Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of Thought. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Developmental explanation of envy·
Envy of competitors: “Of others who control what we wish to control but don’t” (Nussbaum 2001: 14);·
“Jealousy and anger grow out of the asymmetry of need that characterises the child’s relationship with her caretakers: for the child now realises that she depends almost totally upon a person or persons who do not need her at all, who can walk away at any time, leaving her immobilised and helpless, and whid indeed at times chooses other relationships” (Nussbaum 2001: 212);·
- “The object of Oedipal envy is, then, anything that competes with her own needs. Very often this may be the other parent, but it may equally be siblings, or any other person or activity to which the caretaker is passionately devoted” (ibid);
Envy and Shame·
“Shame and envy are closely connected, since primitive shame involves the judgement that anything short of perfection is hideous, and this entails that any life in which the child shares the good object with others is unacceptable” (ibid);·
“The object of Oedipal of shame will be the child’s own needy self, seen as insufficient for the omnipotent control of the object” (ibid);·
“The child can renounce envy only if she is able to tolerate living in a world in which others make demands on the good object, and these demands granted legitimacy. But these demands will not be given legitimacy if the situation of being partial and incomplete is itself felt as shameful, and perfect control is the only acceptable goal” (ibid).
Institutional Envy and Compassion·
“The relationship between compassion and social institutions is and should be a two-way street: compassionate individuals construct institutions that embody what they imagine; and institutions, in turn, influence the development of compassion in individuals” (Nussbaum 2001: 405);·
- “Institutions can either promote or discourage, and can shape in various ways, the emotions that impede appropriate compassion: shame, envy, and disgust” (ibid);
Shame and Pathology
“The urgent needs of infantile dependency can engender a paralysing shame, accompanied by destructive resentment that puts later ethical development at risk. The child’s intense involvement with nearby objects risks impeding general social concern later in life. The intensity and ambivalence of the child’s attachment to its first objects may distort the perception of other objects she will soon encounter” (297).
“Shame is far from requiring diminished self-regard. In a sense, it requires self-regard as its essential backdrop. It is only because one expects oneself to have worth or even perfection that one will shrink from or cover the evidence of one’s nonworth or imperfection” (196).
“To the extent that all infants enjoy a sense of omnipotence, all infants experience shame at the recognition of their human imperfection: a universal experience underlying the biblical story of our shame at our nakedness” (ibid).
(Shame bib. Morrison (1989): The Underside of Narcissism; Piers and Singer (1953): Shame and Guilt: a Psychoanalytic and Cultural Study; Morris (1971): Guilt and Shame)