See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316367506

Stigma

Chapter · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118663202.wberen316

CITATION READS
1 2,487

1 author:

Abdi M. Kusow
Iowa State University
30 PUBLICATIONS   652 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Somali Question View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdi M. Kusow on 25 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4778 stigma
Pickering, M. (2004) Racial Stereotypes. In: Taylor,
G. & Spencer, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on Social
Identity. Routledge, New York.
Riggins, S. H. (Ed.) (1997) The Language and Politics
of Exclusion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Shohat, E. & Stam, R. (1994) Unthinking Eurocentr-
ism. Routledge, New York.
Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Cate-
gories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
stigma
Abdi M. Kusow
The term stigma refers to a social or individual
attribute that is devalued and discredited in a
particular social context. As Goffman (1963)
noted, however, this definition requires an
important qualification, one that defines stigma
in terms of ‘‘a language of relationship’’ that
can link attributes to particular stereotypes,
rather than a priori objectified attributes. The
language of relationship between attributes and
stereotypes is extremely important because an
attribute, in and of itself, does not carry an
inherent quality that makes it credible or dis-
credible outside the nature of the stereotype
that corresponds to it.
Link and Phelan (2001) defined stigma in
terms of the presence and convergence of four
interrelated components. First, people distin-
guish and label human differences. Second,
members of the dominant cultural group link
labeled persons with certain undesirable attri-
butes. Third, negatively labeled groups or indi-
viduals are placed in distinct and separate
categories from the non-stigmatized. Fourth,
as a result of the first three components, labeled
individuals experience status loss. Finally, the
process of stigma placement, and therefore man-
agement, is dependent on the degree of one’s
access to social, economic, and political power.
Regardless of how stigma is defined, however,
in order for an attribute to be designated as a
mark of stigma, two conditions must be present.
First, the designation of stigma must be
informed by a collectively shared understanding
by all participants of which attributes are stig-
matizing in the available pool of socially mean-
ingful categories in a particular social context.
This statement is important because an attribute
that is stigmatizing in one social context may not
be stigmatizing in another. The second condi-
tion relates to the degree to which a mark of
stigma is visible. The degree of visibility deter-
mines the stigmatized person’s feelings about
themselves and their interactions and relation-
ship with non-stigmatized groups and indivi-
duals, particularly in situations perceived as
potentially stigmatizing encounters.
There are two general categories of stigma
attributes. The first category refers to attributes
that are immediately or potentially visible upon
social encounters. Three types of stigma attri-
butes can be outlined within this category. The
first relates to outward and clear physical defor-
mations. The second relates to what Goffman
described as ‘‘the tribal stigma of race, nation,
and religion.’’ The latter is transmitted through
lineage, and affects all members of the stigma-
tized group. This type of stigma can be charac-
terized as collective or group stigma, while the
first, physical deformities, affects only indivi-
duals, and can therefore be referred to as
individual stigma.
The second broad category relates to stigma
attributes that are not clearly and outwardly
visible, but may or may not become visible upon
social interaction and where the stigmatized per-
son believes that their stigma is not known to
those with whom they interact. The distinction
between whether or not a particular stigma attri-
bute is visible is important because it determines
the nature of social interaction between those
who are perceived as stigmatized and the nor-
mals. More importantly, it situates the nature of
the reactions and information management by
stigmatized individuals that appear to reveal
their stigma attributes. In the case where the
stigma attribute is readily and clearly visible,
the process of information management involves
attempts to minimize tensions generated during
social interactions.
If the stigma attribute is visible, the process
of information management shifts from mere
tension management to information manage-
ment about one’s feelings of having a spoiled
identity. The concern of the stigmatized in this

case becomes one of whether or not to display
discrediting information, and ultimately leads
to what Goffman described as information
management techniques.
There are a number of information manage-
ment techniques employed by stigmatized indi-
viduals. One common technique is ‘‘covering.’’
Covering refers to attempts by stigmatized
individuals to conceal signs commonly con-
sidered stigma symbols. Another strategy is
‘‘distancing,’’ where stigmatized individuals or
groups disassociate themselves from those roles,
associations, and institutions that may be con-
sidered as stigmatizing. Still another strategy
is ‘‘compartmentalization,’’ where individuals
divide their worlds into two social worlds: a
small and intimate one to which the stigmatized
reveals their identity, and a larger group from
which the stigmatized individual conceals their
identity. Finally, individuals may engage in
‘‘embracement’’ through the expressive confir-
mation of the social roles and statuses associated
with stigma (Snow & Anderson 1987).
A recent criticism of the nature of stigma,
however, pertains to the uncritical assumption
of the existence of a normatively shared under-
standing of the distribution of stigma symbols
(Kusow 2004). The conventional literature on
the distribution of stigma divides a society into
stigmatized and normals. This distinction is
less tenable than before, however, because the
current demographic, social, political, and eco-
nomic context in which stigma symbols are dis-
tributed is radically different from those when
Goffman’s seminal essay Stigma first appeared.
Due to changes in the political and social cli-
mate, particularly as a result of the impacts of
multiculturalism and the embracement of wider
social identities in the US, we are approaching
a situation or an era in which who and what
is normal, and therefore the question of who
stigmatized whom, is under constant revision.
Given this situation, future scholars must also
consider how stigmatized individuals disavow
dominant perspectives regarding the distribu-
tion of stigma, instead of merely concentrating
on information management on the part of the
stigmatized.
SEE ALSO: Deviance; Facework; Goffman,
Erving; Interaction Order
View publication stats
strain theories 4779
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED
READINGS
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management
of Spoiled Identities. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Killian, L. (1985) The Stigma of Race: Who
Now Bears the Mark of Cain? Symbolic Interaction
8(2): 1–14.
Kusow, A. M. (2004) Contesting Stigma: On Goff-
man’s Assumption of Normative Order. Symbolic
Interaction 27(2): 179–97.
Link, B. & Phelan, J. (2001) Conceptualizing Stigma.
Annual Review of Sociology 27(3): 363–85.
Riessman, C. (2000) Stigma and Everyday Resistance
Practices: Childless Women in South India. Gen-
der and Society 14(5): 111–35.
Snow, D. & Anderson, L. (1987) Identity Work
among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction
and Avowal of Personal Identities. American Jour-
nal of Sociology 92(6): 1336–71.
strain theories
Robert Agnew
Strain theories argue that strain or stress is a
major cause of crime. Individuals engage in
crime to reduce or escape from their strain
(e.g., theft to reduce monetary strain, running
away to escape abusive parents), seek revenge
against the source of their strain or related
targets, or cope with the negative emotions
caused by strain (e.g., illicit drug use). There
are several major versions of strain theory in
sociology, distinguished in terms of the types of
strain they examine and their description of the
factors that influence or condition the effect of
strain on crime. This entry describes the major
versions of strain theory, beginning with Dur-
kheim and ending with Agnew, whose general
strain theory builds on previous strain theories.
DURKHEIM
Durkheim presented the first modern version
of strain theory in his book Suicide (1951).
Durkheim argues that healthy societies set lim-
its on individual goals, such that individuals