The Quiet Normalization of Humiliation

by Raffy Gutierrez

 

Humiliation doesn’t always arrive loudly. It doesn’t always come with insults or threats. Most of the time, it arrives politely—through procedures, queues, requirements, and rules that quietly remind people where they stand. Over time, we stopped calling it what it is. We started calling it process.  We know for a fact that the system is broken but deep inside most of us have already chosen to believe that there’s nothing we can do about it — okay lang na kawawain tayo or kahit mapahiya tayo sa obvious na mali.

Being told to come back tomorrow. Being redirected from one window to another. Being asked for documents that were already submitted. Being spoken to as if asking for service were a favor, not a right. These moments feel small when taken individually. But stacked together, day after day, they send a clear message: your time does not matter, your dignity is negotiable, and your role is to comply.

What makes this dangerous is not the humiliation itself—but how normal it has become.

We have learned to brace ourselves before dealing with institutions. We prepare extra documents “just in case.” We rehearse explanations for problems we did not create. We lower expectations before entering offices, hospitals, or service counters because disappointment feels inevitable. This is not efficient. This is psychological conditioning.

Humiliation becomes invisible when everyone experiences it.

In a healthy system, citizens are treated as clients, partners, or stakeholders. In broken ones, they are treated as obstacles. As potential liars. As problems to be managed. The default posture is suspicion, not service. That posture shows up in tone, in body language, in policies that assume abuse instead of competence.

And once suspicion becomes institutional, humiliation becomes routine.

The most painful part is how easily this is defended. “That’s just how it works.” “Everyone goes through it.” “At least you got processed.” We mistake equal suffering for fairness. As long as everyone is humiliated the same way, we tell ourselves the system is neutral. It is not. It is simply inefficient at scale.

Humiliation is not a side effect of poverty. It is a design choice. It happens when systems prioritize control over service, compliance over outcomes, and procedure over people. It happens when institutions are optimized to protect themselves, not to serve the public.

And the cost is enormous.

People stop asserting themselves. They stop asking questions. They stop expecting respect. Over time, humiliation trains silence. Silence trains apathy. And apathy is the most reliable shield broken systems have. A population that expects nothing is easy to manage.

This is why humiliation is so effective. It doesn’t need force. It relies on repetition.

But dignity is not a luxury. It is a requirement for functional citizenship. Systems that routinely humiliate their people produce resentment, not trust; workarounds, not cooperation; escape, not loyalty. No amount of patriotism can compensate for daily disrespect.

The opposite of humiliation is not entitlement. It is clarity. Clear rules. Clear timelines. Clear accountability. Concrete results. It is being treated as an adult capable of following processes that actually make sense. It is institutions that respect time because they are accountable for wasting it.

If we want a society that works, we have to stop normalizing humiliation as “just the way things are.” We have to name it, reject it, and refuse to confuse endurance with maturity.

Because once a people accepts humiliation as normal, freedom quietly disappears—without anyone needing to take it away.

Kusang pinatay ng bulok na sistema yung pagkatao at dangal natin at naging normal na yung kahihiyan na kailangan dalhin natin araw-araw.

________________________

 

Rafael “Raffy” Gutierrez is a Technology Trainer with over 25 years of experience in networking, systems design, and diverse computer technologies. He is also a popular social media blogger well-known for his real-talk, no-holds-barred outlook on religion, politics, philosophy.