Approaching honor and shame with humility: Limitations to our current understanding

Although honor and shame have been popular missiological themes in the last decade, there are several limitations associated with concepts that occur both literature secular anthropological, sociological, psychological literature. The first set of concerns meaning shame. Their definitions vary greatly from author to author. Some authors consider be emotions internal individual others them as a measure one’s social status, something external individual. Similarly, is often no distinction made between shame-proneness. relationship other self-conscious (guilt, embarrassment, pride) not clear. Often vicarious blurred. second lack understanding how relate culture. Since dynamics exist every culture, it clear what meant by “shame culture.” Modern conceptions culture tend view phenomenon due processes within individuals, rather than Characteristics cultures described positions on dimensions. Shame defined those which more collectivistic (versus individualistic). However, many indicate dimension cultural tightness (or uncertainty avoidance) may just relevant for dynamics, power distance also relevant. In light these limitations, missiologists need approach humility.