CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state., Shame and Reintegration (1989) by John Braithwaite is a foundational text in criminology that builds on labelling theory, control theories, and social disorganization theory. Braithwaite’s concept of shaming analyzes the social processes that invoke shame as a form of social control. He distinguishes between two types: disintegrative shaming, which stigmatizes and excludes offenders, and reintegrative shaming, which combines disapproval with forgiveness and reintegration. Braithwaite argues that the latter approach can reduce crime by strengthening social bonds and moral consciousness.
Key Points
Crime, Shame and Reintegration
Main Proponent: John Braithwaite
First Publication: 1989
Country of Origin: Australia
Core Idea: Shaming is a central social process that can either stigmatize and marginalize offenders (disintegrative) or encourage remorse and reintegration (reintegrative). The way societies shame affects crime rates and social cohesion.
Foundation For: Restorative JusticeRestorative justice is an alternative approach to justice that emphasizes healing, accountability, and reconciliation between offenders, victims, and communities., Labelling Theory, Control Theories
Theory
Braithwaite defines shaming as „all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming“ (1989: 100). His theory distinguishes between two fundamentally different forms of shaming:
„The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval… are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens… Disintegrative shaming, in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.“
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)
Disintegrative Shaming
In disintegrative shaming, condemnation targets not only the act but the person as a whole, branding them as unredeemable. The stigmatized individual faces social exclusion, barriers to employment, and marginalization. This exclusion fosters resentment, alienation, and the formation of subcultures or deviant communities, which can reinforce criminal behavior. The classic image of public humiliation—such as the pillory—is a historical example of disintegrative shaming that permanently marks individuals as outsiders.
Reintegrative Shaming
By contrast, reintegrative shaming disapproves of the act while communicating forgiveness and an invitation back into the community. Here, sanctions are most effective when delivered by significant others—family, friends, and community members—whose moral authority carries greater weight than distant legal institutions. This form of shaming fosters guilt and remorse while maintaining social bonds, reducing the likelihood of repeat offending.
„It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.“
(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)
Examples of Disintegrative and Reintegrative ShamingReintegrative shaming is a form of social disapproval that condemns the offense while supporting the reintegration of the offender.
Disintegrative Shaming
A classic example is public pillorying or „naming and shaming“ campaigns that brand offenders as irredeemable. For instance, publishing the names and photos of convicted sex offenders on public registries may stigmatize them permanently, making employment, housing, and social reintegration extremely difficult. This form of shaming can reinforce deviant identities and isolate offenders from mainstream society, increasing the risk of recidivism and social harm.
Reintegrative Shaming
Restorative justice conferences offer a contrasting approach. In these meetings, an offender admits harm in front of victims, family members, and community representatives. The process involves acknowledging wrongdoing and expressing remorse, while the group offers forgiveness and support for reintegration. Such practices aim to condemn the offense clearly but reaffirm the offender’s membership in the community, reducing the risk of further crime and strengthening social bonds.
Why Does Shaming Work?
Braithwaite outlines multiple mechanisms that explain the effectiveness of shaming:
- Shame deters more effectively than formal punishment because of social and emotional consequences.
- General deterrence arises as observers internalize the shame experienced by offenders.
- Shaming works best on socially integrated individuals with strong bonds to family and community.
- Stigmatization weakens social control, reinforcing deviant subcultures and identities.
- Shame is a participatory process that builds shared moral understanding and conscience.
- Public gossip and condemnation spread awareness of harmful behavior, reinforcing collective norms.
- Effective shaming includes gestures of forgiveness, allowing reintegration rather than alienation.
Braithwaite also emphasizes that cultures emphasizing reintegrative shaming achieve smoother socialization, transitioning children from external to internal control, making families more effective social control agents than police.
Illustration
Figure: Summary of reintegrative shaming theory (after Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Implications for Criminal Policy
Braithwaite’s work critiques punitive, retributive justice models that emphasize standardization of penalties and negative general prevention („just deserts“). He argues that such approaches often alienate offenders, harden deviant identities, and weaken social control.
Instead, Braithwaite advocates Restorative Justice, an approach grounded in reintegrative shaming. This model prioritizes repairing harm, involving victims and communities, and reintegrating offenders into law-abiding society. Policies informed by this approach focus on dialogue, accountability, forgiveness, and social reintegration rather than exclusion and stigmatization.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as a direct response to classical labelling theory. While labelling theorists like Lemert and Becker showed how social reactions and stigmatizing labels produce secondary deviance, Braithwaite asks how these reactions might instead reduce crime. He argues that disintegrative shaming is precisely the harmful mechanism labelling theory describes—it brands people as outsiders, reinforcing deviant identities. In contrast, reintegrative shaming avoids this trap by combining clear moral disapproval with acceptance and reintegration, preventing the self-fulfilling prophecy of deviance. In this way, his model retains labelling theory’s insight into the power of social reaction while offering a framework for positive, crime-reducing responses.
By integrating these insights, Braithwaite’s theory does not reject punishment outright but reimagines it in the form of Restorative Justice. This approach explicitly uses reintegrative shaming to repair harm, rebuild trust, and strengthen social bonds, demonstrating the practical value of labelling theory’s critical insights for modern criminal policy.
Literature
- Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Full Text]
- Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (eds.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer, 3481-3490.
Further Information
- Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1-15.
