Guilt about the past is claimed to be entirely without function, since the past cannot be altered.
Tangney's work separates guilt, which attaches to the act and motivates repair, from shame, which attaches to the self and motivates concealment. On that distinction the maxim is roughly right about shame and wrong about guilt, and its practical effect is to discourage the emotion that produces apology.
In practice
- An employee who feels bad about an error and fixes it has been moved by exactly the emotion this rejects.
- A person who feels worthless rather than culpable conceals the error, and that is the emotion worth targeting.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is that guilt cannot change the past, so it is wasted. The distinction research draws is different: guilt attaches to the act and motivates repair, while shame attaches to the self and motivates concealment.
- In its favour
- The advice is sound for the second of those, since shame and rumination are associated with worse outcomes and with avoidance rather than repair.
- Against it
- It is contradicted for the first: guilt is associated with apology, restitution and empathy, so treating it as functionless removes a working mechanism along with the harmful one.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. Contradicted by research distinguishing guilt from shame: guilt is associated with reparative action and better outcomes, shame with withdrawal. The maxim collapses the two.
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- Moralists, aphorists and the self-help tradition