Weizhou | Literature

In 1994, in Singapore, American youth Mike Fay was fined SGD 3500, imprisoned for 4 months, and whipped by the local court for graffiti and vandalism on over 20 cars owned by local residents using spray paint. This verdict sparked a strong backlash in American society, with even the US president pleading for exemption from caning. However, in the end, Singapore only reduced the number of lashes from 6 to 4.

This incident caused a sensation and was extensively reported in domestic media. However, people around me are generally puzzled by it because in the Chinese mindset, it is natural to be punished for doing something wrong, and it takes a few public lashes to remember. As for such a fuss, how could we still provoke the US President to plead for mercy in person?

Personal rights or public morality?

This issue can only be fully understood by returning to the humiliating political discourse of Western modernity.

In fact, Singapore's approach, if pushed back 100 years, is likely to be less controversial. In 1897, Otto Mittelstedt, an advisor to the Supreme Court in Hamburg, Germany, questioned whether humanitarianism alone could guide people towards goodness. He strongly suggested that in order to curb and deter various unethical anti social behaviors, it was necessary to "restore corporal punishment" and "more corporal punishment". "For particularly shameful juvenile crimes, as well as malicious destruction of property, physical injury, and other similar crimes, giving" a certain amount of beating "was much more effective than being thrown into prison.

In European history, public humiliation was once seen as a powerful means of social governance, but it has been increasingly questioned since the Enlightenment. German scholar Ute Frefert traced this long historical process in his book "The Politics of Humiliation" and found that the key to it was a new modern discourse that emerged in the 19th century: a sense of honor is about personal dignity.

Humiliation Politics: A Modern History

[German] Ut Frefert | Written by

Pan Lu | Translation

Yeren | Shanghai Bookstore Press

July 2026

Previously, the reason why public corporal punishment was widely accepted was because the sense of honor was only for serving the country or society. Those who violated national laws or social norms were tied to a pillar of shame, and their purpose was not so much to make them reform as to expel them, in order to maintain the "purity" of the community.

Moreover, sometimes such public humiliation is not because you did something wrong, but because of your identity. Nazi Germany forced Jews to wear derogatory symbols while wandering the streets, with the intention of not making them change their behavior, as they were always Jewish no matter what. The purpose of this approach is to stigmatize specific groups in order to enforce the will of power.

Indeed, 'public humiliation is always for the sake of demonstrating power', and few people can withstand the kind of humiliation that comes with being publicly humiliated. Although it may not seem like a loss of personal interests like being imprisoned or fined, it is enough to make people feel ashamed for a lifetime. The key here lies not in the intensity of corporal punishment, but in being publicly displayed. In this sense, humiliation is not only punishing the parties involved, but also warning the onlookers that if you have the same behavior, you will also end up in such a shameful situation. This is enough to create a deterrent effect among the crowd, and no wonder Thomas Friedman believed that humiliation is the most underestimated political force.

With the rise of individual rights awareness, this approach is becoming increasingly outdated. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum once pointed out that a country that wants to maintain equality and human dignity must prevent such humiliation or reputation punishment, as they strengthen the moral humiliation mechanism of stigmatization. In the novel 'The Scarlet Letter', the female protagonist is punished for adultery and publicly humiliated. However, the ultimate secret is revealed that she only has a new set of moral values different from others, and those who besiege her should truly reflect on themselves.

The question here is: Where is the boundary between individual rights and public morality? The controversy caused by the Singapore caning case is fundamentally rooted in this: Europe and America, due to their modern experiences, are highly vigilant about power attempting to use humiliation to discipline society, not to mention countries like the United States that are highly individualistic and place great emphasis on personal dignity; But although Singapore follows the British governance model, it places more emphasis on maintaining public morality, which is closer to the traditional moral values of Chinese society.

Why is humiliation gradually becoming ineffective?

Although shame is a universal emotion, there are significant differences in attitudes towards it across different societies and cultures. There is a popular view that the West is a "culture of guilt," developed from the Christian concept of "original sin" with precise moral boundaries and legal standards; East Asian society, on the other hand, is a culture of shame that emphasizes obedience to collective moral norms.

Although Aristotle in ancient Greece regarded shame as the foundation of moral behavior, shame has not been developed in Western society for a long time. A crucial aspect of this is the influence of Christian theology. St. Augustine had long recognized that Christianity's obligations to God and society could conflict: guilt responds to sin and governs the relationship between individuals and God, while shame is only a response to public opinion. It is obvious that when the two conflict, the former is more important.

But most pre modern agricultural civilizations are not like this. Shame not only exists universally, but is often the main means of social discipline, and even develops complex public humiliation rituals. In the Miao villages of Laos, there are no prisoners, and the maintenance of social order relies neither on law nor coercion. Physical punishment is unheard of, but if someone does something wrong that is not tolerated, they will be publicly humiliated in various forms, which strongly discourages illegal behavior. For the locals, shame is more unbearable than death.

Confucianism particularly emphasizes shame, almost viewing it as the foundation of morality, which effectively promotes the internalization of moral norms. Because both discipline and obedience rely on shame, Mencius said, "Shame is shameless. It is necessary to point out that "shame" does not equal "humiliation". "Humiliation" is a public social ritual often aimed at disciplining individuals to comply; Although 'shame' often stems from the fear of being humiliated, it does not necessarily require an audience. For example, 'scholars feel ashamed of not knowing' can only be seen as a form of self motivation, but does not involve the politics of humiliation.

However, when society wants to force others to comply with moral norms, public humiliation is always seen as an effective means. The "face culture" in Chinese society makes people particularly afraid of losing face in public, so arousing a sense of shame has become a common social sanction. Sociologist Ying Xing once analyzed a moral judgment in a mountain village, which was obviously not rule of law, but always involved public humiliation. In some places, until now, personal information such as the name, photo, address and even ID card number of the dishonest person has been posted in public places, with the purpose of forcing them to perform by humiliating them.

However, as the popular saying goes, 'If a person doesn't care about their face, they are invincible.' When a person doesn't care about their face, simply publicly humiliating them is not enough. Only in the traditional society with a narrow social circle in the past was it most effective to embarrass people. However, modern cities are a society composed of countless strangers, and others may not even know you. If you have any embarrassing things that are unknown, the power of humiliation will be weakened.

As pointed out in the book 'Shame: The Emotions of Discipline', the development of society has also continuously weakened the sense of shame. In the business world, where profit is pursued, honor standards are not as important. Politicians and Wall Street bankers may be embroiled in scandals but do not take them seriously, even disdainfully saying, 'Only sissies speak of shame.'. This is not just about 'moral decay', but because the operating logic of modern society has changed: as long as it is not illegal, then behavior is allowed. In other words, modern society has established a system that can replace humiliation, causing public humiliation ceremonies to gradually disappear as unnecessary. Moreover, the rise of personal rights awareness and privacy concepts has led to more and more people beginning to resent and question the practice of humiliating others.

Humiliation: Contemporary Epidemic?

No one expected that the term humiliation would become popular again after decades of decline in modern society. Social worker Brune Brown has found that shame has become a 'silent epidemic', the dominant emotion of today, and the main cause of contemporary suffering. Many of her interviewees (initially mostly women) used words such as' breakdown ',' extreme pain ',' exclusion ',' devaluation ', or' insignificance 'to describe the experience of shame.

If in the past, the politics of humiliation were mainly aimed at the "immorality" or "lack of reputation" recognized by group norms, then contemporary humiliation rituals often have nothing to do with this, and are more related to daily politics of personal life - such as targeting appearance, body shape (especially obesity), or clothing. The rise of social media has made people face unimaginable public humiliation in the past, after all, no matter how many people are humiliated in the acquaintance society, there are only a few people. However, in today's online bullying, you may be chased and scolded by countless strangers for one sentence or one thing.

With the changes of the times, some things no longer cause shame (such as the lack of table manners), but physical standards have become more stringent. More importantly, as pointed out in "The Politics of Humiliation," "In the past, it was mainly teachers or parents who humiliated children, but now it is replaced by classmates." "Adults care about how to control themselves and others, and hope to see the values of social respect (such as obedience, order, cleanliness, diligence, and honesty) observed. Unlike this, the normative framework for children is first to gain group consensus, which punishes betrayal ('whistleblowing '), and regards unity and opposition to authority as a positive value. However, it indirectly strengthens this through hierarchical systems, obedience pressure, and humiliation rituals. The moral order of the adult world.

Women are particularly vulnerable to this kind of humiliation, as social humiliation is more targeted towards women (at least not so demanding of men's bodies), and sometimes even when it is not their fault (such as sexual harassment), they are the ones who are humiliated more. More importantly, women tend to focus more on relationship dimensions and seek social recognition than men, while public humiliation exacerbates their painful feelings of social exclusion. Therefore, a key point in advocating women's rights is to oppose humiliation. Fighting against "slut humiliation" is to uphold legitimate rights and show women that they are not the only ones facing it alone.

Nowadays, the popularization of psychology has also made more and more people realize that humiliation is not only hurtful, but also not a good means, which is not conducive to personal growth. Psychologist Todd Kashdan distinguished the difference between two feelings: guilt encourages people to learn from their mistakes, because "guilt" refers to "doing something wrong," and "those who feel ashamed suffer. Shamed people hate themselves and crave to change, cover up, or get rid of themselves," because shame is a denial of the person themselves.

What is even more tricky than public ceremonial humiliation is that a large amount of humiliation actually occurs in private life. Psychologist Zhou Muzi pointed out in "Stigma Trauma: The Most Daily but Heartwrenching Pain" that "humiliation is a killer of intimate relationships, which is almost ubiquitous in clinical practice." Many Chinese parents belittle their children's self-worth in their daily lives, trying to control them to do things in their own way, but the result is a serious impact on their children's self perception. In order to deal with these traumatic experiences and escape from negative self feelings, many children give up or become addicted, leading to various social problems.

Humiliation may indeed be the most underestimated political force, but it is particularly worthy of attention at present, because if we do not value, reflect on, and confront it, each of us may have to pay a price for it.