Regarding a person who is visibly different in any way that might cause others to cringe, the previous post mentioned the constant tension of never knowing how you will be received and perceived by people in the environment. It appears that Erving Goffman’s research unearthed every possible disadvantage that might be experienced by a person who is clearly an Other. One result he confirmed was that someone “grossly deformed need suffer less doubt about their reception in interaction than the less visibly deformed.”
What an advantage! The more messed up a person is, the easier it is to avoid doubt. Imagine giving this advice to a chubby child: “If you seek peace of mind, just go ahead and grow really enormous, because at least then you’ll know for sure that people actually are repelled by you.”
No reprieve
Another psychological discomfort may be felt by the stigmatized person in mixed company (perhaps more by someone with a racial or class difference), which is the inability to relax because, in the eyes of a potentially hostile public, they presumably represent their whole group. In that arena, a “normal” person might compliment you by expressing surprise that you are, in some ways, just like an actual human.
What if a little child stares at or insults a grotesquely obese person? Aside from reminding that child not to be rude, the responsible adult might tuck the moment into memory to be retrieved next time the kid wants some fattening treat. Just say, “Eating that leads to obesity.” Not out loud — the kid won’t respect the logic. It’s a reminder for you, the grownup, to try and protect that child from regrettable consequences.
In public situations, the potential for trouble never ends:
Instead of cowering, the stigmatized individual may attempt to approach mixed contacts with hostile bravado, but this can induce from others its own set of troublesome reciprocations… Each potential source of discomfort for him […] can become something we sense he is aware of, aware that we are aware of, and even aware of our state of awareness about his awareness; the stage is then set for the infinite regress of mutual consideration…
In the 1960s Goffman noted the propensity of people who are “othered” to form action groups for mutual support. This, of course, still happens, and now, media access offers a vast array of possibilities in addition to mere print media. Then, as now, a typical publication aimed to help affected individuals deal with their situation and provided the opportunity to share feelings, grievances, and ambitions, and bond with the similarly affected:
Success stories are printed, tales of heroes of assimilation who have penetrated new areas of normal acceptance. Atrocity tales are recorded, recent and historic, of extreme mistreatment by normals. Exemplary moral tales are provided in biographical and autobiographical form illustrating a desirable code of conduct for the stigmatized.
Interest groups typically address the general public about such issues as terminology. Goffman offered the example of how, decades ago, the New York League for the Hard of Hearing worked to convince the adoption of…
[…] only such terms as hard of hearing, impaired hearing, and hearing loss; to excise the word deaf from their conversation, their correspondence and other writings, their teaching, and their speeches in public… It worked. New York in general gradually began to use the new vocabulary. Straight thinking was on the way.
Apparently, this movement did not spread, or stick, because the accepted definition of “deaf” today denotes partial or total hearing loss, and does indeed seem the most fair and accurate way to describe the total inability to hear. In a way, that particular battle seems to have been misdirected, because plenty of people are actually unable to hear at all. It was a birth defect, or caused by illness or infection, or by an industrial accident, or exposure to loud noise as in wartime; and every possible cause of total deafness has not yet been identified.
Controversy over the terminology pertaining to body weight and size is much more complicated and emotionally charged, and still continues vigorously and fiercely today and is inextricably bound up with the issue of stigma.
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity,” WordPress.com, 1963
Source: “Deafness,” HealthGrades.com, 11/02/20
Image by Hansuan_Fabregas/Pixabay
FAQs and Media Requests: 
