Goffman Part 2: Stigma In Contemporary Sociological Theory

Goffman Part 2 Stigmacontemporary Sociological Theory Lecturethurs

Goffman, Part 2: Stigma Contemporary Sociological Theory Lecture, Thursday April 25, 2019 Bits of business § I’ll get midterm grades in soon § If you need to take the final at a different time, be sure to e-mail me. § If you need to make up the first midterm, come to office hours or also e-mail me. § Your first paper is due at the end of the next week. All you have to do is apply one of the theories we’ve read so far to a newspaper story, fictional account, or your own life. For example, how might Goffman’s theory of stigma explain the treatment of Rep. Ilhan Omar? What is stigma?

“Society establishes the means of categorizing persons”: This allows us to make expectations of people based on their identities. But sometimes we come to realize the person doesn’t live up to our expectations of someone in that category: “it constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity.” Not about all undesirable attributes, but “only those which are incongruous with our stereotype of what a given type of individual should be.” Stigma is situational “a language of relationships, not attributes, is really needed“ (example of a professional criminal hiding going to the library). “A special kind of relationship between attribute and stereotype.” Difference between discredited and discreditable. Three different kinds of stigma: “abominations of the body,” “blemishes of individual character,” and “tribal stigma of race, nation, and religion.” All these are different from “normals.” What do normals do? Normals discriminate, consider the stigmatized not quite human, and develop an ideology to explain the difference. We use stigmatized categories as curse words and derogatory terms. Goffman gives the example of “blind.” What do the stigmatized do? They might not agree. They often internalize society’s judgments, both with others and by themselves. There are multiple meanings of “acceptance” (Goffman does not quite get to this). Efforts to “correct” the stigmatized element of the self. Other things include “secondary gains,” “blessing in disguise,” and challenging that normals actually have it better. Anticipated Interactions: The stigmatized can seek to avoid interactions with “normal.” “In the stigmatized arises the sense of not knowing what the others present are ‘really’ thinking about him” (14). Stigmatized individuals feel like they have to be “on” in ways others do not. Minor failings are interpreted as character traits. “Get outta my space, man.” “The implication of these overtures is that the stigmatized individual is a person who can be approached by strangers at will, providing only that they are sympathetic to the plight of persons of his kind” (16). Problems for normals too: “We will feel that the stigmatized individual is either too aggressive or too shamefaced, and in either case too ready to read unintended meanings into our actions.” Are we being patronizing? Are we demanding too much? Allies: The “own” and the “wise.” The “own” people might distinguish themselves from their “own,” however. A category might make people more likely to form a group, but it doesn’t make them a group. What do representatives do? They urge usage of different language, formulate an ideology, give public presentations, become professional, and make the stigma salient through writing and speaking. The “wise” term Goffman borrows from “homosexuals”: persons who are normal but who are sympathetic and accepting. This is not anti-prejudice but a function of interpersonal action. The problem with (not all!) woke white people (and Goffman): acceptance is important but not necessarily accompanied by using power or privileges to change perceptions. Acceptance does not guarantee rights or privileges in communities; issues of appropriation and reserved spaces arise. Stigma is contagious. The wise are divided into those with some experience and those related through social structure to a stigmatized individual. Courtesy stigma: stigmatized individuals are suspicious; normals are annoyed and unsure what to do. Moral Career: Learning about one’s stigma and what others think. Family protects until it cannot. Also, learning later in life or becoming stigmatized later, with an example of transitioning from non-stigmatized to stigmatized status. “A life event can thus have a double bearing on moral career, first as immediate objective ground for an actual turning point and later…as a means of account for a position currently taken” (38-39). Retrospective renarrations. Goffman’s Methodology: Data sources, importance, and approach? Goffman Summary: Presentation of Self—Front Stage and Back Stage, Saving Face, Total Institutions and Moral Careers, Virtual vs Actual Identity, Situational Nature of Stigma, Interactions between Normals and Stigmatized, Category vs Group, Wise and Own. For next Tuesday, think about how Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and distinction help us understand social differentiation and self-assertion in different contexts. Good luck with Bourdieu!

Paper For Above instruction

Goffman Part 2 Stigmacontemporary Sociological Theory Lecturethurs

Erving Goffman's exploration of stigma offers a profound understanding of how societal perceptions influence individual identities and social interactions. His theory elucidates the ways in which society categorizes persons, assigning expectations based on their identities, which sometimes clash with actual attributes, creating a discrepancy that leads to stigma. In contemporary society, stigma manifests in various forms, from physical appearances to moral character, and becomes a situational phenomenon deeply embedded in relational dynamics.

Goffman distinguishes between discredited and discreditable stigmas. Discredited stigmas are visible and immediate, such as physical disabilities or signs of racial or religious identity, which are readily recognized and often lead to discrimination and social exclusion. In contrast, discreditable stigmas are concealed or hidden, like mental health issues or criminal histories, which individuals may choose to conceal out of fear of stigmatization. This distinction plays a crucial role in understanding how individuals navigate social interactions and manage their identities under societal scrutiny.

The types of stigma Goffman identifies include “abominations of the body,” “blemishes of individual character,” and “tribal stigmas” related to race, religion, or nationality. These stigmas differentiate “normals” from stigmatized individuals, with normals often engaging in discriminatory practices or developing ideologies that rationalize their behavior. Normals tend to consider stigmatized persons less than fully human, employing derogatory language and stereotypes to justify societal gaps. Conversely, stigmatized individuals often internalize these societal judgments, which can influence their self-view and behavior.

The interaction between normals and stigmatized persons is complex. Stigmatized individuals may seek to avoid encounters with normals, feeling anxious about ignorance or misinterpretation. Those who are stigmatized may feel compelled to be “on,” constantly managing impressions to avoid further stigma. Minor flaws are sometimes exaggerated into character defects, leading to a heightened sense of vulnerability and social rejection. For example, societal reactions to differences, such as being blind, exemplify how attribute and stereotype interactions perpetuate stigma.

Goffman introduces the concepts of “the own” and “the wise.” The “own” refers to members of the stigmatized group, who can offer mutual support and understanding. The “wise” are sympathetic outsiders, often aware of the stigma but accepting of it, such as openly accepting homosexuals that are considered normal. These groups help buffer the marginalized from societal rejection and foster solidarity. Nonetheless, issues such as “courtesy stigma”—where relatives or associates of stigmatized individuals also face suspicion—highlight the contagious nature of stigma.

A critical aspect of Goffman’s theory is the concept of the moral career, describing how individuals learn about their stigma, its societal implications, and how they come to manage it over their lifetime. This process may involve protective family strategies, delayed realization, or retrospective narrations that reframe their life stories. The moral career underscores the fluidity and contextuality of stigma, emphasizing that societal reactions can shape personal identities over time.

Goffman’s methodological approach relied on observation, interviews, and analysis of social situations, aiming to reveal the nuanced ways that stigma is enacted and experienced. His insights into human interactions—such as presentation of self, saving face, and the management of impressions—are foundational to understanding social identity. His concepts of front stage and back stage behavior illuminate how individuals perform roles to conform to societal expectations or hide stigmatized aspects.

In conclusion, Goffman’s theory of stigma provides a comprehensive framework to understand how societal categorization influences individual social realities. It highlights the relational nature of stigma, the strategies individuals use to cope, and the societal responsibilities to foster acceptance and reduce discrimination. Recognizing these dynamics is essential for creating a more inclusive society that acknowledges human differences while respecting dignity.

References

• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
• Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
• Scambler, G. (2009). Health-related stigma. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(3), 441–455.
• Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press.
• Bachrach, C. A., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952.
• Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421.
• Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2006). Stigma and its Public Health Implications. The Lancet, 367(9509), 528–529.
• Hinshaw, S. P., & Stier, A. (2008). Stigma as related to mental disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 367–393.
• Erving Goffman (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
• Scambler, G. (2012). Health-related stigma. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(3), 441–455.