Social Stigma

Guide Rating -

We are all familiar with the stigmatization of people in society. Wherever we look, there are those who are defined as existing outside society's mainstream or moral norms because of some of the things they do, or because of things about them which they cannot change. This labeling can readily have the effect of encouraging prejudice and discrimination and can certainly impact how people are able to view themselves.

Because stigmatization occurs in every society and to so many different groups, it is clear that it serves some social function. Apparently, the stigmatization of others is used in societies in order to achieve better definition of unity among members of the "in-group" of society. It is through the designation of some behaviors or qualities as "deviant" that any sort of collective moral vision is established. As Émile Durkheim wrote:

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes or deviance, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will there create the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal (or deviant) and treat them as such.

Thus, exploring what groups a society stigmatizes and why can reveal a great deal about how that society tries to define itself. In essence, a clear definition of what society tries to declare as "alien" and "deviant" also provides a clearer definintion of what that society whishes to declare as "true" and "good." Gerhard Falk, professor of sociology at the State University of New York College at Buffalo, has recently published a book on the nature of stigmatization in American society, describing which groups are stigmatized both today and historically, and why.

Some stigma are based upon inherent characteristics which people cannot change - for example mental illness, race, etc. These are called "existential" stigma. Other stigma are acquired by people based upon their conduct somehow - either they are wholly responsible for it or just largely responsible for it. These are called "achieved" stigma and include things like prostitution, criminal activity, etc. All of these different groupings and more are discussed in over a dozen chapters, eaching presenting any number of case studies, real examples, and recent sociological research.

An important underpining to his argument is his differentiation between "essentialists" and "constructionists." According to the latter view, which Falk shares, traits which are usually used to define or label people do not have to automatically and naturally be used in that manner. Thus, social classifications are socially constructed, and a person who has a mental illness need not automatically be defined as "mentally ill" - they have other traits which could be treated as being at least as important. This is a sound position and can help explain how social stigma develop and why.

The alternative, "essentialism," regards certain traits as "essential" to a person's identity and "natural" for the purpose of labeling and defining. Thus, if psychological health is believed to be fundamental to who we are as a person, then the existence of a mental illness is a good reason to label a person as "mentally ill," ignoring whatever other traits they may have. Unfortunately, Falk doesn't illustrate this position very well, using the belief that homosexuality is biological in origin as an example of essentialism. This is incorrect, because the idea that sexual orientation comes from biology is compatible with "constructionism," just as is the belief that the male/female difference itself is biological (which it obivously is).

The book can be awfully uneven at times for other reasons as well. For example, one chapter which should have been the most interesting was one which was the most disappointing, "Resentment Against Achievement: Stigmatizing Competence." It is a well-known fact that one of the problems which many children face in school is that those who are regarded as "brains" tend to be teased by others. It is a particularly bad problem with inner city schools because African-American children who do well academically can suffer terribly from their peers, a situation which will only serve to hinder the economic improvement of African-Americans in the future.

Yet at the same time, children who excel at sports do not suffer from the same taunting. A student who can run fast and jump high is only rarely sitmatized by the label "jock," and even then only if they prove to be incapable of anything else. Why intelligence is stigmatized much more quickly and easily than physical prowess should provide for a fascinating sociological study, perhaps revealing something very interesting either about how children are socialized or perhaps something about our evolutoinary development. However, this isn't something which Falk even touches upon.

Falk does present a couple of very sad instances where people have experienced genuine and unconscionable rejection from family, friends and coworkers simply because they had the temerity to do better and achieve. However, little is done to explore why such stigmatization occurred - and even worse, he spends entirely too much time on a case which does not belong in that chapter at all: Pete Rose. Falk seems to believe that any stigmatization experienced by Rose is due to the fact that Rose was too good of a baseball player and not because he violated ethical rules.

Ignored are the facts that equally good or better players don't experience the same problems and that Rose is wildly popular among baseball fans themselves (a situation which Falk actually depicts in the book, thus effectively undermining his own position). It would have been better to have included Rose in the later chapter dealing with "Criminals, Convicts and other Offenders," if at all.

I would also have to question some of his philosophical premises. Early on he argues that stigmatization depends upon language and for this he relies upon the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, the idea that we only know about the world in terms which our native language provides us. Unfortunately, the idea that our language determines our reality, rather than the other way around, has been largely discredited. It may still be arguable that our language has an important impact upon the development of our social reality, something which might help Falk and create an interesting argument - but by failing to make this distinction a great deal is lost.

Because of the aforementioned problems, I can't recommend the book unreservedly and to everyone. If, however, you have a particular interest in the development of social classifications and the process by which some people are set apart as "outsiders" while others are deemed "insiders," there is quite a lot in Falk's work which you should be able to benefit from. The process by which stigmatization is fundamental to the establishment of social norms is fascinating, and I would like to see more work done on it.