The failure of guilt : developing a theoretical framework

Abstract

Guilt is the intrapsychic manifestation of the tension which necessarily exists between the individual and society. Its centrality to human functioning is reflected in both this conceptual definition and the multitude of contexts in which it is found. Given the significance of guilt to the human condition, the absence of a coherent theoretical framework for understanding guilt is alarming. The primary difficulty in defining and conceptualising guilt is found in its inherent logical inconsistency. Guilt involves an intrapsychic conflict wherein both sides of the conflict are the self. For example, both the desire to do a specific act and the distaste for doing that act are representative of self. But which one is truly the self? This is a long standing logical problem which can be formulated in the question, "how can a disunity exist within a unity?" Any coherent account of guilt must be able to overcome the problem inherent to a unity of disunity. Given that the conflict occurs within the self, the account of guilt must begin with a system of self which provides for the apparent existence of a disunity within a unity. One such system of self views the self as a function of the process of self-regulation. The process of self­ regulation can be understood in terms of a negative feedback loop wherein an input (perception) is compared with a standard to produce an output (behaviour, cognition, and/or emotion). In essence the output of the system serves to reduce discrepancy between the input and the standard. The self is an emergent property of this process and thus reflective of the standard at any one time. Two component parts of the standard can be identified which represent the two sides of the guilt conflict, (viz., being-for-self and being-for-others). A conflict within the standard leads to a situation wherein any input will be discrepant with at least one part of the standard. That discrepancy will produce a discrepancy reducing output. However, if such an output is discrepancy reducing with respect to one part of the standard, then it will concomitantly be discrepancy producing with respect to a conflicting part of the standard. This process of maintaining discrepancy with respect to one part of the standard can be thought of as self-damaging inasmuch as both parts of the standard are representative of self. The system outlined above overcomes the problem of a disunity within a unity by locating the disunity as existing between unities over time. bAll the displays of guilt such as feeling guilty and doing self­ damaging things are reflections of guilt in the same that military attacks are reflective of war. That is to say, the feelings and acts of guilt are not all there is to guilt but rather, are manifestations of guilt. Guilt itself is the disunity of self. Escaping guilt involves the establishment of unity where there was previously disunity. This can be achieved either by denying one part of the self (self disintegration) which is the dynamic behind rationalisation, or by unifying the previously disunited parts of self(self-integration) which is the process of responsibility. Show more