All violence is physical. Metaphorically speaking of shame as violent is an attempt to make shame sound inexcusable when, in reality, shame is necessary.
I don't think it's possible to do a good job raising a child without intentionally making them suffer in order to teach them things. The issue is making someone suffer more than is necessary or making them suffer for the wrong reasons. The suffering part isn't the problem.
The other definitions are metaphors.
Agreed. I just think that most people would call causing suffering more than is necessary and for the wrong reasons "violent".
If not "violent", what would you call a shame based intervention that causes unnecessary suffering or is done for the wrong reasons?
(It is in almost all ethical and moral systems.)
You can also call it immoral and a few other adjectives.
And for added irony, it should also be shameful.
I've heard quite a few times (especially for older generations) that one learned to behave well because their parent beat them. I was raised in a guilt (rather than shame)-driven culture (Catholic), and well, while this is effective, it takes decades to undo the damage.
> It's also highly preferable to violence.
And my point is, that shame is a form of violence (not all violence is physical). Yes, it can be justified on occasions. If you dislike the word violence (in this context), then consider intentionally making someone suffer.
For using shames, when it hurts beyond proportions, "How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life" (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...) is worth reading.