"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty"

Jessica Mitford’s witty observation taps into both the limits of individual power and the subtle forms of activism available to those watching injustice unfold. While grand change may elude us, she suggests there remains a potent, even subversive tool at our disposal: exposing wrongdoing, holding the guilty publicly accountable, and denying them the comfort of secrecy or respectability. Embarrassment, in this sense, is not mere social discomfort but a form of illumination, a strategy for highlighting and confronting unethical behavior.

By framing embarrassment as an attainable goal, Mitford recognizes that systemic change often requires tremendous resources, influence, coordination, and sometimes even luck. Nonetheless, individuals can chip away at entrenched corruption or malfeasance by refusing to let injustice hide in plain sight. Social shame, ridicule, and public criticism can act as meaningful deterrents and red flags for the broader community. Sometimes, social censure is the only effective check on power, especially when institutions are unwilling or unable to act.

There’s also a democratic spirit in Mitford’s words, the notion that anyone can contribute, even in small ways, to a more honest and ethical world. Laughing at the self-serious, pointing out hypocrisy, and exposing the uncomfortable truths are ways of undermining the status quo and affirming shared values, even if the larger order remains unchanged. Importantly, this tactic can inspire others, fostering a culture where transparency and integrity matter.

Yet, Mitford’s suggestion is laced with irony and a hint of cynicism, a recognition of how hard it is to shift entrenched systems, but also how meaningful it can be to resist passivity. At the very least, embarrassing the guilty maintains moral engagement and refuses complicity. The act becomes a small, defiant assertion of ethical judgment, preserving dignity and hope in the face of daunting odds.