Adapting or being accepted by “normals”

The social lives of actors exhibiting stigmatic elements, linked to health, cultural, social, and religious factors, are an ever-present topic in social science research (Scambler, 2009). The actual problem of displaying stigmatizing elements, as well as techniques for concealing them, primarily passing and covering (Goffman, 1963), have been studied especially in correlation with the increased use of social media (Tyler & Slater, 2018). These media also further expose a person's self-image and, consequently, the element that would lead to discredit (Warr, 2005).

The problem of tension

One of the problems that actors face in the social system is managing tension (Howson, Inglis, 2001), especially that linked to frustration (Lewandowski, 2003) and being discredited (Bavelas, 1985). In fact, social actors, needing to be part of a functional and functioning structure (Merton, Merton, 1968), will, through various symbols, recognize who may be considered hierarchically inferior (Stryker, 2001) or deviant (Taylor, 1971), thus leading to various processes of labeling and distancing/releasing tension towards the latter (Davis, 1972).

Adaptation systems

Ervig Goffman in the text “stigma” (1963), fundamental for the study of stigmatization within the social system, differentiates the carriers of deviance between discreditable, that is, subjects whose stigma has not been exposed and the discredited, that is, the actors whose stigma has been exposed towards the actors considered to be normal.
Currently, those who are discreditable, in order to avoid being subjected to judgement, implement as their main implementation systems passing, that is, presenting the consequences of their stigma as if they were other elements (Kando, 1972) and covering, that is, hiding the elements that bring to light their deviant element (Rayburn, Guittar, 2013).

For those who have been subjected to the judgement of normal elements, the adaptation processes will mainly be to accept the new situation and the different social symbolism assigned to them (Luckin, 1986), to conduct their social life within a group of other actors with the same stigma (Markowitz, 2005) or to adhere to the perceptions that "normal" people have of personalities with that particular deviance (Carling, 1962).

The “normality”

The aforementioned Goffman, again in "Stigma," establishes that the problem itself is the use of normality as an objective yardstick for evaluating social actors. As noted in the text, the Canadian sociologist determines that normality, as a yardstick of analysis, is highly controversial, being based on standards deemed objective, when in reality they are crystallized and based on cultural elements often tied to the dominant culture. For this reason, Goffman coined the term "phantom normality" when describing the process of normalization by discredited and discreditable subjects.

John Charles Bruni

To learn more

Bibliography

• Scambler, G. (2009). Health‐related stigma. Sociology of health & illness, 31(3), 441-455.;
• Goffman, E., "Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity", 1963;
• Tyler, I., & Slater, T. (2018). Rethinking the sociology of stigma.;
• Warr, D. J. (2005). Social networks in a 'discredited' neighbourhood. Journal of Sociology, 41(3), 285-308.;
• Howson, A., & Inglis, D. (2001). The body in sociology: tensions inside and outside sociological thought. The Sociological Review, 49(3), 297-317.;
• Lewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational factors contributing to worker frustration: The precursor to burnout. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 30, 175.;
• Bavelas, J. B. (1985). A situational theory of disqualification: Using language to “leave the field”. In Language and social situations (pp. 189-211). Springer, New York, NY.;
• Merton, R. K., & Merton, R. C. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster.;
• Stryker, S. (2001). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism: The road to identity theory. In Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 211-231). Springer, Boston, MA.;
• Taylor, L. (1971). Deviance and society. London: Joseph.;
• Davis, N. J. (1972). Labeling theory in deviance research: A critique and reconsideration. The Sociological Quarterly, 13(4), 447-474.;
• Kando, T. (1972). Passing and stigma management: The case of the transsexual. Sociological Quarterly, 13(4), 475-483.;
• Rayburn, R. L., & Guittar, N. A. (2013). “This is where you are supposed to be”: How homeless individuals cope with stigma. Sociological Spectrum, 33(2), 159-174.;
• Luckin, B. (1986). Time, Place and Competence: Society and history in the writings of Robert Edgerton. Disability, Handicap & Society, 1(1), 89-102.;
• Markowitz, F. E. (2005). Sociological models of mental illness stigma: Progress and perspectives. On the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change, 129-144.; – Carling, F. (1962). And yet we are human. Ayer Publishing.