Stigmatization and Labeling

Last semester I wrote often about interpersonal relationships that usually had some basis in my sociology of the family class (SOC 030H for those interested), this semester I have a class that I find even more interesting. SOC 406 or sociology of deviance, taught by Tim Robicheaux so far has been my favorite class so far this semester so I thought I would share some of what I am learning in that class with you people.

The word Stigma originated with the Greeks and referred to some sort of bodily sign like a scar or a brand to indicate that there was something unusual going on with that person. Certain signs like cuts or burns were designed to let the public know if a person was a thief, traitor, or a slave. Today this applies more to the assumptions and opinions surrounding this person rather than physical evidence of it.

There are three types of stigmas. First is the “abomination of the body”, which are various physical deformities. Quite obvious to the general public and those with this kind of stigma are viewed as weak or handicapped. Second are “blemishes of character”, which can be anything from an obnoxious personality to a mental illness or addiction. I would think that this is the most common kind of stigma. Third is “tribal affiliation”, this could be race, nationality, political affiliation, any kind of stigma that can be passed vertically to subsequent generations.

Aside from the three types of stigmas there are two different perspectives when it comes to external perception. The discredited and the discreditable. The discredited are people who are completely unable to hide whatever kind of stigma they have, then forcing them to deal with any social tension that comes along with being stigmatized. An example of this would be someone who is physically handicapped or anything that a person could tell just by looking at them. Conversely the discreditable are people that are not immediately stigmatized but will be if they share enough information about themselves. They have to deal with the internal struggle of sharing their actual identity verses letting people assume things about them based on what they perceive. An example of the discreditable would be a closeted homosexual, without sharing their sexual orientation people are less inclined to label them.

I found this information very interesting because we as people don’t necessarily think about our judgements before we make them. Learning about how we think about other people will force us to keep our judgements aside and view things objectively.

Citation: “Stigma and Social Identity” excerpt by Erving Goffman