The Decline of Shame as a Social Regulator Is Fueling Societal Fragmentation
Source: Jay Caspian Kang. "The Death of Shame Is Tearing Us Apart | The New Yorker." September 8, 2026. www.newyorker.com
The Gist
The author argues that shame used to be an important, informal way society kept bad behavior in check—but now it's failing because social media lets people avoid real consequences for their actions, and a growing 'optimize everything for profit' mentality treats social disapproval as irrelevant. He uses NBA teams intentionally losing games to illustrate this, and warns that as shame stops working, we'll increasingly need government or institutional rules to force people to behave decently.
Conclusion
The erosion of shame as an informal social regulator—driven by both digital technology and the rise of 'optimization culture' (pure ROI-based thinking)—is a major cause of societal fragmentation, and formal regulation will increasingly be needed to constrain self-interested behavior that shame once curtailed.
Premises
- Shame historically functioned as an informal mechanism that enforced social norms without requiring state intervention, as illustrated by the NBA's decades-long struggle with tanking
- Social media and digital communication provide anonymity and physical distance that weaken the real-world social consequences (like public embarrassment or physical confrontation) that once reinforced shame
- A culture of 'optimization'—rooted in finance, tech, and management consulting mindsets—has spread across many sectors of society and explicitly treats shame-based social constraints as obsolete or irrelevant to maximizing return on investment
- This optimization thinking has always existed within American capitalism, but historically it made an effort to conceal itself, whereas today it operates openly and pervasively (e.g., private equity in children's sports leagues, nursing homes)
- When shame no longer restrains self-interested actors, institutions are forced to create formal rules and direct regulation to fill the gap, as seen in the NBA's escalating anti-tanking policies
- The resulting conflict between those who still honor social/moral constraints and those who operate purely on cost-benefit calculation constitutes a central and worsening feature of America's cultural and economic conflict
Assumptions
- Shame is generally a socially beneficial force whose decline should be viewed as a loss rather than neutral or positive change
- A community without shame necessarily risks moral fragmentation or 'chaos of personal interpretation'
- The dynamics of a professional sports league (NBA tanking) are a valid analogy for broader societal behavior and institutions
- Optimization/ROI-driven thinking is fundamentally and necessarily opposed to communal or shame-based values, rather than potentially compatible with them
- Formal regulation can effectively substitute for the social function that shame used to serve
- The increase in visible 'shameless' behavior reflects an actual moral or behavioral shift, rather than simply increased visibility due to media changes