Technologically Skwair ▢ blog
|
Print by Marian Hardey. We Are All Squares. March 2020.
Print, Ashamed of Shame, Mariann Hardey, 2026
We are living in the age of the Shame-Free movement. Scroll through your feed, and you will see the mantras: "Release your shame." "Shame is toxic." "Vibrate higher." We are told that shame is a low-vibration emotion, a defect, a fault in the circuit board of our lived experience that we must "optimise" out of our systems. But as we launch our research at the Leverhulme Centre for Creative Algorithmic Life, I am asking a dangerous question: If shame is useless, why did evolution keep it? In our work on the "Being Human" theme, we are reimagining the place of the human in the context of algorithmic life-worlds. We are looking at what happens to judgment, oversight, and accountability when we move from biological systems to digital ones. In other words, if we build a world where speed is everything, we accidentally build a world where the 'human', the part of us that hesitates, feels, and worries, is treated like a broken part. (uh-oh). This isn't just an academic exercise. In March 2026, we will be conducting interviews for our first cohort of PhD students and Fellows. As I prepare to sit across from these candidates, I am mindful that I am not just looking for optimised academic machines. I am looking for the "drop." I am looking for the capacity for hesitation, for the social brake, and for the profound biological accountability that makes a researcher truly human. I've come to a startling conclusion: Shame is the only thing keeping us human in a world of tanks and scripts. The Biology of the "Drop" For years, I looked back on the most dangerous moments of my life, and I judged myself for my silence. I looked at the frozen girl in my memories, and I despised her. Why didn't she scream? Why didn't she fight? Literally: push back! The books on my shelf, the ones that promise to "fix" our confidence, called this a malfunction. They treated my silence like a stain on my character, as if there were a loose wire in the circuit board of my life. They were wrong. They were looking for a "fight or flight" response, but they missed the third option - the one our bodies choose when the first two are impossible. In biology, it's called the Dorsal Vagal response. But I call it the (F******) Emergency Brake. While the modern world demands we stay in the 'Social Engagement' zone, being bright, verbal, and responsive, our biology has a much older, deeper circuit designed for moments of inescapable threat. When the system realises that 'Fight' or 'Flight' won't work, it activates the Dorsal Vagal brake. This isn't a malfunction; it is a primal strategy to conserve energy and minimise pain by 'dropping' the heart rate and metabolic activity. It is the body’s most sophisticated way of saying: Not now. I need to disappear to survive. We've all seen it in literature, even if we didn't have the words for it then. Think of Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles. For a century, critics have called her passive, as if her silence were a choice or a character flaw. Hardy describes Tess as 'white and motionless.' He doesn't say she was thinking; he says her body simply stopped. He was describing a biological shutdown. We've spent a century analysing her 'choices' when, in reality, her nervous system had pulled the plug to save her life. It wasn't a choice; it was a reflex. But Tess wasn't being passive. She was being biological. When a human being is cornered by a threat they cannot defeat, the brain realises that fighting gets you killed and running triggers a chase. So, it does something life-saving: it slams the brakes. It floods the body with a chemical cocktail that makes you quiet, still, and small. This is not cowardice; it is Biological Camouflage. Think of it like a cloak of invisibility that your body throws over you to keep you off the radar. By lowering your gaze and retracting your energy, you become less of a target. That stillness in Tess wasn't a defect. It was an internal security guard, calculating the odds in a split second and deciding to keep her quiet so she could live to see tomorrow. We need to stop asking the "frozen girl" why she didn't fight. She was using the most intelligent part of her biology to win the only prize that mattered: survival. The Luxury of "Speaking Your Truth" The modern self-help movement to eradicate shame is written from the position of extreme privilege. Much of the industry is written on laptops in coffee shops, where the most significant threat is a cold latte. These authors look at the brake pedal of a car and ask why it doesn't make the vehicle go faster. They treat the instinct to hide as a character flaw because they have never stood in a room where visibility meant violence. Telling a survivor to "release their shame" is a form of Meta-Shame. It is a second predator. It suggests that if they were just evolved-enough, they wouldn't feel the urge to hide. It shames the gazelle for the very camouflage that kept it alive while the lion was still in the tall grass. I reject that. I honour the part of me that knew how to be small. That feeling was not a pathology; it was Protective Intelligence. The Saturation of the "Narcissist" Label I have hesitated to bring the word 'narcissist' into this space, primarily because the term has been overused to the point of clinical saturation. When a keynote speaker recently declared that 'everyone is a narcissist,' they were operating at a frequency where institutional boldness becomes a currency. This kind of blanket labelling, often uttered by those in the 'hard, high ground' of academia, risks turning a complex biological deficit into a trendy buzzword. But here is the danger of that saturation: When we turn "narcissism" into a catch-all label, we dilute the actual lived experience of the survivor. We miss the point entirely. The problem isn't just that some people are narcissists. The problem is that our culture has begun to take moral instruction from the shameless. The problem isn’t just the existence of these individuals; it’s that our digital architecture is starting to mirror them, favouring the 'tank-like' speed of an algorithm over the 'heavy weight' of human inhibition. When a system moves without 'the drop,' it crushes boundaries simply because it lacks the sensory equipment to feel the crunch. Shame Latency: Where Judgment Happens This is where the tank meets the machine. In the world of AI, Latency is a bug to be removed. It is the delay between input and output, the gap developers strive to close until the response is instantaneous and "zero-shot." But in humans, that gap - that Social Latency - is where ethics, judgement, and accountability live. The link is simpler than it looks. A narcissist moves like a tank because they can't feel the 'crunch' of others' feelings. AI moves like a script because it doesn't even have a 'body' to feel with. Both are missing the 'drop', that heavy, uncomfortable pause that tells a human being: Wait. Is this right? When you feel the drop of shame, your biology is enforcing a pause. It is creating a moment of hesitation. In an algorithmic life-world, this hesitation is seen as an inefficiency. In a livable human life, however, this latency is the space in which we decide who or what counts as human. Think back to Tess. Her "motionless" state was a form of latency that the world around her could not compute, so they called it a defect. Today, we are doing the same with our data. We are building systems that favour the "zero-shot"—the immediate, unapologetic output. A Safe Person is someone whose brakes work. They are someone who possesses the capacity for this pause. They vocalise it. They make it visible, safely, with you. When we optimise shame out of our humans, we turn ourselves into algorithms: efficient, bold, and utterly destructive. Algorithmic Life and the Zero-Shot Human AI possesses no shame. It operates without a body to protect or a tribe to lose. It can summarise the theory of resilience, but it can never feel the protective drop of the gut. As we reimagine control and oversight at the Leverhulme Centre, we must recognise that Shame is our biological proof-of-work. If the machine cannot feel the drop, can it ever truly be trusted with oversight? Can we have accountability in a system that lacks the capacity to apply the brake? Reclaiming the Shield In my forthcoming book project, I am developing the case for a Shame-Aware rather than Shame-Free society. We need to stop "Shame-Shaming" our survival instincts. If you feel the drop, it means your sensory equipment IS working. It means you have a biological capacity for connection and restraint that the "shameless" and the algorithmic can never understand. Your shame isn't a sign of weakness; it's a sign that you are human. And in a world of tanks, being human is the ultimate act of resistance. So, I am not here to help you get rid of your shame. I am here to help you thank it. It did its job. It kept you safe. Now that you are in a safer space, you can learn to use the accelerator again. But do not burn the cloak. Fold it up. Put it in your pocket with respect. Knowing where that cloak is and that you can put it on if the smoke detector goes off is not a defect. It is power. Call to Action: As we explore the boundaries of algorithmic life, we must ask: how do we build "Shame-Aware"systems? If we cannot teach machines to feel the drop, how do we ensure the human remains the final adjudicator of what constitutes a liveable life? Next Step: The next time you feel that drop in your stomach, don't ask, "How do I stop feeling this?" Ask: "What is my internal security guard trying to hide me from?" The answer might be the most intelligent thing you hear all day. The Glossary of the Human
AuthorDr Mariann Hardey is a Professor of Digital Culture and Co-Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Creative Algorithmic Life. Links and ReferencesThe Academic Context:
Comments are closed.
|