Fear–Shame–Conscience Map (ကြောက်၊ ရှက်၊ လိပ်ပြာလုံ/မလုံ)
An interactive Meaning–Worldview–Power Map grounded in the Fear Dialogue,
semantic-elicitation responses, the guilt dialogue and written reflections.
How to read the map:
begin with the language people use, identify the anticipated danger or moral relationship,
reconstruct the worldview that makes it intelligible, trace who can impose consequences,
and then examine what becomes speakable, actionable or repairable.
Translation caution:
“guilt” is a comparative label rather than a complete translation of
လိပ်ပြာမလုံ or အပြစ်ရှိစိတ်.
The map examines overlaps without dividing societies into fear–shame and guilt civilisations.
Click a node to open or close its branch. Quotations and concept notes open in the details panel. Hover to see full text. Drag to pan and use the mouse wheel or trackpad to zoom.
Interpretive guidance
Transformation, evidence and limits
These materials remain outside the mind-map window because they describe research practice and normative design rather than meanings of the focal concepts themselves.
From emotional discipline to protected agency and repair
- Protection before exhortationAsk what concrete loss people anticipate and who can make it real before prescribing confidence or courage.
- Safe errorSeparate a correctable mistake from humiliation, permanent stigma and loss of belonging.
- Speakable disagreementCreate channels where questioning senior people does not threaten livelihood, safety or group membership.
- Credible anti-retaliationAnonymous, delayed and independent feedback matters only when harmful responses produce consequences.
- Act-focused accountabilityName the act, harm, responsibility and possible repair instead of destroying the whole identity of the person.
- Institutionalised conscienceEvidence, rules, remedies and limits on power should not depend on perpetrators spontaneously feeling guilty.
- Collective courageDistribute risk so that political action does not require isolated heroes.
- Repair without impunityKeep apology, restitution, changed conduct and reintegration possible while preserving responsibility for harm.
Primary corpus and selected references
- Fear Dialogue Corpus. (2026a). ကြောက်ခြင်း [Unpublished facilitated dialogue transcript]. The Calling Digest / Epistemic Project.
- Fear Dialogue Corpus. (2026b). ကြောက်တယ် ကွက်လပ်လေးတွေ ဖြည့်ပေးကြပါ အဖြေ [Unpublished semantic-elicitation responses]. The Calling Digest / Epistemic Project.
- The Calling Digest. (2026). Dialogue on Guilt [Unpublished facilitated dialogue transcript].
- The Calling Digest. (2026). Fill in the Blank Guilty: လိပ်ပြာလုံ/မလုံ [Unpublished participant responses].
- The Calling Digest. (2026). Myanmar Fear–Shame Master Synthesis [Working research synthesis].
- Fink, C. (2009). Living silence in Burma: Surviving under military rule (2nd ed.). Zed Books.
- Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
- Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.
- Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Evidence limits
- The corpus is exploratory, Burmese-dominant, facilitator-shaped and not representative of all Myanmar peoples, languages or institutions.
- Participant statements reveal meanings and perceptions. They do not independently prove every historical, cultural or causal claim.
- Transcript noise, code-switching and interrupted speech can create false lexical patterns. Audio verification is required before formal quotation.
- Post-coup fear may dominate current testimony and should not automatically be projected backward across Myanmar history.
- Fear, shame and conscience vary by political position, gender, class, religion, generation, ethnicity, language and conflict history.
- The map distinguishes direct corpus evidence, interpretation, research synthesis, causal hypothesis and normative proposal.