Reintegrative Shaming

Restorative Justice

The theory of reintegrative shaming is an integrative theory guided by principles of restorative justice, in which practices are designed to heal at both the individual and societal levels. Unlike retributive justice systems, which focus on punishment of the offender by the state, restorative justice programs focus on bringing victims, offenders, and the community together to repair the harm that resulted from the crime. Restorative justice acknowledges the wide range of people who are negatively affected by a crime, including the offender and society at large. As the name implies, rather than reducing the status of the offender through punishment, restorative justice aims to restore justice and balance by elevating the status of the victim and healing the wrongs brought about by the crime. Offenders are encouraged to acknowledge responsibility for their crimes, express remorse, and make reparations. Aspects of restorative justice that are most relevant to the theory of reintegrative shaming include respect for the offender, acknowledgment of the criminal act and its resulting social harm, and ritualized reintegration of the offender back into society as a valued member of the group.

Shaming

Shaming is an important aspect of social control. As Thomas Scheff points out, a feeling of shame signifies that one's bond with society is at risk or has been broken. If one feels shame after committing a crime, he or she will be less likely to recidivate, or reoffend. There are two types of shaming, that which stigmatizes the offender (stigmatizing shaming) and that which accompanies reintegration of the offender back into society as a valued member of the community (reintegrative shaming).

Shaming scales have been established to better operationalize the concept of shaming. In 1994, Toni Makkai and John Braithwaite created one such scale that included continuums designed to measure participants' attitudes toward the use of reintegrative shaming. This scale ranged from humiliation [Page 593](disrespectful disapproval) to avoidance of humiliation (respectful disapproval), establishing the utility of a continuum with each type of shaming at opposite poles. As these researchers pointed out, such scales are acceptable measurement tools but are in need of further testing and refinement to offer consistency and reliability across studies. In Shame Management and Regulation, John Braithwaite and Valerie Braithwaite note that rather than scaling shame on a continuum, stigmatic and reintegrative shaming are more usefully conceptualized as separate dimensions that may have independent or interactive effects. For example, in situations where there is a high level of shame, both types of shaming have independent effects but do not interact, while in contexts of low shame, these two forms of shame are likely to interact.

...