Stigma and disdain – a negative setting of identity
Mgr. Teresa Klimowicz
Philosophy and Sociology Department
Maria Curie - Sklodowska University of Lublin
The purpose of this article is to put the following questions:
Is exclusion necessary? Why do we exclude others?
Is exclusion morally allowed?
Answering these questions is strictly connected to the problem of identity and the
phenomenon of stigma and disdain. In my opinion, those features are crucial for identity
formation.
The problem of identity can be considered in many scientific fields, but I would like to
focus on the sociological approach. The particular attention should be laid on the
apprehension proposed by Jacobson- Widding. He emphasizes the dual aspects of identity:
identity as sameness and identity as distinctiveness, which is crucial to define the essence of
stigma and disdain. If it was possible to find the way to create the non- distinctiveness
identity, it would be the method to construct the society without exclusion.
Social or cultural, belonging is a matter of social identity. This is a product of individual
will and preferences:„one has a certain social identity, when one is assured of the social roles
continuity, the veracity of certain statements about the world and human relation or
institutional dependence, as well as the equity of deeming or feeling certain values that
constitute worldview and ideological constructions.” 1 . Also, from external point of view, one
has certain social identity because of some required attributes: „Not the particular actors
define their identity , but those, who, by mediated symbolic systems, they interact with in
every day actions.” 2
I would like to focus on the concept of identity as a permanent construction and
interpretation process. Sartre would say, redefining yourself in new situation. The process of
identity formation is connected to the process of limiting,: pointing what w e a r e n o t.
1
R. Chymkowski ,Granice inności w dyskursie – rozważania teoretyczne [ The discourse limits of
Otherness] , w: Tropy tożsamości: Inny, Obcy, Trzeci, red. W. Kalaga, Katowice 2004, s. 99
2
tamże, s. 99
Some social groups are perceived as those that remain outside common social rules and
values. From this perspective such groups are seen as worthless, unnecessary, and thus
hurting members of such group seem to be not only excused, but also necessary.
Susan Opotow sees two modes of moral exclusion: severe, that include human rights
violations, political repression, religious inquisition, slavery and genocide; as well as mild
one like undeserved treatment, the lack of respect, unawareness of needs. 3
According to former case, the Other is a plague and a harm for community, later is
nonexistent or simply not important. And despite those differences they share characteristics:
“(...) the perpetrators perceive others as psychologically distant, lack constructive moral
obligations towards others, view others as expendable and undeserving, and deny others’
rights, dignity and autonomy.” 4
The Other, depending on the social status and sort of exclusion, befalls aggression or
ignorance.
The reason for moral exclusion can be found in belonging to certain moral community we
identify with, and, which values are the basis for our own worldviews and judgments. Of
course not everything can be a part of that world as Bauman states::„There are things, for
which there is no legitimate place in the designed order. Wherever they are, they are not in the
right place.(...)Shifting is not good enough for them, they need to be vanished – broken,
removed, burned, poisoned, slit.” 5 That things, that do not fit certain worldview, impossible to
understand, banded with worlds: “This can’t be!”, become an object of exclusion, stigma and
disdain.
1. Disdain
The key concept of my derivation is „disdain”. This term does not only mean emotion,
but also a sort of interaction between individuals or communities.
Disdain is an act of comparison, reference, a strategy that allows to sustain self
assurance. Therefore disdain is a strategy for narcissistic personalities, full of haughtiness.
Most of all, disdain is a relation between the subject and the external world. The
essence of disdain is a triple reference: the subject, the desirable object and a competitor
desiring the same object. The subject heads for the chosen value, the project of self, compare
S. Opotow, Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction, w: “Journal of Social Issues” vol.46, nr
1(1990), s.2
4
S. Opotow, Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction, w: “Journal of Social Issues” vol.46,
nr 1(1990), s.2
5
Z. Bauman Ponowoczesność jako źródło cierpień [Postmodernity and its discontents],Warszawa
2000, s. 13-14
2
to which one feels worse, not valuable enough. This comparison endangers one’s self
assurance. That is why, one makes another reference to somebody/something that is even
further, more distant to the value – the competitor. From that point of view, one judges the
competitor as worse or weaker or repulsive. The subject aspires to be more then it really is,
does not accept existing self and that is why, it disdains others.
Disdain is an outcome of the dissonance between the value we aspire to and the real self.
Such reference resembles resentment, and has similar functions – to protect autoidentity.
Preventing disintegration of self – image, is crucial for internal peace and acceptance, or
even surviving and mental health. The problem of the role of defense mechanisms opposes to
the problem of authenticity, but there is still no simple answer what is more important. There
are psychological theories that opt both pro and contra defense mechanisms. 6
2. Stigma and its examples
Stigma is a sign, discrediting attribute that points shame, alienation, inappropriation,
“otherness”. There are million kinds of stigmas and stigmatized groups; women, lepers, gays,
Jews, gypsies. An underlining example can be a method of signifying origins or guilt on
epaulet used in Nazi concentration camps.
Stigma does not exist as objective phenomenon. A feature – discrediting in certain
context - can be a cause of proud in a different one.
Goffman enumerates three kinds of stigmas:
illnesses and deformations),
abominations of the body
blemishes of individual character (mental
( all kinds of
disorders, weakness or
addiction, unemployment) and tribal identities (the stigma of race, nationality and religion).
From way back, special marks were a method of signing slaves, criminals, betrayers,
“unclean” people. Even though, there is also a positive stigmatization, like stigma as a sign of
sacredness, Kain’s stigma that protected his life, still stigmatization is a mark saying “there is
something wrong with a person’s moral status”. Stigma marks everyone that is above or
below average. Stigma points out „strange” people, that you should be aware of.
There is also another: distinction for discredited and discreditable groups, which is
based on the nature of stigma. There are stigmas that can be seen at once like physical
deformation,
and one that can be bared, like speech impediment, AIDS. According to
Goffman’s term, others without stigmas, are„normals”.
6
See: Złudzenia, które pozwalają żyć{ Illusions that let us live], red. M. Kofta, T. Szustrowa, Warszawa 2001
3
There are also three aspects of stigma in Goffman’s theory: Knowledge about stigma
is not its visibility. Visibility can be at different degree of importunateness, that is can be seen
at once or banded during the time.
There is also important aspect of stigma, which is linked to the degree of exclusion –
the areas of every day life ,that stigmatized person, is excluded from: ability to work or selfexistence.
The problem of stigmatized identity is very complicated. Such relations are never
neutral and have special overtone. That is why, I would like to focus on the relations between
stigmatized individual and community and to find the answer why we stigmatize.
„Stigma management is the outcome of one of the social basis -namely the
stereotypization, or our normative expectations for behaviors and characters” 7 Stigmatization
is thus a result of ambitions of social order, conforming certain vision, which, with arrogance,
we see as the only justified. On the other hand, stigma is a by-product of opinions about
certain groups and justifications that function in social discourse and language
Stereotypes, no matter if positive or negative, are blurring the perception: „Stereotype
is when certain emotions, judgments of stances appear as the reaction not to our own
experiences, but for certain word – name, that evokes such feelings, judgments, stances”8 , and
its function „ (...) is not only setting phenomenon in order, but also defending the values, that
we care for, projecting our understanding of values, our own attitudes and reasons onto the
world.” 9 Stereotypization is thus a symptom of wishful thinking presented by dominating
majority.
Stereotypes passing on by the community are, as the effect of socialization,
internalized by the subject into, using Fromm’s term, social character. Understanding the
ruling norms in certain society, makes us expect and require from other people certain
behaviour. We expect others to respect them: „Each society establishes own methods of
sorting people. Each category contains a particular set of attributes seen as typical and natural
Different categories of people found in a society, depend on social relations, that function in
the chosen society..” 10 . Stigmatizing people and groups is integral part of social existence.
„[Stigma] appears only when, each part expects particular category representatives not only to
support certain norm, but also to follow them.” 11 On the other hand, one person might not
7
E. Goffman, Piętno[Stigma], przeł. A. Dzierżyńska, J. Tokarska – Bakir, Gdańsk 2005, s.58
A. Schaff ,Stereotypy a działanie ludzkie[ Stereothypes and human action], Warszawa 1981, s. 38
9
op.cit. ,s. 52
10
E. Goffman, Piętno[Stigma] , s.31-2
11
op.cit., s.37
8
4
fulfill requirements, presents an unwanted feature because of which is seen as dangerous and
bad. Goffman uses that discrediting feature to define the notion “stigma”
The stigma is the warning sign for other members of society. This means that a certain
person ought to be omitted. It indicates that a particular human being does not fit in social
boundaries. It proclaims about his social status.
A context is crucial for revealing a stigma. Each of us is somewhat discreditable in the
face of the ruling norms: „ Although some of these norms ( such as sight, ability to write and
read) are usually fully accomplished by majority, there are also other norms ( e.g. beauty)
seen as ideal, establish standards, which are impossible to fulfil at particular stage of
lifetime..(...)For example there is only one type of an American man who does not have to be
ashamed of anything, young, married, white, urban, northern heterosexual protestant parent,
educated, full time employed, with certain appearance: height and weight, with recent sport
achievements..(...) Each man, who does not fulfil all requirements, might see himself as
undeserving, incomplete and worse in certain moments.” 12 As far as women are concerned, it
is far easier as they are stigmatized because of the sex.
If everyone can be potentially stigmatized, he is endangered of resentment worldview,
thus the reason for stigmatizing cannot be found in the victims, whoever they are, not in the
human disables, but in individual consciousness and social rules: ”Even the happiest of
normals is not free from hidden disabilities, which will be revealed during certain social
interaction evoking a shameful gap between outward
and real social identity. Thus,
temporarily endangered people and permanently endangered people exist in the same
continuum, and their social positions can be analyzed in the same boundaries. What comes to
our mind is the conclusion, that in order to understand our otherness we need to head towards
normals not towards outsiders.” 13
As social perception of stigma shows, there is almost no link between the real
situation of the individual and reasons for its stigmatization, for example attribution of
supernatural abilities to stigmatized people.
Stigma is the reason for disdain, disdain is the reason for stigma. It is hard to point
what was primal in this vicious circle. An inborn stigma , like race, makes the individual
worth disdain. This inborn stigma generates disdainful social perception and rationalize it
simultaneously:„We assume that stigmatized person is not a full human being, of course.
Following the assumption, we use various forms of discrimination, which leads to decreasing
12
13
op.cit, s. 171
op.cit., s. 170
5
his life chances, even if it happens unconsciously. We are not aware when we start to create
our own theory of stigma – ideology explaining inferiority of stigmatized and proving the
danger he embodies.” 14 Thus stigma excuses and creates disdain.
The stigmatized people do not benefit from the creation of stigma, but it is profitable
for perpetrators of stigma: „ Stigmatization of people with suspicious, improper moral past
can function as a method of formal social control. Stigmatization of people from particular
race, religious or ethnic groups was a way of getting rid of these minorities from various
fields of competition. As well devaluation of people with physical disabilities can be
interpreted as limiting courtship competition.” 15
Stigmatization and linking it with certain features ( All Jews are rich) favours
functioning, and creation of new stereotypes. At the same time stigma is the reason for
viewing individual through it , it is a signal to use previously accepted prejudice
The main aim of stigmatization is integration of society.. Due to it people are able to
divide world into “ours” and “strangers”. Each culture has got specific boundaries to indicate
this division, which is inculated throughout internalized stereotypes specific for each group
and are „hard to get rid of , but impossible to be thought.” 16 Thus people identify themselves
through the prejudice they possess.
Stereotypization is the source of many socially useful roles such as:: protection,
politics, sorting the complex world, and moreover „[stereotypes] help people to keep self –
confidence and justify their social status.”. 17
Stigma and disdain function as defense mechanism, which protects corporate identity
of each group, especially while facing danger.
Although it was seemed that the concept of psychological defense mechanism – the
way of adjustment – was dangerously close to Freud’s philosophy, contemporary researches
sustain it. 18
Endangered groups use inner defense mechanisms which are similar to those used by
individuals. The most typical one is transfer, so discharging negative emotions, like fear, on
weaker or “ different” object. That is the way of appearance the mechanism of scapegoat
designation, which was described by Rene Girard.
14
op.cit, s.35
op.cit. , s.182
16
A. Schaff, op.cit, s. 127
17
W.G. Stephan, C.W. Stephan, Wywieranie wpływu przez grupy. Wywieranie wpływu przez grupy.
15
Psychologia relacji[Improving Intergroup Relations], przeł. M.Kacmajor, Gdańsk 1999, s. 15
18
M. Kofta, T. Szustrowa, op.cit.
6
2. Identity without exclusion?
Stigma and disdain are self- defense mechanisms sustaining and mapping identity. As
Anthony Eliot states: “,Most of all , the problem is how to prevent social exclusion and resist
political repression by creating new self- perception, solidarity and categories” 19 , because the
consequences and misuse of stigmatization and disdain are the real trouble .
I would like to put a question about the possibilities for creating community without
stigma and disdain- the non-exclusion society. Is creating identity only by refering to „what I
am”, without reference to distinctiveness, possible? Can sameness exist without
distinctiveness?
The condition to vanish stigma and disdain would be a power that respects dignity of
each individual, that does not need defense mechanisms, that is self assured – that is full of
dignity as Nietzsche might say.
The answer could be world built on the Levinas’s concept of heroic subject morally
responsible for the Other, lead by "the wisdom of love", and that sees human as fulfilling
himself in a dialogic relation with Other as the supervisor of the subject.
Symbolic interactionism sees self as a phenomenon created by interaction and
references to others and human actions as symbols. The distinction for I and ME as subject
and object of self-perception is crucial.
Discharging from disdain would need new ways of creating identity, which would not
base on distinction and would not generate violent discourses, that exclude suburbs.
Nowadays, there are such theories and concepts that try to do so, for example the
stream of gender problems. Postmodern identity outgrows from new basis and is, in essence,
unstable and flexible. This vision of a subject frees the subject from all kinds of external
determinants like sex, race, social roles. So called “queer theory” can be an example. Diana
Fuss states that identity grows from dychotomic distinction for heterosexuality and
homosexuality, norm and pathology, which are, in her opinion, mixed and interwined.. Queer
theory questions former norms and morality, refers to things that were before marginalized.
Modern and postmodern self can not be distinguished and separated, but it coexist
simultaneously. The problem of exclusion in postmodern vision seems to deal with the
problem by appraisal for pluralism, but, in my opinion, such solution is only escaping the
19
A. Eliott, Koncepcje „ja”[Concepts of the self] , Warszawa 2007, s. 149
7
problem itself. If the vision works and prevents exclusion, we can guess only until the
moment it becomes dominant.
Exclusion and stigmatization play also very essential and positive functions ( like
socializing individuals) and cannot be judged easily. Perhaps the role of stigma, as temporary
exclusion, as punishment or penance is , in final effect, to include – not exclude.
New subject projects seem to be more fit for individuals than societies.
Moral judgment seems to see the answer in the middle - in balanced exclusion. That is
why answering the question of the possibility of getting rid of marginalization cannot be seen
as clear-cut.
References:
Bauman Z., Ponowoczesność jako źródło cierpień, Warszawa 2000
Bokszański, Z., Tożasmości zbiorowe, Warszawa 2005
Chymkowski,R. ,Granice inności w dyskursie – rozważania teoretyczne, in: Tropy
tożsamości: Inny, Obcy, Trzeci, red. W. Kalaga, Katowice 2004
Eliott, T., Koncepcje „ja” , Warszawa 2007
Fromm E. , Anatomia ludzkiej destrukcyjności, przeł. J. Karłowski, Poznań 1999
Girard R., Kozioł ofiarny, przeł. M. Goszczyńska, Łódż 1987
Girard, R., Prawda powieściowa i kłamstwo romantyczne, Warszawa 2001
Goffman E., Piętno, przeł. A. Dzierżyńska, J. Tokarska – Bakir, Gdańsk 2005
Kozielecki J., Koncepcje psychologiczne człowieka, Warszawa 2000
Olchanowski T., Psychologia pychy, Warszawa 2003
Opotow, S., Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction, w: “Journal of Social Issues”
vol.46, nr 1(1990), s.2
Phemister A.A.,
persons
with
Crewe N.M., Objective self-awareness and stigma: implications for
visible
disabilities,Journal
of
Rehabilitation,
April-June,
2004,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_2_70/ai_n6100343
Schaff, A., Stereotypy a działanie ludzkie, Warszawa 1981
Scheler M., Istota i formy sympatii, przeł. A. Węgrzecki, Warszawa 1986
Stephan W.G., Stephan C.W., Wywieranie wpływu przez grupy. Psychologia relacji, przeł.
M.Kacmajor, Gdańsk 1999
Witwicki W., Psychologia uczuć i inne pisma, Warszawa 1995
Złudzenia, które pozwalają żyć, red. M. Kofta, T. Szustrowa, Warszawa 200
8