Thoughts on “Stigma”

He may see the trials he has suffered as a blessing in disguise, especially because of what it is felt that suffering can teach one about life and people. (…) Correspondingly, he can come to re-assess the limitations of normals, as a multiple sclerotic suggests:
Both healthy minds and healthy bodies may be crippled. The fact that “normal” people can get around, can see, can hear, doesn’t mean that they are seeing or hearing. They can be very blind to the things that spoil their happiness, very deaf to the pleas of others for kindness; when I think of them I do not feel any more crippled or disabled than they. Perhaps in some small way I can be the means of opening their eyes to the beauties around us (…).

– Irving Goffman, “Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity”, 1963.

These thoughts were, again, articulated a while back. This time, it was during my musings as an Erasmus student in Rome, where I took a course on the sociology of deviance. One of the readings recommended was the book cited above. Having already read some Goffman, and being quite an enthusiast of interactionism, some thoughts popped into my head concerning amputees and prosthesis users (I’ve yet to find the appropriate word for those who I wish to concentrate my studies on). 

In any case, on with less than eloquent babble: Goffman’s book “Stigma” was a biggie on my Neapolitan professor’s bibliography (which I attribute to his postdoctoral research having been undertaken in the USA). I’d already read Goffman’s “Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior”, which I found absolutely amazing. However, I read it during my first year of undergraduate studies, and feel that it is now time to go through it again. “Stigma”, on another note, seems to be right up my alley.

Let’s refresh Aimee Mullins TED talk (posted here under). She follows in the same line as the multiple sclerotic interviewed by the author. She declares not feeling any more disabled than “normals”. The terminology utilized is also interesting. For the sake of simplicity, Goffman choses to name “normals” those of us who are not branded or marked or show any trace of outer, or inner stigma. That is to say, those who show no trace of visible, or known, mark of differentiation. Example: a person lacking a limb carries a stigma.

I believe Goffman’s book carries with it an interesting idea to explore when working with cyborgs. Why? Because we may have to redefine the whole concept of physical stigma, specially when it is used as a negative definition. Normality in itself might have to be redefined if becoming a cyborg becomes “normality”. Or, to be rather more precise, it’s not a simple question of normality, but of desirability. What would happen in the case of prosthetic limbs becoming superior to biological ones? 

These post, due to their repetitive, cross-posted nature, are much less developed than I would like them to be. Indeed, if I changed platforms it was with the intent of being able to go further into my research and post rather more interesting points than simply referencing books. Yet for the sake of reference, I shall nevertheless leave this blog here, in hope that it might aid me later or that it might prove to be interesting to someone. 

In any case, I leave you with the inspiring Aimee Mullins’ TED talk.


One response to “Thoughts on “Stigma”

  1. Pingback: The Erasure of Disability from the Social Rights Movement | Homo Electronicus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s