Many philosophers suspect that the emotion of shame cannot play a significant role in morality because shame is the reaction to others’ contempt and therefore, a heteronomous emotion. This paper aims to defend the view that shame is a morally significant emotion by focusing on one form of reproach —“shame on you.” We employ this reproach, for example, with a President who establishes discriminatory policies or a scientist who falsifies data in his academic paper and in these cases, we assume this reproach is morally important. Therefore, what does “shame on you” imply? How can it be morally justified? Moreover, what are its characteristics? In this paper, I answer these questions by clarifying the notions of shame and self-respect.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, I resolve the issue of autonomy and heteronomy in the emotion of shame based on Gabriele Taylor’s observation that shame contains two elements — a self-directed adverse judgment and a notion of an audience. I argue that the adverse judgment is always rendered autonomously, but the audience can be either autonomous or heteronomous; essentially, agents feel shame either in their own eyes or in the eyes of others. Second, I explain the meaning of “shame on you” and demonstrate the moral validity of this reproach by referring to the nature and classification of self-respect. Finally, I examine the distinctive significance of “shame on you.” Examining the different characteristics of shame and guilt, I argue that this form of reproach involves more a comprehensive assessment of the agent than other forms of reproach that concern, for example, the violations of moral rules.

 The truth of management is supported by two things: existence which is ever-changing reality, and theory what is cognitive and currently in place locally. No “standard theory” can be established in management studies, because the reality of the business is continuously changing. Therefore, approaching truth is accomplished through knowing both theory and reality. Looking at the world business administration academia from this point of view, we can say that the academia has a certain level of soundness in terms of the fact that criticism of the theory-centric view appears from within the academia and the academia places great value on the search for the reality of things. In this respect, the world management academia has established the “standard normative” that both theory and reality have values to reach the truth. However, here we criticize that both the management societies in the world and Japan fall into the stuck that most of academicians rush into myopic research for the sake of journal acceptance or getting fame in academia, while they are losing their original philosophy and raison d’etre of pursuing the truth of management.

New born infants have not only id which is the reservoir of inpulsive energy, but also the sense of the self which needs acceptance of care-giver. Child development is not the process from dependence to autonomy or from undifferentiation to separation-individuation, but the process of self-objectification by expanding child’s subjective world through deepening the connection with the other.

But as the consequence of the self-objectification that is conscious of the self seen from the other, the vulnerability of the self and the sense of shame occur inevitably. As the consequence of it, the self introjects the other and must begin to cure his wound. It is the self-object which Kohut insists that has such functions. Main self-object’s functions are mainly mirroring, idealizing and twinships. Deviant behavior occurs as a consequence of deepening of painful vulnerability or the lack of the supportiveness of self-objects for it.