One of the concepts postulated about societies that focus more on shame than guilt is that they are ‘limited good’ societies. This idea suggests that people in those societies regard social capital as finite. This concept suggests that if my own lot improves it automatically means that someone else’s lot gets worse. That’s probably simplistic but the blog below challenges that assumption about those cultures and provokes a great deal of discussion in the follow-up comments on the post page
One of the responses references another blog:
http://blog.zebrapost.net/2015/11/the-issue-of-limited-good.html
It seems to me that these discussions are vitally important in understanding other cultures but also have an impact on how we understand and approach the bible as Christians. We have to get hold of the truth that, unless we are very careful, we misinterpret scripture by reading it through our own cultural spectacles. That isn’t just true for Western Christians but also for others from Africa, South American and Asia. The shame-honour and guilt- forgiveness paradigms are significant factors in understanding cultures and in understanding scripture. To the extent that we uncritically fall into one or the other paradigm then we set ourselves up to misunderstand and misinterpret scripture.
As we seek to understand how Christ atones for our shame, listening to the voices of those for whom this is so much a part of their own faith journey is important. Here is a blog by Mako A. Nagasawa who is a campus minister at Harvard and Boston College with the New Humanity Institute, and founding director of 
something else. One of Hans Christian Andersen stories also focusses on that
Ambition, determination, wholehearted commitment to our goals. Quite good things in themselves. Often, however, when our hopes for ourselves conflict with the interests of others we can produce all sorts of justifications for less than generous attitudes and actions.
No. … It was because Christ was open to others, vulnerably sharing himself with them listening to their needs, that he set his face like a flint to the cross. Because he was aware of others – he chose suffering and death. The challenge for us is to be so open with others that we are prepared, ultimately, if necessary, to set aside our well-being, our comfort, so as to meet their needs.
“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Over past month or so, we have seen graphic images of refugees crossing the Mediterranean and we have heard reports of many being killed crossing the sea or in lorries in different parts of Europe. How should we respond to what we hear and see. There is a very strong lobby which wants us to be fortress Britain. We are too full says that lobby. We cannot take any more. Yet the figures are striking. Since the start of the Syrian crisis the UK has taken 216 Syrian refugees – 216 in 4 years. The camp near the channel tunnel has about 5,000 refugees wanting to come to Britain, that sounds a little more demanding. But the most astounding figure is the number of refugees who have been granted asylum in Germany in the past year – wait for it – ¾ million. Yes, ¾ million. In this context, what is our response to be, put up walls and exclude those most in need? Britain for the British! Fortress Britain. Keep everyone else out?
Roger Farnworth 