Shame with no Guilt – descendants of oppressors and restorative justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this workshop, I explore shame and moral responsibility of descendants of oppressors. Until very recently, I did not disclose the shame I carried for being of German ancestry and a white, first generation Canadian. I now appreciate that our genetic ties to those who have harmed and those who have been harmed play a role in how we understand ourselves and relate to others. We need to come to terms with our ethnic inheritance of historical hatreds, enslavement and genocide. As Germans, for example, we are defined in large part by the holocaust. I invite us to explore various questions. How can we best expand our dialogue on racism to respectfully and authentically include all voices, experiences and perspectives, without getting sunk in the quicksand of political correctness or perpetuating any racialized harm or us/them judgments that we are seeking to overcome? Are descendants of oppressors destined to carry collective shame and moral responsibility; is that a required component for healing and reconciliation? What potential role could restorative justice play in healing and moving forward for all parties involved? Restorative justice generally requires someone to admit guilt and to take responsibility. What do we do in cases where someone like myself feels shame, but where I am not actually guilty of a crime or wrongdoing? How do we best express and overcome shame? One of the challenges of genetic shame is that we are ashamed of our ancestry and of who we are. This is a different kind of shame for feeling bad about your behaviour. Braithwaite (1989), in his well-known theory, argues for ‘reintegrative shaming’ as opposed to ‘disintegrative shaming’. Does this apply here too; do descendants of oppressors need to be reintegratively shamed? I am interested in bringing ourselves out of perpetual cycles of self-condemnation and shame, and creating common ground out of our humanity. I suggest that restorative processes, and specifically peacemaking circles, provide a forum whereby all such quandaries can be expressed and resolved, and where we can forge a path forward based on our shared human values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.136 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".