ORIGINS AND TYPES OF STIGMA

Goffman argues that in order to understand the stigmatization process, one must go back to how people categorize others. When a person encounters someone else, they first rely on appearances to identify their category and attributes‑taken together which Goffman refers to as the individuals “social identity” (Goffman 1963: 2). Goffman (1963: 2) states that once people are categorized, the associated attributes assigned the individual are considered normal to people from that category. These attributes become normative expectations and demands. These perceptions may not always be correct. The perceived characterization of the individual is referred to as the virtual social identity whereas the actual category and attributes the individual has are referred to as their actual social identity (Goffman 1963: 2).

When interacting with someone, people may identify an attribute that sets the individual apart from what is perceived to be allowable for that person. When that attribute is a less desirable attribute, the person becomes stained. These attributes can be referred to as a stigma (Goffman 1963: 2). Important to Goffman is the recognition that this is confirmed within a social relationship. The person identifying the other as being stigmatized thus has their normality confirmed in the process (Goffman 1963: 2).

When describing the types of stigmas, Goffman highlights the difference between those that are discredited and those that are discreditable. The first is a stigma that is assumed to already be known while the latter may not be perceived by others immediately (Goffman 1963: 2). Some may refer to this as concealable and non-concealable. Examples of non-concealable stigmas are things like a physical difference while a concealable difference might be something such as mental health.

Beyond whether or not the stigma itself is concealable, Goffman identifies three primary sources of stigma. The first type of stigma identified is referred to as abominations of the body. These cover a range of physical differences. The second type of stigma identified by Goffman are character flaws. Goffman offers things such as mental disorders, criminal records, and alcoholism as examples. And the third type of stigma identified by Goffman are tribal stigmas. These are stigmas that are passed down through lineages and are things such as race and religion (Goffman 1963: 2).

MORAL CAREERS - SOCIALIZATION AND REALIZATION OF STIGMA

How do people come to realize their stigma and the impact of their stigma? Goffman identifies two phases of the socialization process. One phase includes the stigmatized individual “learn[ing]” and “incorporat[ing]” the views of those he refers to as “normals” ‑people who do not have the stigma. The second phase is when the individual realizes they have the stigma and learn first-hand the consequences of this stigma. How and when these phases unfold has an impact on the moral career of the individual. Goffman identifies four potential patterns (Goffman 1963: 34). While Goffman does not explicitly label them, I will refer to them as synchronous, protective capsule, punctuated, and challenged.

A synchronous moral career occurs when a person learns at the same time what is considered normal and that their situation or identity is not aligned with this normal (Goffman 1963: 34). This occurs for people who are born with stigmas. The second pattern is the protective capsule. Goffman describes this pattern as one in which the individual is protected by their family and potentially smaller community and does not realize their difference until later on, often when they enter school and face bullying and ostracism (Goffman 1963: 34). The third pattern, punctuated, occurs when a person learns they have spent their entire life discreditable and they must then reconsider his past or when a person becomes stigmatized later on in their life (Goffman 1963: 34). These individuals have spent their entire life learning about the normal and stigmatized but have viewed themselves as normal up until this point in time. These individuals must learn a new identity and may be particularly self-critical (Goffman 1963: 34). And the final pattern occurs when an individual is first socialized in an “alien” community and then must learn how to operate within the normal community, realizing that what they thought was normal is in fact different (Goffman 1963: 34).

Regardless of when it occurs, it is when the person realizes they have a stigma that they are most likely to develop relationships with others who also have the same stigma (Goffman 1963: 36). These relationships may be brief, such that they simply show the stigmatized individual that others like them exist or they may be deeper relationships in which others with the stigma provide the individual with insight on how to manage life with the stigma (Goffman 1963: 36).

GOFFMAN AND BEAUVOIR: QUESTIONS OF STIGMA

Putting Beauvoir and Goffman in conversation raises an interesting dilemma that must be addressed before going further. First, one must determine what type of woman, if any, might be considered to have a stigma to both Goffman and Beauvoir. Goffman defines stigma as “the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance” (Goffman 1963: Preface). People with stigmas are treated differently, “By definition, of course, we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his life chances” (Goffman 1963: 3). For Goffman, it is important to consider the treatment of the individual as well as how this impacts their life.

Based on this, one interpretation from Beauvoir’s perspective may be that women who follow the traditional path of getting married, having children, and dedicating their life to the household are stigmatized. While women have the capacity to realize transcendence, they are met with a pressure (masculine domination) that pushes them into immanence because of the structural conditions of patriarchy and masculine domination (Beauvoir 1949: 17). Women are forced to wallow in immanence (Beauvoir 1949: 638) and are ruled by routine – denied creativity because she is doomed to repetition and structural features restrict her (Beauvoir 1949: 640). The outcomes of the traditional woman’s life then suggest that she is stigmatized by society.

Alternatively, Beauvoir and Goffman may see that the woman who defies this path is stigmatized. One aspect of Goffman’s stigmatization conceptualization is that in an interaction, a person categorizes the other and this is associated with normative expectations and demands (Goffman 1963: 2). If a person defies these expectations and demands then the person can be seen as having a stigma. This person “does indeed fall short of what he really ought to be” (Goffman 1963: 4). A woman in society is expected to stay at home and resign herself to a life of immanence. A woman who pushes against this, such as Beauvoir herself, would be seen as deviating from what is normal and expected of her as a woman. Her behavior and life choices could be seen as disqualifying her from full social acceptance and be associated with differential treatment. Thus, an argument can be made that these women are stigmatized.

Taken together, there is support for both situations of women to be seen as being stigmatized. Beauvoir sees that across the board, women are seen as being inferior (Beauvoir 1949: 12). Goffman states that in interactions between “normals” and those that are stigmatized, the normal, regardless of what they claim, “they do not really “accept” him and are not ready to make contact with him on “equal grounds”” (Goffman 1963: 4). The woman who realizes transcendence by forging her own path and defying expectations and the woman who lives according to societal expectations both are viewed as be unequal to the “normals” (in this case, men).

GOFFMAN AND BEAUVOIR: SOCIALIZATION AND REALIZATION OF STIGMA

With the above situation of women in mind, Beauvoir and Goffman can then be put in conversation regarding the socialization process and the realization of stigma. Goffman (1963: 31) outlines a stigmatized person’s “moral career” as having two phases: a phase when the person incorporates the beliefs and attitudes of the “normals” and a phase when the person realizes they possess a stigma. These may or may not happen synchronously and can have varied timelines. For Beauvoir, women would have a discredited stigma. It is known from birth that they are women and that society will treat them as inferior.

That said, the moral career of women may still vary. Beauvoir (1949: 283) describes the very strict and narrow expectations of women in society and their misfortune of being restricted to a life of transcendence from an early age. Beauvoir (1949: 283) goes on to describe that while girls will have moments of transcendence and that the socialization process is non-linear, it is still mostly a case of women being funneled into immanence. She gives examples of women who were even tomboys but upon realizing their situation, feminize and adjust to societal expectations (Beauvoir 1949: 344). Returning to Goffman, there are varied times when women realize not necessarily that they are women but that being a woman can be argued to be a stigma, and also a phase when they incorporate the beliefs of “normals” regarding the status of women. Ultimately, girls will always, regardless of varied timing, realize that men are masters of the world and that being a woman makes them inferior (Beauvoir 1949: 301).

GOFFMAN AND BEAUVOIR: INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Both Beauvoir and Goffman speak to the role of interpersonal relationships as playing a role in determining self-conceptualization. A key argument for Beauvoir (1949: 283) is that “one is not born, but rather becomes, woman." Beauvoir does not believe that women must be restricted to a life of immanence, but rather that through socialization, women become set apart and have their opportunities to realize transcendence restricted.

Further, interactions between men and women are set up in a way that defines self-other, “Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being” (Beauvoir 1949: 5). Men are the subject and the absolute, while women are the other (Beauvoir 1949: 6). Beauvoir acknowledges that nobody has a sense of self without distinguishing self from others, but that it is problematic when the relationship between self and other is vertical, such as the case of men and women, as opposed to being horizontal. Goffman similarly looks at relationships between different groups of people (specifically, “normals” and those who are stigmatized) and finds that in interactions, “an attribute that stigmatizes one type of possessor can confirm the usualness of another” (Goffman 1963: 2). In this way, both Goffman and Beauvoir look at interactions between different types of individuals and find that these interactions can serve to affirm the normality of one group while othering the other group in such a way that the latter group can be deemed inferior.

CONCLUSION

In his work, Goffman offers an understanding of what stigma is and the relationship between those that are stigmatized and “normals”. His work centers the idea that stigmas should be understood not as attributes, but rather as something that exists and is created within relationships. Given this, Goffman’s work allows readers to understand how stigma causes challenges within micro-level interactions. This offers an alternative and complementary perspective to research that focuses on the macro- level perspectives of stigma.

With his focus on micro-level interactions, however; one potential criticism of his theories is that he presents these interactions as the sources from which stigmas emerge. For Goffman, stigma is relational. This results in him largely ignoring the greater historical and societal context in which “normals” and those that are stigmatized exist. This results in him overlooking an array of factors that contribute to the existence of stigma at a societal level such as in institutional practices and discriminatory laws and how those policies and practices in turn influence the individual understanding and experience of stigma. It also influences his understanding of what the consequences of stigma are. While Goffman examines the individual consequences of being stigmatized, his micro focus precludes him from discussing group-level outcomes such as social and economic inequality.

Another source of criticism of Goffman is his seeming lack of awareness or acknowledgment of his positionality. While his writings appear sympathetic to the plight of those who are stigmatized, his work does call into question who is able to best comment on the experiences of people. In this case, how might Goffman’s own position in society impact his understanding of those who are stigmatized? I see no indication that he is speaking from first-hand experience and given this, believe Goffman is part of the “normals”. In fact, throughout Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Goffman 1963:4), Goffman says “we normals”, referring to himself as normal and assuming the reader is as well, a total of seven times.

This does not inherently negate his writings and what they have to offer, but is important to consider critically. All readers and theorists must continually question and consider their own positionality as well as the positionality of others whose work they consume. In contrast to Goffman, readers can and should consider similar work on stigma being published around the same time by disability activists such as Stigma: The Experience of Disability by Paul Hunt (1966). Hunt’s book is a collection of 12 autobiographical essays written by people who are disabled. Considering Hunt and Goffman together would allow readers to understand foundational work on stigma that still influences work being conducted today (Goffman 1963), while also considering the power of theorizing stigma from the perspective of those who have been stigmatized (Hunt 1966).

The above criticism aside, Goffman’s influence on theory is undeniable. His work on stigma laid the foundation for work in both psychology and sociology. This work has since further explored the micro-, meso-, and macro-level sources, consequences, and responses to stigma. While aspects of his work have been called into question and/or elaborated on, Goffman’s work highlights the oppression those with stigma face while highlighting the attitudes people have towards those that are stigmatized and how this unfolds within and through social interactions. Further, his work is both theoretically interesting and presented in a way that is concise and easy to consume. Students who wish to engage in topics surrounding stigma as well as neighboring topics such as discrimination and prejudice will be well served by reading Goffman.

REFERENCES

Beauvoir, Simone de. [1949] 2011. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.

Fine, Gary A., and Philip Manning. 2000. “Erving Goffman.” Pp. 457–85 in Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.

Hunt, Paul. 1966. Stigma: The Experience of Disability. G. Chapman.