The pursuit of equality is a core Fabian value. We support the underdog. But there is a lot of evidence that more equal societies are actually better for everyone. And what’s more, they are better at dealing with environmental issues. Why is this so? Arguably it is because of the connection between inequality and the feelings of guilt and shame that it gives rise to, and the way these are handled.

 

Inequality’s costs

 

A 2009 study by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett[i], drawing on accepted international data, showed a clear connection between the level of inequality in a country and a range of social-health problems including: physical and mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust, community life, violence, teenage pregnancies and child well-being. The outcomes were significantly worse in more unequal countries, whether these were classed rich or poor.

 

A 2018 publication[ii] showed a similar impact of inequality on a range of mental health concerns; highlighting how it affects us psychologically, makes social relations more stressful, undermines self-confidence and distorts natural differences in personal abilities. In societies with fundamental equalities, cultural values such as sharing and reciprocity produced much higher levels of wellbeing than those based on excessive individualism, competitiveness and social aggression.  The Equality Trust[iii], has since provided further evidence for a strong association between inequality in the UK and low economic growth, economic instability and overall costs to the economy.

 

2024 saw yet another Equality Trust publication[iv] showing that inequality in many countries is increasing and has dramatically lowered social cohesion. It has led to collapsing trust in democratic institutions across the world, and growing acceptance of right-wing ideologies particularly among working class voting citizens.  It also showed that nations with high levels of equality have the greatest focus on reducing carbon emissions, while the richest 10% of the population are responsible for more than half of all global emissions.  More equal countries recycle a higher percentage of their waste compared to less equal countries. Inequality also exacerbates exposure to harmful air pollution, particularly in poorer communities which face higher pollution levels, despite contributing less to overall pollution. What the latest Spirit Level analysis suggests is that a key part of the 'just transition' we are seeking to a more environmentally sustainable society has to be a concerted effort to reduce the level of inequality.

 

What underpins inequality’s social damage?

 

A correlation between A and B does not prove that one causes the other. But the connection between inequality and adverse social, personal economic and ecological health is striking. How might inequality drive such anti-social behaviour on the part of many, not just by those with vested interests but also sometimes by those who stand to lose the most?  

 

What we feel often influences what we think and do. So what are the underlying feelings aroused by social inequality?[v]  A common feature would seem to be that a recognition of unequal status, be it economic, social, environmental or whatever, is a source of shame. A sense of being stigmatised, even humiliated by others. We may push back against this when we feel it is unfair. Or take it on board as part of our own self-image, with resulting low self-esteem, lack of confidence and so on.  It may manifest as shame, shyness, embarrassment or perhaps more virtuously as modesty or humility.  

 

A sense of shame is hardwired to raise our awareness of our social connections with others - and alert us to any potential damage to these social bonds.[vi]   Its absence, shamelessness, is socio-pathological; shame itself is not. Shame should play a positive social role. Unfortunately, largely driven by a culture of individualism, competition and 'virtues of success' in comparison with others less fortunate, this is not how shame is seen today.  

 

In Greek mythology, Shame (Aidos) was the goddess or personification of shame, modesty, and respect. She was often described as the feeling of reverence that restrains men from wrongdoing, for example the shame a rich person might feel when witnessing poverty. The loss of this through vaunting pride, hubris, led to one’s downfall nemesis.  In this culture shame was an emotional brake on the power of the aristocracy.[vii]   How far have we come from this!   No longer a valuable social-emotional tool for building a healthy democratic society, shame is now a personal-emotional burden that impacts primarily on the self and the self-image - what has been called 'the looking glass self'.

 

Western individualistic culture talks of 'healing' shame, 'unburdening' from it, and so on. It privileges guilt, with its associated ideas of sin, blame and inevitable punishment.  In this socially distorted view, guilt is seen as focussed on one’s behaviour and privileged over shame which is seen as being focussed on one’s sense of self and usually in negative even pathological terms.    The resulting ‘guilt culture’ hampers sensible reform of the continually failing retributive criminal justice system which might replace it with restorative and transformative justice approaches.  These would invite deeper understanding of the interpersonal and social hurts caused by offending and how these can be healed/repaired by genuine acknowledgement, by showing shame and remorse, and sometimes by compensatory actions.[viii]  

 

A more mature shame culture[ix] could be a useful tool in our work for both personal and political change.  It would involve a recognition that an embodied sense of shame signals a break in connection, either with external others, or with our own inner sense of self or self-ideal.  However, with the prevailing cultural-negative view on shame, it is often unacknowledged, ignored or by-passed.   Much of what we currently identify as shame is in fact not-shame. The feelings, thoughts and behaviours are more often the results of avoiding the primary feeling of shame.   The result, see figure 1, is often patterns of behaviour with resulting social consequences that can be broadly categorised as:

 

•  Attack Other - Aggression / violence - this includes getting defensive; a 'me right, you wrong' response.
  
• Attack self - Depression, self-harm/suicide - all the usual 'beat up on self' stuff that is what many people see as actually feeling shame.
• Hide from other(s) - Isolation/alienation. where the response is to withdraw physically or emotionally.  
• Hide from Self - patterns of denial, deflection, avoiding feeling the sense of shame by displacement activities. These include addictions – to drugs, alcohol, work, sex, gambling, pornography and more.  
  
  

 

 

This panoply of adverse social-health indicators bears a remarkable similarity to those highlighted in the 'Sprit-Level' studies. It suggests that a pattern of shame avoidance - triggered by a sense of shame over unfair inequality – could be at least one of the driving forces behind the disastrous personal, social, political, economic, and ecological crises we face in these times.  

 

From analysis to action

 

Karl Marx’s gravestone has inscribed the challenge: Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways.  The point, however, is to change it. If this analysis of the underlying dynamics of inequality and how it affects a wide range of social, economic, and ecological issues is correct, what does this mean for policies that seek to reduce inequality?  

 

How do we manage a widespread instinctive human-hard-wired social-psychological response to a sense of being seen (by self, and/or others) as inferior, less than, unequal, often with a half-hidden sense that this is an ‘unfair' evaluation? A response that leads patterns of avoidance that have both personal and societal adverse consequences.  

 

Perhaps simply reducing the scale of inequality by traditional social democratic policies redistributing income and wealth through taxation and other moves towards a 'fairer go' is insufficient.  What may also be needed are cultural changes that reduce the stigma so often associated with needing social support, felt by those who are 'disadvantaged' and particularly those 'on welfare'.  

 

Arie Hochschild[x] explores a powerful shame-pride dynamic operating within unequal, individualistic cultures.   The more one believes that one succeeds by one’s own efforts – and that others’ failures are their responsibility due to lack of sufficient effort – then the harder it is to shift from feeling personally responsible when socio-economic changes occur that affect one’s well-being and sense of being successful. Thinking that 'I should have done more, tried harder' can contribute to a sense of shame at personal failing with strong tendencies to deflect the feelings of shame onto others, withdraw from social/political engagement, or retreat into a world where such feelings are muted, managed by alcohol, drugs or any of the other displacement activities.  This feeds into a search for scapegoats to blame for our circumstances. Unfortunately, almost always this is scapegoating downwards, blaming those below us in the inequality hierarchy.  Pointing the finger of blame upwards to the rich and powerful - those who benefit from and sustain the inequalities - is often seen as futile, at least in terms of the individual's capacity to influence change.  Collective action through labour movement organisations, unions, political parties, offers more scope for change - though even here by no means guaranteed.

 

An authentic sense of shame can be socially constructive. But it needs to be balanced with a sense of pride, dignity and self-respect – just as genuine, socially useful pride, as distinct from ‘up-oneself’ hubris, embodies a sense of humility. To show shame when in error is honourable, dignified.  People may err, but most do so while trying to do the best they know how. A guilt culture fails to recognise that the word ‘sin’ in the bible is a translation of the Greek hamartia, originally an archery term meaning to ‘miss the mark’! The last thing anyone seeking cultural-political change should do is to label those who struggle with this paradox as a ‘basket of deplorables!’[xi] Drawing out people’s sense of grievance, hearing this with respect and helping to frame the conversation in terms of unfairness, the scale of inequality in the society, and how this feeds feelings, thoughts and behaviours - their own and those of others who are as or more vulnerable than themselves - would seem to be a better approach.

 

Stopping violence

 

Wars, community violence, and violence between intimate partners - almost all violent behaviour has behind it a sense of being shamed, humiliated, disrespected, 'dissed'.[xii]

 

In the domestic/intimate-partner sphere, this sense of shame sits behind, and is sometimes obscured by, analysis based on gendered power and coercive control (GPCC).  Many of the current domestic violence behaviour change programs show limited success, in part because they further label, stigmatise, and shame the participants.  Around 50% of clients in some of the more stringent GPCC programs will either sit through with minimum engagement or drop out even when mandated by courts to participate.[xiii] Patterns for using violence, like many other shame avoidant patterns, are developed early on, often as a result of experiencing or witnessing these patterns in caregivers, parents, or relatives.  Addressing the sense of shame and the effects of these early childhood experiences is often critical to getting engagement in programs to change scripted adult behaviour.  

 

The most significant effects of violence are however in wars, affecting both combatants and civilians. Often the end of one war lays the foundations for the next.  The past century saw world wars that had origins in the humiliation of losers by victors at the end of earlier conflicts.[xiv]  As we hopefully approach the end of the current devastating conflicts in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, we need to consider how these are concluded in ways that are both just and restorative - that encourage truth and reconciliation for victims and reintegration of those whose actions have violated international laws on conduct of war.

 

Equally important are restorative and transformative justice approaches when dealing with the harm caused by crimes of violence and inter-cultural conflicts in the community.   These rely not on overt shaming of offenders but on a recognition of a sense of shame that can be spontaneously and autonomously felt when confronted by the effects of the offending on those affected by it.  Models for shame-inequality-aware approaches can be found in some of the current restorative justice conferencing approaches to criminal offending,[xv] and the Truth and Reconciliation approaches adopted following the end of apartheid in South Africa.

 

Inequality and welfare

 

The current welfare system, while designed to ensure relief from extremes of poverty, also entrenches a sense of stigma and shame - a cultural inequality - among welfare recipients.  Being continually means-tested, monitored and sanctioned for minor breaches of so called 'mutual obligations' is humiliating.   It also encourages a sense of superiority among the non-welfare dependent - and some disparaging labels - 'dole bludger' being perhaps the worst.

 

One way of sidestepping this would be to provide both a higher floor on which the whole population can stand and a lower ceiling, or at least fewer elevators to higher floors that are used by those who are already economically advantaged.  Part of the floor could be the idea of a universal basic income. Provided to all, un-means-tested, regardless of assets-wealth or income, it could create a level playing field based on adequate income as a human right.  And a fair, progressive taxation system without the many loopholes for avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations can be made to pay for it.   Add to this adequate funding for the various programs and services that make up the ‘social wage’ – ensuring that there is universal access to health care, education, training, and not least housing - and we start to get somewhere closer to genuine socio-economic equality.

 

More than just a fair go

 

Approaches that avoid shame-humiliation of the disadvantaged can be developed across a wide range of social concerns.  For example, a large scale, democratically controlled, public housing program that provides rented homes for a significant proportion of the population would shift social housing back towards being for ‘working’ people, rather than just for those on ‘welfare’. It would also be far more effective than governments subsidising increasing wealth inequality via capital gains tax and negative gearing tax relief; and more effective than the first-time home ownership grants and rent subsidies that simply push up costs of housing.   And on the climate change / alternative energy front, a just transition to sustainable energy and limiting climate pollution requires approaches that do not leave behind those at the bottom of the inequality ladder, nationally and internationally – and blamed and stigmatised for not being part of the solution.

 

If we ever needed evidence for changes towards a more democratic social order, we now have it in the data and analysis on inequality and its social effects – how it undermines psychological and material wellbeing at individual and collective levels, threatens democracy and, potentially, life on the planet. Action that delivers on what we might broadly claim to be on a genuine fair go for all is not merely desirable but essential.

 

Tony Webb,

June 2025

Dr Tony Webb is a Fabian and a long-time community and environmental activist. He has worked on housing, unemployment, worker cooperatives, anti-nuclear, radiation and health, food policy, and energy/climate issues in the UK USA Canada and Australia. Along the way he picked up an MSc in Energy Resources Management and a PhD in Humanities.

 

References and further reading

[i] Pickett K & Wilkinson RG. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.  Allen Lane 2009.

[ii] Wilkinson RG & Pickett K.  The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone's Well-Being. Penguin books 2018.

[iii] See https://equalitytrust.org.uk  

[iv] https://equalitytrust.org.uk/evidence-base/the-spirit-level-at-15

[v] The PhD Thesis Towards a mature shame culture: theoretical and practical tools for personal and social growth that explores these ideas in more detail can be accessed at:

https://researchers-admin.westernsydney.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/94785646/uws_676.pdf

[vi] Tom Scheff, coming from a sociological tradition, has written extensively on the shame as the primary social emotion – hardwired to alert us to threats to our social connections and as such is the ‘ringmaster’ emotion that calls others in and out in response to social situations.  See:  Scheff, T. J. and S. M. Retzinger (2001). Shame As The Master Emotion Of Everyday Life.   See http://www.mundanebehavior.org/index.htm 

[vii] See Cairns, D. (1993). Aidos: The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature. Oxford  New York, Clarendon Press / Oxford University Press.

[viii] Webb, T. ‘When Saying Sorry Isn't Enough: The roles of guilt and shame in retributive, restorative & transformative justice.’  New Community 13(2): 30 – 39, 2015.

[ix] See ref vi above

[x] Hochschild, A. R. (2024). Stolen Pride: loss, shame, and the rise of the right. New York, London, The New Press.

[xi] A comment that probably significantly contributed to Hilary Clinton losing the US 2016 presidential election

[xii] See Gilligan J. Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. Knopf Doubleday Publishing. 1997.  

[xiii] Details of shame-aware approaches to stopping violence (available from the author on request) can be found in:

Webb T. ‘On Love, Shame & Other Strong Emotions.’ No To Violence Journal, 5(1): 46-73, 2009  -  Webb T. ‘Men, Masculinities and Violence.’ New Community 14 (4)(56): 24-34, 2016.- and Webb, T. ‘Stopping Violence - How deep do we need to go?’ New Community 17 (1) 60-66, 2019.

[xiv] Scheff T. J. Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism, And War. Routledge. 1994.

[xv] See Webb T. ‘When Saying Sorry Isn’t Enough: The roles of guilt and shame in retributive, restorative and transformative justice.’ New Community Vol 13 No 2, Issue 50. 2015.