Social Sciences as Emotive Communities: Sacred Objects, Shaming, and the Enforcement of Disciplinary Boundaries

• In Event: Joint Roundtables: Social Psychology Section and Sociology of Emotions Section
  In Refereed Roundtable (90 minute): Table 1 - Morality, Collective Energy, & Prosocial Behavior

Abstract

Recent scholarship highlights that scientific knowledge production is profoundly shaped by collective emotions and moral intuitions, with shame and shaming serving as powerful mechanisms of boundary maintenance and exclusion (Creed et al. 2014; Thérèse and Martin 2010). This paper analyzes shame's role in disciplinary controversies across anthropology, sociology, and economics, reflecting on three large-scale U.S. surveys by the author and colleagues (Horowitz, Haynor, and Kickham 2018; Horowitz, Yaworsky, and Kickham 2019; Horowitz and Hughes 2018). These reveal sharp divisions—often along political, gender, and moral-commitment lines—in responses to sensitive topics: structural versus individual explanations of disadvantage in sociology, evolutionary/universalizing inquiries in anthropology, and capitalist crisis narratives in economics. Integrating Durkheim's sacred/profane framework, Cooley's looking-glass self, Scheff's shame theory (2000), Hochschild's (1983) feeling rules, Collins' interaction ritual chains (2004), and Haidt's moral foundations theory (2012), disciplines emerge as emotive communities where violations of sacred objects (e.g., vulnerable groups or market resilience) evoke anticipated or enacted shame. This triggers shame spirals—defensive anger, ostracism, withdrawal, or counter-shaming—that ritually exclude "unwanted queries" threatening collective identity and emotional energy. The analysis suggests that much intellectual debate is downstream of these emotive dynamics rather than purely evidentiary. It concludes by advocating greater reflexivity, viewpoint diversity, adversarial collaboration, and institutional support to disrupt shame spirals, fostering objectivity and wider societal trust in the academy.

Author

• Mark Horowitz, Seton Hall University