The Age of Shamelessness

This week I recorded a lecture titled ‘the age of shamelessness'. My basic argument is that we’re living in a cultural and political era profoundly marked by a certain vulgarity and shamelessness. In this video (and corresponding essay), I attempt what amounts to a basic philosophical analysis of what might be called the ideology of shamelessness, and I argue for a return to public decency, and indeed, a modicum of shame.

For a long time a quote circulated attributed to Donald Trump. In a talk-show segment he is asked whether he has any political ambitions, and he answers that if he were ever to run for President, he would run as a Republican, because Republican voters are idiots who are easy to fool. (Edit: it’s since been brought to my attention that this goes back to a debunked internet meme, which in and of itself is quite interesting, as it clearly expresses something people believe to be true, even if it apparently is not. )

Had it been true, it would have been an interesting example of saying the quiet part out loud. And yet, perversely, isn’t this very ‘honesty’ of Trump’s brazen calculus precisely what has made him so effective as a political operator, especially amongst the very voters he derides? Strictly speaking Trump was right. He could fool his voters, and yet paradoxically what allowed him to fool them was precisely his claim that there was nothing he wouldn’t say or do. One is almost tempted to say that there is something dialectical to this kind of shamelessness: the confession of a ruthless opportunism, paradoxically makes him more likeable and trustworthy in the eyes of the very same voters he disdains. In contrast to other career politicians who will tell the voters anything they want to hear, the meta-text of Trump’s confession was that it made him paradoxically more trustworthy, even though he was admitting to be fraudulent. Or, to invert the well-known Tony Montana quote from the movie Scarface: Trump lies, even (precisely) when he is telling the truth.

This is why Adorno already observed that one of the obscenities of fascist discourse was that it presented itself as more ‘honest’, equating its shamelessness with truth. And isn’t this also true today? One of the reasons Trump was re-elected was that despite his tendency to lie, his speech was nevertheless perceived as more ‘honest’ than the political double-speak of his main rival, Kamala Harris. This is the lie of shamelessness, where brazen falsehoods take on the appearance of honesty, in contrast to the rote recitation of facts, which are perceived by the public as dishonest despite being true.

This mix of shameless bravado, and a willingness to break with existing norms is of course a well-documented characteristic of Trump’s political style. And yet arguably today we are all living in Trump’s world in which shamelessness has become an ideological common denominator. What used to be hidden or disavowed is now publicly flaunted. Consider, for example, how Israeli politicians and civilians openly tout their genocidal intent in Gaza, or -for that matter- how Russia annd the US openly violate international law.

And yet this is also why it’s so revealing when one observes where nevertheless certain lines are drawn. For example, when recently images were released of Israeli soldiers destroying a statue of Christ, the Israeli government was quick to reprimand the soldiers. The tacit message was clear: whereas the killing of innocent Palestinians is considered acceptable, upsetting the American Christian right is not. This is not mere hypocrisy, but should be considered a crucial element within today’s shameless society: that it always reinforces the existing hegemonic frame. Which is to say, yes, Israel can shamelessly pursue its stated ‘total victory’, but only if it does so without offending the sensibilities of the American right, to whom it remains beholden for its excesses.

This is why Lacan already argued that shamelessness always tacitly works hand in hand with the status quo. Even though it appears shameless, it nevertheless can only remain so to the extent that it supports the hegemonic frame against which it supposedly acts in excess. Consider, for example, a carnival. For one day the fool is king and the king is fool (etc.). There are no laws and everyone gets to do what they want, at least for a day. Then, everything goes back to normal. And isn’t this also the truth of the Israeli shamelessness in Gaza? Everything is permitted, as long as at the end of the day the Western hegemonic order remains essentially unchanged.

Likewise, Marcuse, in his One-Dimensional Man already argued that shamelessness should be considered a form of ‘repressive desublimation’, i.e. a nominally free act which nevertheless remains strictly within the confines of the existing hegemonic incentive structure. For contemporary examples, suffice to watch any advertisement on television or the internet. The customer is sold the dream of happiness, freedom, health, as a way of ‘achieving their full potential’. According to Marcuse, this is how repressive desublimation functions within capitalism. Instead of being offered genuine freedom, one expresses one’s freedom through one’s purchasing power, access to lifestyle goods, etc.

Conspicuous consumption is therefore the hallmark of such repression. The less free we are, the more we spend on luxury goods and services. Not only was this already noticeable during the pandemic, when purchases of luxury goods skyrocketed, but it can now be seen throughout our so-called ‘K-shaped’ economy. This means that the public perception of affordability shifts towards unrealistic expectations of luxury spending, touted by influencers peddling branded products and experiences on social media. Amidst this frenzy of normalized excess, a certain shamelessness sets in, not just because of the disavowal which has to take place to maintain the illusion, but also because it sells a fantasy that can barely be sustained.

This means that many of the most ‘shameless’ influencers succumb to a certain Trumpian disdain apropos their own audiences. Being expected to facilitate a non-stop fantasy frame through which to facilitate their viewers’ vicarious enjoyment, they begin to disdain their audiences, justifying to themselves the legitimacy of their grift as a reasonable price at which to sell their own integrity. Shamelessness once again masks their repression, whilst serving to tacitly underwrite the cultural common denominator that attention equals profit, and that excess begets more wealth.

There’s an old scene from ‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’ that illustrates this quite well. In one episode the matriarch is entertaining some extended family members on a mega-yacht. One of them says, “why do you have to show off all of this wealth? Isn’t there something obscene about it?”, To which the mother angrily replies: “you don’t understand! Without this (*gesticulates at the camera*), all this (*gesticulates at the yacht) goes away.”

And isn’t this the trap of the truly shameless, that their life becomes its own punishment? Consider Elon Musk: both the richest man in the world, and someone who (reportedly) has a fake ‘X’ account in his mother’s name where he posts AI pictures of himself with a birthday cake plus a loving message from his ‘mother’. Shamelessness is always repression in disguise.

This is why Zizek argues that what is missing today is a certain ‘reflexivity of shame’. When confronted with seemingly shameless acts, we should always ask ourselves, what is the underlying truth which it attempts to repress/hide? Shamelessness is therefore never about a lack of shame, but rather indicates its inverse, a shame which cannot be acknowledged or expressed. To move forward we must therefore reintroduce a certain modicum of shame. A shame befitting of our collective humanity, and without which we cannot experience either solidarity or dignity.

Thank you for reading this post. Paying subscribers can access a bonus seminar, and patrons can access my full lecture/seminar/ebook archives. the link is: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy