Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Conceptualizing Stigma
Link & Phelan (2001), Varying Definitions,…
-
Varying Definitions
Goffman (1963) – “stigma is an attribute that is deeply discrediting [and reduces the bearer] from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one”
Stafford & Scott (1986) – “stigma is a characteristic of persons that is contrary to a norm of a social unit, [where a norm is defined as a] shared belief that a person ought to behave in a certain way at a certain time”
Crocker et al (1998) – “stigmatized individuals possess (or are believed to possess) some attribute, or characteristic, that conveys a social identity that is devalued in a particular social context”
Jones et al (1984) – “[stigma can be seen as a relationship between an] attribute and a stereotype [to produce a definition of stigma as a] mark (attribute) [that links a person to undesirable characteristics (stereotypes)]”
-
Stigma, Defined as the Relationship of its Interrelated Components
-
-
Component 3
labelled persons are placed in distinct categories so as to accomplish some degreee of separation of "us" from "them"
-
Component 5
stigmatization is entirely contingent on access to social, economic, and political power
-
-
The Stigma Concept has been criticized as too vaguely defined and individually focused. In response, Link & Phelan (2001) define stigma as the co-occurrence of its components (labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination) contingent on access to power.
The stigma concept has been applied to an enormous array of unique circumstances, using many different theoretical orientations
-
-