I.

The Establishment of Social Identity and the Genesis of Stigma

●​ Society lays down the criteria for categorizing individuals and the expected attributes for
each category. These social categories are activated within social settings, and the
familiar routines of social interaction allow us to engage with anticipated others without
much conscious thought.
●​ Upon encountering a stranger, our initial perceptions often lead us to anticipate their
category and associated attributes, which Goffman terms their "social identity". This term
is preferred over "social status" as it encompasses personal characteristics like
"honesty" in addition to structural ones like "occupation".
●​ These anticipations solidify into normative expectations, essentially demands we
implicitly make of others. We often remain unaware of these demands until a question
arises about whether they will be met. At this point, we realize the assumptions we had
been making about how the individual before us "ought to be".
●​ Therefore, these demands can be seen as demands made "in effect," and the character
we attribute is a characterization "in effect," or a "virtual social identity" – the category
and attributes the person could be proven to possess constitute their "actual social
identity".
●​ Stigma arises when evidence emerges that an individual possesses an attribute
that differentiates them from others in their expected category and is of a less
desirable kind, making them seem "tainted" or "discounted" rather than "whole" and
"usual". Such an attribute, especially with extensive discrediting power, is a stigma,
sometimes referred to as a failing, shortcoming, or handicap.
●​ Stigma represents a significant discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity. It's
important to note that not all discrepancies lead to stigma; for example, reclassifying
someone into a different but equally anticipated category or revising our estimation of
them upwards does not constitute stigma. Furthermore, not all undesirable attributes are
stigmatizing; only those that clash with our stereotypes of what a particular type of
individual should be are considered stigmas.
●​ Stigma is fundamentally about relationships, not merely attributes. An attribute that
stigmatizes one type of person can be normal for another. For instance, concealing a
physical defect might be strategic for someone wanting to join the army to maintain their
claimed physical status, but later, the same individual might feign illness to get out,
where not having an acute sickness would then be discrediting.
●​ The concept of stigma inherently involves a "double perspective": does the stigmatized
individual believe their differentness is already known or obvious, or do they assume it is
neither known nor immediately noticeable?. The former situation deals with the
"discredited," while the latter concerns the "discreditable". These are distinct
experiences, though a stigmatized person will likely encounter both.

II. Types of Stigma and the Normal Perspective

●​ Goffman identifies three broad categories of stigma:

○​ Abominations of the body: These encompass various physical deformities.
 ○​ Blemishes of individual character: These are perceived as weaknesses of will,
domineering or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, and dishonesty,
often inferred from a history of mental disorder, imprisonment, addiction,
alcoholism, homosexuality, unemployment, suicidal attempts, and radical political
behavior.
○​ Tribal stigma of race, nation, and religion: These stigmas are transmitted
through lineage and can contaminate all family members equally.
●​ A person with a stigma possesses an "undesired differentness" from what we had
anticipated. Goffman terms those who do not deviate negatively from the expectations at
issue as "the normals".
●​ Normals hold well-known attitudes and take predictable actions toward those with
stigmas, which benevolent social actions aim to mitigate. Fundamentally, normals often
(if unthinkingly) believe that a person with a stigma is "not quite human". This
assumption leads to various forms of discrimination, effectively reducing the life chances
of the stigmatized individual.
●​ Normals construct a "stigma-theory," an ideology to explain the inferiority of the
stigmatized and account for the danger they are perceived to represent. This theory
can sometimes rationalize animosity rooted in other differences, such as social class.
●​ Specific stigma terms (e.g., cripple, bastard, moron) are used in daily discourse as
metaphors and imagery, often without considering their original hurtful meanings.
●​ Furthermore, normals may interpret a stigmatized person's defensive responses as
direct manifestations of their defect, viewing both the defect and the response as just
retribution for something the individual, their parents, or their group did, thus justifying
their treatment.
●​ Interestingly, members of a social category (normals) may strongly endorse a standard
of judgment that they and others agree does not directly apply to themselves. For
example, a businessman might expect "womanly behavior" from women or "ascetic
behavior" from monks without feeling obligated to adopt either style of conduct. The
issue of stigma arises when there is an expectation that those in a given category should
not only support a norm but also realize it themselves.

III. The Stigmatized Individual's Experience and Responses

●​ A stigmatized individual might fail to meet our expectations yet remain relatively
unaffected, insulated by alienation or their own identity beliefs, feeling like a "full-fledged
normal human being" while perceiving normals as "not quite human". They may bear a
stigma without seeming impressed or remorseful. Their core feeling might be that of
being a "normal person" deserving of a fair chance. However, their claims for fairness
are usually based on belonging to a specific social category they identify with (e.g., age,
sex, profession), not necessarily on universal human rights.
●​ Despite any outward appearances, stigmatized individuals often perceive, usually
accurately, that others do not truly "accept" them and are unwilling to engage on "equal
grounds".
●​ Having internalized societal standards, the stigmatized person is acutely aware of how
others perceive their failing, inevitably leading to moments of internal agreement that
 they do fall short of what they "ought to be". Shame becomes a central possibility,
stemming from the individual's perception of one of their attributes as defiling and a
recognition that they could readily see themselves as not possessing it.
●​ While the presence of normals can amplify this conflict between self-demands and
self-perception, self-hate and self-derogation can occur even in isolation. The
individual might feel as if the stigma is a disguise imposed upon them, confusing their
own sense of identity.
●​ Stigmatized individuals respond to their situation in various ways:
○​ Direct attempts at correction: This could involve plastic surgery for physical
deformities, eye treatment for blindness, remedial education for illiteracy, or
psychotherapy for homosexuality. Even when successful, this often results not in
fully normal status but in a self-transformation from someone with a blemish to
someone with a history of correcting one.
○​ Indirect correction through mastery: Dedicating private effort to excelling in
areas typically considered inaccessible due to their condition (e.g., a lame person
learning to swim or a blind person becoming a skilled skier). However, this
mastery might be associated with "tortured learning" and performance.
○​ Breaking with reality: Obstinately adopting an unconventional interpretation of
their social identity.
●​ The stigmatized individual is likely to use their stigma for "secondary gains," as an
excuse for failures that might have other causes. They might also view their suffering
as a "blessing in disguise," appreciating the life lessons it has supposedly taught them.
●​ Correspondingly, they may re-evaluate the limitations of normals, recognizing that
seemingly normal individuals can be blind to their own shortcomings and deaf to the
needs of others.

IV. Mixed Contacts and the Stigmatized Self

●​ This work specifically focuses on "mixed contacts"—moments when stigmatized and

normal individuals are in the same "social situation". The mere anticipation of such
contacts can lead both groups to arrange their lives to avoid them, likely having more
significant consequences for the stigmatized.
●​ Lacking regular social interaction with others, self-isolated stigmatized individuals can
become suspicious, depressed, hostile, anxious, and bewildered. They may experience
a constant awareness of inferiority and fear of disrespect, leading to insecurity in their
interactions.
●​ The stigmatized person may feel uncertain about how normals will identify and
receive them. This uncertainty arises not only from not knowing which category they will
be placed in but also, even with favorable placement, from the suspicion that others
might still fundamentally define them by their stigma. This leads to a feeling of not
knowing what others are "really" thinking about them.
●​ During mixed contacts, the stigmatized individual often feels "on," having to be
self-conscious and calculating about the impression they are making to a degree
they assume normals do not.
 ●​ They may also perceive that the usual framework for interpreting everyday events has
been disrupted. Their minor achievements might be seen as remarkable given their
circumstances, while minor failings could be interpreted as direct expressions of their
stigmatized difference.
●​ The stigmatized person may experience displeasure at being exposed, exacerbated by
strangers who feel entitled to strike up conversations expressing morbid curiosity or
offering unwanted help. Such overtures imply that the stigmatized individual is someone
who can be approached at will simply due to their condition.
●​ In anticipation of mixed social situations, stigmatized individuals might react with
defensive cowering or hostile bravado, both of which can lead to negative
reciprocations from others. They might even vacillate between these extremes,
illustrating how ordinary face-to-face interaction can become problematic.
●​ In mixed contacts, normals might attempt to act as if the stigmatized person wholly fits a
naturally available category, either treating them as better or worse than they seem, or
even as a "non-person" to be ignored. The stigmatized individual may initially go along
with these strategies.
●​ The discrepancy between virtual and actual identity, when known, spoils social identity,
isolating the individual from society and their own sense of self, leaving them discredited
before an unaccepting world.

V. Responses and Organization Among the Stigmatized

●​ The first source of support for the stigmatized are others who share their stigma.
Drawing on shared experiences, they can offer guidance and a supportive community
where the individual feels at home and accepted as a normal person.
●​ Within their own group, the stigmatized can use their disadvantage as a basis for
organizing their lives, though this might entail accepting a "half-world". Here, they can
fully develop their narrative explaining their stigma.
●​ Sociological studies often focus on the corporate life sustained by those within a
particular stigma category. While the term "category" is abstract, those within it often
refer to themselves as a "group" or use terms like "we" or "our people," and outsiders
might do the same. However, this doesn't always mean a unified group with collective
action or stable mutual interaction.
●​ Instead, members of a stigma category tend to form smaller social groups whose
members share the stigma, with varying degrees of overarching organization. Contact
between two members of the same category often leads to modified treatment based on
their shared "group" affiliation.
●​ Individuals with a particular stigma often take on the role of "speakers" before
audiences of normals and other stigmatized individuals, advocating for their group and
serving as living examples of achievement and adjustment, sometimes receiving public
recognition.
●​ Publications sponsored by those with a specific stigma give voice to shared feelings,
reinforcing the sense of group reality and attachment. These platforms formulate their
ideology, including complaints, aspirations, and politics, and cite notable friends and
enemies, along with success stories and atrocity tales.
 ●​ Professionals who attain high status within a stigmatized group often find themselves
thrust into the role of representing their category, which can lead to breaking out of the
insular group and potentially introducing bias in their presentations due to their deep
involvement.
●​ When a stigmatized person achieves something notable (good or bad), it can become
local gossip or even mass media news, causing a ripple effect of credit or discredit to
others sharing that stigma. This fosters a world of publicized heroes and villains within
their "stripe," reinforced by news from both normal and other associates.

VI. "The Wise" and Courtesy Stigma

●​ Besides those who share the stigma ("own-kind"), the stigmatized may find support from
"the wise"—normal individuals whose special circumstances have made them intimately
aware of the stigmatized person's secret life and sympathetic to it, earning them a
degree of acceptance.
●​ One type of wise person is someone who works in an establishment catering to the
needs of the stigmatized or involved in societal actions concerning them.
●​ Another type is someone related to a stigmatized individual through the social structure,
causing the wider society to treat both as somewhat of a unit. Examples include the
spouse of a mental patient, the child of an ex-convict, or the friend of a blind person, who
are often obliged to share some of the discredit. One response to this is to embrace this
"courtesy stigma" and live within the world of their stigmatized connection. Individuals
with a courtesy stigma can even have connections who acquire a lesser degree of the
stigma.
●​ The tendency for stigma to spread to close connections can be a reason why such
relationships are avoided or terminated.
●​ Persons with a courtesy stigma provide a model of "normalization,"
demonstrating how far normals could go in treating the stigmatized person as if
they didn't have a stigma. Normalization differs from "normification," which is the
stigmatized individual's effort to present themselves as ordinary without necessarily
concealing their failing.
●​ A "cult of the stigmatized" can emerge, with the stigma-phobic reaction of normals
countered by the stigma-phile response of the wise.
●​ The person with a courtesy stigma can create discomfort for both the stigmatized and
the normal. Their readiness to bear a burden that isn't "really" theirs can make others
confront their own moral stances. Treating the stigma in a casual way can lead to
misunderstandings with normals who might perceive offensiveness.
●​ The relationship between the stigmatized and their stand-in can be uneasy. The
stigmatized person might fear a relapse in their stand-in's acceptance, especially in
vulnerable moments. The individual with a courtesy stigma might experience the
deprivations associated with the stigmatized group without the compensatory
self-elevation. Both parties might doubt the ultimate acceptance by the other's primary
group.

VII. The Moral Career of the Stigmatized Individual

 ●​ Individuals with a particular stigma tend to have similar learning experiences ("moral
careers") regarding their plight, leading to similar changes in their self-conception and
personal adjustments. This involves learning about the wider society's identity beliefs
and the general implications of possessing a particular stigma. Another phase involves
the detailed realization of possessing the stigma and its consequences.
●​ Several patterns of socialization into a stigmatized identity exist:
○​ Inborn stigma: Individuals are socialized into their disadvantageous situation
while simultaneously learning the standards against which they fall short.
○​ Family as a protective capsule: A family can shield a congenitally stigmatized
child through information control, preventing self-belittling definitions and
promoting a view of themselves as fully normal. Ironically, the more
"handicapped" the child, the more likely they are to be sent to a special school,
abruptly confronting public perception. They may be told they will have an easier
time "among their own," learning that their previous sense of self was incorrect.
○​ Late-life stigmatization: This occurs when someone becomes stigmatized later
in life or learns they have always been discreditable. The former doesn't radically
alter their past view, while the latter does. Such individuals have extensive prior
knowledge of normals and the stigmatized, potentially facing unique challenges
in re-identifying themselves and a higher likelihood of self-disapproval. Examples
include late-onset physical handicaps or discovering a stigmatized tribal affiliation
or a contagious moral blemish in their parents.
○​ Socialization in an alien community: Individuals initially socialized outside the
normal society's norms must learn a second, "valid" way of being. Acquiring a
new stigmatized identity later in life can shift uneasiness from new associates to
old ones, as pre-stigma acquaintances may struggle to reconcile the person they
knew with the person they now see.
●​ The phase of learning about possessing a stigma is particularly significant as it often
involves forming new relationships with others who share the stigma. Newly
handicapped individuals might receive welcoming visits from more experienced
fellow-sufferers.
●​ The relationship with the informal community and formal organizations of their own kind
is crucial for the stigmatized. This relationship distinguishes those with little sense of
"we" from members of well-organized minority groups with established traditions, who
may be expected to take pride in their condition. Regardless of the group's organization,
the "own-group" is central to understanding the moral career of the stigmatized
individual.
●​ In reviewing their moral career, the stigmatized person might retrospectively highlight
experiences that justify their current beliefs and practices regarding their own kind and
normals. They might also contrast their initial discovery of the shared humanity of those
with their stigma with later instances where pre-stigma friends dehumanized these
individuals.

VIII. Stigma, Deviation, and Social Order

 ●​ The concept of stigma connects to the broader study of "deviation," as both make us
aware of identity assumptions that are usually taken for granted. Sociologically, the key
issue concerning stigmatized groups is their place within the social structure, with
face-to-face interactions being only one aspect that must be understood in the context of
history, political development, and current policies.
●​ Even the most fortunate normals are likely to have some hidden failing, and every minor
failing can become significant in certain social situations, creating a temporary gap
between virtual and actual identity. Therefore, the occasionally precarious and the
constantly precarious form a continuum, analyzable by the same framework. Those with
minor differences might feel sympathy for the fully stigmatized due to this underlying
similarity in human situations. Conversely, the visibly stigmatized face the unique
indignity of having their predicament readily apparent.
●​ Understanding our differentness comes not from studying the different but from
examining the ordinary. Social life requires a shared set of normative expectations,
sustained through incorporation. Rule-breaking triggers restorative measures to
terminate and repair the damage.
●​ Two general solutions to the predicament of unsustained norms were previously
mentioned: 1) a category supports a norm but is not expected to personally realize it,
and 2) individuals who cannot meet a norm alienate themselves from the
norm-upholding community. A third solution involves these processes sustaining
common norms beyond those who fully embody them, highlighting the social function
rather than the cause or desirability of these processes.
●​ The "normal deviant" is a useful concept. Psychiatrically oriented students have noted
the pathological effects of self-derogation and how prejudice against a stigmatized group
can be a form of sickness.
●​ Several assumptions can be made: 1) individuals with different stigmas are in similar
situations and respond similarly; 2) the stigmatized and the normal share the same
mental makeup, the standard one in society, meaning someone can play both roles. The
very idea of shameful differences implies a similarity in core identity beliefs. Even with
abnormal feelings or beliefs, a person will likely use normal strategies to conceal them.
Similarly, an aging person avoiding situations where memory issues might be exposed
illustrates normal human capacities applied to a specific challenge.
●​ Therefore, if the stigmatized person is to be called a deviant, "normal deviant" might
be a more accurate term, at least within the presented framework.

IX. Key Points Revisited and Expanded

●​ Self-Other, Normal-Stigmatized Unity: Shifts in social acceptance due to acquiring or

losing a stigma (e.g., through medical procedures) can lead to personality changes.
Even temporary immersion in a stigmatized role (like pretending to be deaf)
demonstrates the human capacity to adapt to the experiences of the stigmatized. This
suggests a fundamental interconnectedness in how individuals experience and respond
to social acceptance and rejection, regardless of their status.
●​ Psychological Adaptation to Stigma: While transitioning from a stigmatized to a
normal status might be psychologically easier to maintain, individuals can also endure
 sudden stigmatization. The ability to manage both normal and stigmatized roles
highlights learned social adaptations and the fluidity of social identity in different
contexts. This adaptability is crucial for navigating a social world where stigma exists.
●​ Parallels Between Normal and Stigmatized Roles: Both normals and the stigmatized
may engage in behaviors like withdrawal, fear of scrutiny, and seeking comfort among
their "own kind". Social stability is maintained, in part, by the complementary nature of
these roles. Normals may even intervene if a stigmatized person doesn't conform to
expected presentations of their condition. This interdependence underscores that stigma
is not solely a characteristic of one group but a dynamic within social interaction.
●​ Role Reversibility and Performance: People can "pass" in and out of stigmatized
categories, indicating the performative aspect of social identity. Therapeutic techniques
like psychodrama further demonstrate the capacity to effectively switch between normal
and stigmatized roles. Even behind-the-scenes joking among the stigmatized, where
they mock both themselves and normals, reveals an awareness and understanding of
both perspectives. This fluidity challenges the notion of fixed social categories.
●​ Representation and Role Management: Individuals who act as representatives for
stigmatized groups adjust their behavior depending on whether they are addressing
normals or their own group. They might present a more "normal" demeanor to outsiders
while also skillfully employing the in-group's dialect and mannerisms. Successful
representation requires a careful balancing act to achieve acceptance in diverse social
settings. This highlights the strategic management of identity in navigating different
social worlds.
●​ Stigma as a Social Process: Stigma is rooted in the discrepancy between expected
(virtual) and actual social identity. It is not a static label but an ongoing interaction
between the stigmatized and normals. The stigmatized person actively manages tension
and information to influence how they are perceived. This dynamic perspective
emphasizes agency and social interaction in the experience of stigma.
●​ Vulnerability of Both the Stigmatized and the Normal: Normals are also vulnerable,
as their assumptions about the stigmatized can be proven wrong. Stigmatized individuals
sometimes playfully "pass" as normal to expose the flawed assumptions of normals.
Conversely, normals might inadvertently reveal their biases in interactions where they
are unaware of a stigmatized person's presence. This shared vulnerability challenges
the idea of a clear power imbalance and highlights the potential for both groups to
experience social awkwardness and missteps.
●​ Resistance and Defense Mechanisms: Stigmatized individuals actively resist social
stigma through various means, including humor, defiance (e.g., outlandish stories),
sarcasm, and sharp responses to unwanted intrusions. More confrontational approaches
can include aggressive staring, physical resistance, or collective action to challenge
exclusionary practices. These resistance strategies demonstrate the agency of the
stigmatized in the face of social disapproval.
●​ Changing Social Definitions of Stigma: What is considered stigmatizing is not fixed
but varies historically. Attributes like divorce or certain ethnicities have lost their stigma
over time. This shift often begins with comedic representations and evolves through
 everyday social interactions until the stigma weakens. This historical variability
underscores the socially constructed nature of stigma.
●​ Stigma as a Perspective, Not a Fixed Identity: Individuals do not permanently belong
to rigid categories of "stigmatized" and "normal". Rather, stigma is a two-role process,
and individuals can occupy both roles at different times or in different social situations.
Notably, a person stigmatized in one context might still hold prejudices against other
stigmatized groups. This emphasizes the situational and relational nature of stigma.
●​ Social Function of Stigma: Stigma serves specific social purposes that vary depending
on the type of stigma. Moral stigmas (e.g., criminality) function as tools for social control.
Ethnic, racial, and religious stigmas can serve to exclude minorities from competition.
Physical disfigurement stigmas might influence social norms, such as mate selection.
Understanding these functions provides insight into why stigma persists in society.
●​ Stigma and Social Stability: The processes of tension management (for the
discredited) and information control (for the discreditable) are ongoing features of
society. The extent to which stigma disrupts social interaction depends on factors like its
visibility, transmissibility, and historical perception. While stigma can contribute to social
stability by reinforcing norms, it is also subject to change through social action. This
acknowledges the complex and sometimes contradictory role of stigma in maintaining
and altering social order.