “better than I’d like it to,” at least when the people doing the shunning start with enough power and influence.