Anyone vulnerable to being stigmatized by the larger society — for instance, an obese person — will probably not feel the same about their condition throughout the course of a lifetime. It can go different ways. She/he/they may start out by feeling very “other,” but then at some point encounter a group of similar individuals and seize the opportunity to spend time amongst them and, to all intents and purposes, feel normal.
Or the person might be in circumstances that include no others who are afflicted by the same drawback, and suffer years of feeling estranged from humanity. Even if the individual finds an affinity group with whom to comfortably meld — he, she, or they might change, causing him or her to want to leave and seek other circumstances.
And yet, even if their prospects for finding plenty of similarly obese people to hang out with are abundant, still it is to be hoped that no parent actually aspires to have an obese child.
This is the last of a series of posts examining the work of Erving Goffman, author of “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity,” and what really does not need repetition is that the author knew what he was talking about.
Ups and downs, ins and outs
In the course of a lifetime, sometimes a person fits in, and sometimes does not. What causes a good fit is often what Goffman calls the special opportunities for in-group participation. Since the beginning of time, that has often implied a consciousness of being somehow superior to the rest of humanity.
An affinity group of musical geniuses might be quite justified in that conviction; a group of people who never bathe, not so much. A mob that burns down a house is an affinity group. Affinity does not necessarily or automatically imply worthiness or any other virtue.
Human nature is subject to ebbs and flows, about which Goffman says,
There will be “affiliation cycles” through which he comes to accept the special opportunities for in-group participation or comes to reject them after having accepted them before. There will be corresponding oscillations in belief about the nature of his own group and the nature of normals.
Each affiliation cycle implies “shifts of participation and belief.” Each such shift involves a change in relationship between the individual and her or his community, whether that is an informal group of hangout buddies, or an official organization dedicated, for instance, to the concept of fat acceptance.
However, all “acceptance” avenues do not lead to the same place, nor do they start out in the same place. Membership in the NAACP, for instance, includes, of course, anyone of any race whose beliefs line up with the principles of racial justice, civil rights, voting rights, education, economic opportunity, and equality — along with a preponderance of people who were born and will remain Black.
Members of an organization centered on fat acceptance (or even fat encouragement) tend to mainly be actual obese individuals, with a welcoming attitude that could be expressed as, “If you’re one of us already, stigmatized in the same way we are, well, come on in. It’s a big tent.” There is room for all, especially if they lean on a moral principle like the basic human right, possessed by everyone, to remain overweight if such is their desire. Or if they like to pretend that they really are without an option.
But for most people, that choice is very much within the realm of possibility. They have it in their power to remain overweight, or to change. Many members could, in theory anyway, slim down to normal-range weights; yet still decide to remain in the organization that encourages acceptance of those who have not committed to the quest for a smaller body.
Another angle
But what, actually, is wrong with having such a positive attitude? Or with believing that we are in excellent health, and could not possibly be happier? If the others join us, they too will experience health and happiness.
What is the problem? Goffman wrote,
In reviewing his own moral career, the stigmatized individual may single out and retrospectively elaborate experiences which serve for him to account for his coming to the beliefs and practices that he now has regarding his own kind and normals.
Basically, anyone with the motivation to remain obese can also find the justification. Nobody should have to go through this kind of moral dilemma, this nightmare of struggle against the self — and eventually, the tipping point will come. Goffman points out that a turning point may occur in the case of…
[…] an “isolating, incapacitating experience, often a period of hospitalization, which comes later to be seen as the time when the individual was able to think through his problem, learn about himself, sort out his situation, and arrive at a new understanding of what is important and worth seeking in life.
Someone might say, “Wait a minute, I think about my problems all the time. That is in fact one of my problems.” To sum up, as parents, we don’t want, or should not want, our kids to ever have to face this sort of existential crisis. What can prevent such a struggle? Not letting them grow up to be obese adults. And what can, in turn, prevent that eventuality? A firm resolve to not let them become obese children.
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity,” WordPress.com, 1963
Source: “Social Change and Status Protest,” Phylon, 1949
Source: “Cycles and Turning Points,” essay in “Men and Their Work,” Free Press of Glencoe, 1958
Image by pinterastudio/Pixabay
FAQs and Media Requests: 
