Chasing Stigma Through the Ages

Because some truths are eternal, today’s post refers to a work published six decades ago, whose roots go back centuries. Written by Erving Goffman, its title is “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity,” and its subject is one that concerns us because if our children grow up to be unacceptably obese according to the standards of the time and place, stigma is what they will face daily throughout their lives.
The word itself has a complicated origin, intertwined with not only punitive laws but with the Christian religion. Stigmata are wounds or scars that spontaneously appear on the body of a saint or other particularly holy individual, in locations (hands, feet, torso) commemorating the violence inflicted on Jesus during the crucifixion.
But no…
What we are talking about here is the other meaning, the intentionally inflicted wounds that served as warning labels, signaling to others that they should avoid a stranger because of potential trouble. The presence of those scars meant, “To help this escaped slave could get you imprisoned,” or “While this sinner did not do something bad enough for a sentence of execution, he was convicted of a serious crime, so steer clear.” It’s where the expression “He’s a marked man” came from — there would be a literal mark, usually on the face, the meaning of which was clear to the general public.
One of the points made by Goffman’s work is that “shifts have occurred in the kinds of disgrace that arouse concern.” To be stigmatized, a person no longer needs to be a fugitive or a convict — or to be held down and branded with a hot iron. A body that is too big, according to the standards of the time and place, is enough to signify that a person’s “social identity” is one that decent, upstanding, right-minded citizens might (and probably should) be repelled by. Because of this expectation, it is easy to “read” the stranger as worthy of blame for being dangerous, evil, or at the very least, weak.
The author’s extensive study of the subject causes him to occasionally throw in a phrase like,
A stigma, then, is really a special kind of relationship between attribute and stereotype.
How does this relationship manifest itself, out in the world?
The term stigma and its synonyms conceal a double perspective: does the stigmatized individual assume his differentness is known about already or is evident on the spot, or does he assume it is neither known about by those present nor immediately perceivable by them?
Then, in many instances, another if/then factor becomes apparent. Even in the case of obvious differentness, like skin color or obesity — does anybody really care? If they don’t, then the interaction or the relationship can move on to more relevant points.
But just in case
In reaction to a stigmatized individual, the author points out, we let our prejudiced mental stereotypes take over — “transforming them into normative expectations, into righteously presented demands.” Those demands can show up in many guises. For instance, if the morbidly obese stranger is gracious enough to make a little joke like, “Gee, I hope I don’t break your chair,” we might feel inclined to give that person a pass (at least temporarily) because they have bowed to our automatic revulsion by acknowledging how disgusting they are.
Our mental filing cabinet registers that gesture of surrender and makes a note: “At least she knows her place in the hierarchy of worthiness.” The overweight individual can mollify and (temporarily, anyway) neutralize our disgust by confessing to their inadequacy. A fat teenager can become acceptable and even popular within a friend group by frequently insulting himself and saving everybody else the effort.
Acceptance, even grace
A stigmatized person who bows to, and often acknowledges, the group’s stereotypes can earn forgiveness. In their subconscious minds, the others are doing the person a favor by granting a temporary pass into the human race. Of course, the trouble with a temporary pass is that it can be revoked at any time.
We are only on Page 5, and Goffman is just getting started. Here are a few more points:
By definition, of course, we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination…
We construct a stigma-theory, an ideology to explain his inferiority and account for the danger he represents…
We use specific stigma terms…
We tend to impute a wide range of imperfections on the basis of the original one…
Obviously, even the most limited and un-intellectually inclined “normal” individuals can generate sufficient insults, pranks, slurs, putdowns, slights, taunts, and sneers to make anyone’s life miserable. But wait, there is more:
Further, we may perceive his defensive response to his situation as a direct expression of his defect, and then see both defect and response as just retribution for something he or his parents or his tribe did, and hence a justification of the way we treat him.
When persecutors with a few more brain cells, material resources, and additional free time become involved, they have the means to concoct entire theoretical constructs and mythologies and old wives’ tales to justify the mistreatment of some particular type of person. Not only that, but they can accrue enough power and influence to affect the scientific fundamentals, and even the religious institutions and the legal underpinnings of a society, to the detriment of a chosen group.
(To be continued…)
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity,” WordPress.com, 1963
Image by Tumisu/Pixabay









FAQs and Media Requests: