In his 2013 book, Saving Face, Stephen Pattison observes that infants very quickly begin to notice and recognize faces, and to imitate the expressions they see. “To be and to become human socially and emotionally,” he writes, “is to engage in real, nuanced, face-to-face visual relations.” When a child doesn’t see approval in the face that looks back at him, however, the result can be deadening:
“If the mother cannot let her eye gleam, or ‘light up her face’ with a smile, then what may be reflected back to the baby is deadness, possibly leading to notions of unacceptability and unresponsiveness, even to primal shame. This unattuned, unemphatic, frozen ‘Gorgon’ face fails to mirror the child so it cannot see and appropriate itself and its emotions in a positive way. . . . Distance and objectification creep in between carer and child, and internally within the child and her or own experience. Parents who are depressed, shamed, internally pre-occupied or who do not like and value their children can easily offer this Gorgon face, the ‘evil eye’ that does not reflect and respond appropriately . . . . a small child may feel that they are the cause of this coldness and rejection – they are seen but not valued, loved, accepted” (58).
Thus, “the roots of the shame experience are psycho-physiological. If the child receives affirmation of its desires and drives, and an optimum level of reflective response, then it experiences joy and love. If, however, the parental gaze is not attuned or responsive then it can experience abandonment, isolation and pain” (58).
Pattison does not think shame is entirely bad. He quotes one scholar who argues that “shame is an important dimension of socialisation” and argues that “occasional experiences of withdrawal of parental responsive gaze that produce shame are to be expected. These produce a sense of dissonance and disintegration that can usually bring a child up short and stop undesirable behaviour.” Parents who are themselves shamed, however, cannot look their children in the eye; overly busy parents don’t “spend much time in mutual facial gaze with their new children,” and may communicate the message that “their children are unattractive or even ugly” (59).
The common notion that shame and approval have to do with “saving” and “losing” face is no mere metaphor.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
