Dominika Łęcka (rev.): Elżbieta Czykwin, Stygmat społeczny, [Social Stigma]

REVIEWS–REPORTS

Standing in front of a mirror. Looking. Who can you see? You… You can see who you are… who you are not… who you would like to be, and never will? Who? Th e mirror will show you “the truth”, every imperfection is revealed and goes to your consciousness, it keeps coming back, when the other mentions it. What if you hid it… concealed it… cov-ered it… pretended it was not there… Would others fall for that? You want to be perfect, perceived as “ours” in the eyes of others, don’t you? Still, THEY can see it, they can even see what you cannot, and you start noticing it as soon as they ONLY mention it. In a passing way, in one word, and this word becomes fl esh and begins its own life in your head. You begin to be this word… and everything it in-cludes, you begin to see it in the mirror.

Th is is the way a stigma begins its jour-ney. It is something innocent, a word that directs the fate of people that experience it, but also of the ones that have avoided meet-ing it. For there are two words: people with a stigma, and the “lucky ones” without it, described in the book by Elżbieta Czykwin entitled Social Stigma.

Th e author, as an academic at the Insti-tute of Education Sociology of the Faculty of Pedagogics and Psychology of the Uni-versity in Białystok, placed her academic interest in between pedagogics and sociol-ogy. Initially, she dealt with the issues of dynamics of a school class and of personal-ity, yet due to personal experience of the author as the wife of an Orthodox Belorus-sian member of the Polish parliament, which she mentions, she turned to the prob-lems of national minorities. First language, next a stereotype prevailed as analytical cat-egories in the academic work of the author, which resulted in numerous articles on that subject, such as Belorussians in Stereotypes (1994) in the periodical “Społeczeństwo Ot-warte” [“Open Society”]. Nevertheless, the search opened new possibilities for her, showing at the same time the limitations of the category of a stereotype (its suitability and productivity) for the study of the Be-lorussian national minority. Considerations of the problem, as well as numerous jour-neys led the author to the conviction that the category of deviation and social stigma-tisation by Erving Goffman can become a promising perspective of studying strange-ness. Conducting about a thousand inter-views with stigmatised people, and using

the works of E. Goff man, then known in Polish literature mostly from the work “Th e Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”, she presented the issues of social stigma, and thus fi lled the gap on the Polish publishing market that was noticeable in this area, an area so distant from the already described stigma in the religious context.

“Even the longest journey starts from the fi rst step”, as Laotse used to say, and the fi rst step can be diffi cult. Like an inhabitant of a desert island, it creates new paths, yet untrodden by others. It can get lost, mistake the directions, yet it is the mistakes that will allow future travellers to pursue the direc-tion set by it. Th e aim of the book reviewed by me was a specifi cation of an interdisci-plinary fi eld for the consideration of social stigma, which would bring closer sociolo-gists, psycholosociolo-gists, and pedagogues around one issue, i.e. around social stigma. Th ese are the addressees of the author’s book. Us-ing the works of E. Goff man, she tries to defi ne the relation between the term of stig-matisation and marginalisation, stereotyp-ing and exclusion. She presents a common attitude to study of identity, group stereo-types, prejudice connected with sexuality, ethnicity, sex and age. It is not diffi cult to notice that in spite of her academic interest mainly in the Belorussian national minority, she extends the collection of discussed cat-egories.

Such an aim set by the author can arise some expectations among the readers, who would like to familiarise with the full image of the discussed phenomenon, i.e. to take a close look at the phenomenon from the

point of view of various sciences and per-spectives, to be able to analyse various theo-ries, which could later constitute the basis of their research, to familiarise with the con-troversial views on the subject, with the search problems specified by various re-searchers, and with the piratical perspec-tives of using theory in social reality.

Trying to realise the goal set by herself, the author ordered the discussed issues into nine chapters. Th e fi rst one, as an introduc-tion into the problems of social stigmatisa-tion, presents the basic theoretical ap-proaches, and so: the contribution of E. Goffman into the discussed category of phenomena, considerations of the term “stigmatisation”, as well as of the problems that can be encountered by a person that wants to create a superior category of it. Th e author tries to defi ne the categories of peo-ple that can be classifi ed as “stigmatised”, the possible inspirations to the research, and the discussions that are held in the world of science that concern this issue. Th e struc-ture and content of this chapter is excep-tionally valid for the whole work, since it sets the frames the author uses when dis-cussing further issues. Th e second chapter is an endeavour to collect the heritage of numerous social sciences that deal with the subject. In its structure, we can familiarise with the features of a stigma, which are: am-biguity, auto-provocation, irrationality, emotionality, and interaction. Moreover, we are able to look at stigma from the point of view of a person that suff ers from it, to learn about the role of history and culture in its perception, about the reactions of viewers

to a stigma, about the moral aspect and the core of contextuality. Th e features presented in such a way provoke to defi ne the size of stigmatisation, which is performed by the author in chapter three. Th e reader is pre-sented with the dimensions of transparency, conduct, destructiveness, aesthetics, origin and danger, which constitute a confi rmation for the creation of the interdisciplinary area of considerations. Th e fourth chapter the author devotes to sociology, where she shows the consequences of stigmatisation for the “I” of a  person, using mainly the theory of spoiled identity by Goff man, and the theory of negative identity by Erik Erickson, placing them at the centre of her analysis. In the content of the chapter we can also fi nd psychological criteria of an analysis, in the presentation of the “I” charts, the conformity of the “I-Others” opinion, their diff erences when faced with the stig-matising attribute of “I”, attributive ambigu-ity, presentation of the “I” image from the point of view of separation theory. Moreo-ver, the author gives two practical examples connected with the outcomes of ageism and anti-feminism, thus building an image of the real experiences of stigmatised people due to their age or sex.

Th e fi fth chapter tries to show the de-fence mechanisms that stigmatised people use, both from the psychological and social point of view. She describes here phenom-ena connected with such spheres as self-esteem, the meaning of support groups for the stigmatised, and group ideologies. Si-multaneously, she tries to describe the argu-ment that is held as a part of this defence as

a  symbolic argument in the sense of the theory by Pierre Bourdieu.

Quite signifi cant seems to be also chap-ter six, which presents the problem of social stigma in the context of mass culture. Here, the theory of knowledge / power by Michel Foucault is used. We have an opportunity to familiarise with the destructive power of the media connected with the infl uence on a person’s “I”, and with the language stigma-tisation mechanisms illustrated by the “Nie” weekly. Th e author allows us to closely ob-serve the categories of “hatred speech” and “media panic”.

Th e last chapter is an endeavour to con-nect the results of all the sciences that deal with the issue of stigma from an interdisci-plinary research perspective. Th e author emphasises here the need to integrate the researches results, the place of these issues in research, its specifi c marginalisation and the causes of such a situation. She also de-scribes the functions of terminology cate-gories connected with this subject and the obstacles in using the interdisciplinary ap-proach. She points at an important context concerned with social control, language and political correctness, which can cause numerous misunderstandings and prob-lems. What is more, she pinpoints the func-tion of the marginalised sciences as far as stigmatisation is concerned, such as history, cultural anthropology and the law, the re-search results of which have not been in-cluded into the scope of analyses of the is-sue we are preoccupied with. In addition, the book contains a rich bibliography, in-cluding complete books, as well as articles

from periodicals, both in Polish and in English. Th e fi nishing item is an index of names of the people mentioned in the book, in an alphabetical order, which makes it easier to fi nd the right one.

Despite its content, whose analysis is presented below, it seems that the technical aspect of the book was not thoroughly pre-pared and considered, which considerably infl uences the reception of the whole book. Its paper back evokes an impression of a  book to read “for a  good-night’s sleep”, which is hardly true. Th e excessive number of pages would not be so intimidating, if it had not been for the way of text editing, which was the basic cause of the fact that I had to force myself a few times to read the book, in spite of its subject – one of the cen-tral problems of my academic interest. It results predominantly from a specifi c mo-notony of the text. It is devoid of emphasis in bold type, placed between narrow mar-gins, which would make it impossible to note down any remarks. In a  book that could become a student source, closes on the margin and their explanation at the end of a chapter would possibly be a good op-tions. My negative feelings were strength-ened by a scarce number of illustrations, which could become an excellent illustra-tion of the discussed issues, as well as an exceptional inspiration for further mental analysis. Th roughout the book I met only two such illustrations. Th e text could be dif-ferentiated at least by the use of various fonts, which was used only in a few places, and usually to mark another chapters or sub-chapters. Therefore, when reading,

a person instead of focusing on the content, wonders when will the chapter end. It is an advantage that the font is quite big, which decreases the eff ort of reading. What is also worth noticing, are the shy endeavours to place charts with data in the book, which positively infl uences such a  monotonous form. It is a pity that the eff orts were not stronger in this respect. It would certainly benefi t to the positive content reception of the book.

Let us then observe closer the content of the work. I believe, that the arduous idea of creating an interdisciplinary area of re-search must be appreciated. Such an area would integrate the already divided envi-ronment of sociologists, pedagogues, and psychologists, and the issues of social stig-ma seem a very good reason to achieve the above (pp. 137–188, 400–405). Th e author makes it possible for the marginalised sci-ences to be fully explored, scisci-ences that deal with the problem, yet are not so much ex-posed as psychology or sociology in the lit-erature of the subject. Czykwin presents the achievements of culture anthropology, the law or history, simultaneously allowing for the presentation of various references to her own research areas, which constitute an ex-cellent example of the discussed issues. It is, in my opinion, a fulfi lment of the earlier set goal (pp. 419–429).

It must be emphasised that the author ventured into the presentation of various terms that in popular thinking are treated as synonyms. However, apparently there are fundamental diff erences among them. She performs this aim by comparing the term of

stigmatisation with the term of a label, de-viation, stereotyping, discrimination, exclu-sion and marginalisation (pp. 26–39). Th e comparison is so important, since it allows us to diff erentiate what is in the centre of our interest. In the interdisciplinary re-search it makes it possible to create inter-subjectivity, especially taking into consid-eration the fact that within the limits of every scientifi c discipline the topic scope of a given term can be diff erent from the one accepted in other sciences. Trying to create such a term by comparison to what the term is not, can to my mind be considered a wor-thy idea. However, it appears that the author of the defi nition herself does not provide this term. Nevertheless, she tries to describe it through her own analysis of the theory of labelling, deviation, expectations, symbolic interactionism, “I”-refl ected, my and other group, social control, and social attribution. It seems that Czykwin places enormous trust and fate in her reader, from whom she expects the knowledge of theories that con-stitute the basis of this analysis. I believe, though, that this assumption is too risky. Th e enumeration of the theories, as well as a presentation of general conclusions drawn from them relying on her own analysis can result in lack of a reader’s understanding for the specifi c choices connected with such a solution (comp. ibidem, p. 59). I am con-vinced that it would be interesting to some-what present “the leading path” to the al-ready drawn conclusions, to show the au-thor’s own analytical workshop. If such a solution was impossible, the author could, at least enumerate the bibliographic

ad-dresses that a reader thirsty of additional knowledge could explore, or one that would encounter the theories for the first time (comp. pp. 59–67).

An interesting idea is including various categories of people into the scope of one term, which the author implements by con-necting national minorities, mentally ill people with homosexual handicapped peo-ple, women and the homeless into one cat-egory of the stigmatised. She claims herself, that it is the main line of criticism of this approach, with which she tries to deal in chapter three, describing the seemingly so much diff erent categories from the point of view of their shared dimension of stig-matisation. Th ey serve to support the pos-tulate of the possibility to connect so dis-tinct categories of people. Do they fulfi l the purpose, though? Does the new connection result in new analytical possibilities, does it allow us to draw conclusions that are inter-disciplinary in character? Th e readers can form their own opinions on the subject, studying the justifi cations and numerous examples which are provided by the author (comp. pp. 316–321).

Another strong point of the reviewed book is the presentation of the obstacles that result from the interdisciplinary analy-sis of the phenomenon of stigmatisation. It is a specifi c defi nition of the dangers for the approach itself, which can result from the connection of various disciplines, analytical categories, or research methods. Th e author notices, among others, that:

• the representatives of a given academ-ic discipline might want to present it

as the integrating one for this ap-proach, thus the dominant one, • they could be reluctant to deal with

the issues of relative sciences, not to mention to integrate their results with the results of their own,

• a specifi c anxiety may appear in them, which is caused by the feeling of in-competence and can support the de-velopment of reluctance in coopera-tion with other sciences.

Apart from such a  significant issue, which I  present above, numerous up-to-date references in the reviewed book should be emphasised. Th e author refers in the text to the latest books that are concerned with the discussed issue, which are still written in various parts of the world, which she sends the reader to (comp. pp. 76, 236). What de-serves approval, are the above described new directions in research, which can be adopted by other researchers (comp. p. 293), as well as the trivia that constitute an excel-lent illustration of the discussed issues. For example, numerous proverbs, slogans (comp. p. 23), or even references to art or fi lms (comp. p. 364). Th e statistical data are also worth noticing, which are few, but their appearance is entirely reasonable, not acci-dental. Another important issue is a refer-ence to problems connected with the Inter-net, which the author mentions claiming that the virtual world is not an exception and also within its limits we can analyse the phenomenon of stigmatisation (comp. p. 148).

Despite the numerous useful ideas de-scribed above, which undoubtedly raise the

content value of the book, its fl aws must also be specifi ed. Th e author, in an eff ort to create an interdisciplinary research fi eld, simultaneously marginalises sciences such as pedagogics, the law, history, or cultural anthropology, especially in the theoretical part. Sociology and psychology were grant-ed a description of numerous theories that can constitute the theoretical basis of the analyses of social stigmatisation, whereas the sciences mentioned before are neglected in this respect in the book. A perfect example is the fact of using the theory of E. Goff -man, the theory of negative identity by E. Ericson, and of Knowledge/power by Michel Foucault as the core theories of the dis-cussed categories. Pedagogics is represented only in practical examples, which disturb the fl ow of theoretical considerations, e.g. sociological ones, which can be illustrated by the description of advice for people that feel stigmatised (comp. pp. 268–275). Th is marginalisation is also revealed in using other sciences: cultural anthropology or history as exemplifi cations of sociological or psychological theories. Unfortunately, we are unable to familiarise with the theoretical off ers of these sciences. I think that basing only on disciplines such as sociology and psychology is one of the examples of the obstacles in the interdisciplinary approach that was placed on the author’s list in chap-ter seven. Perhaps unconsciously she fell victim to it. It seems to me that Czykwin could venture into the presentation of the theory of other disciplines (at least the out-lines), which could constitute a specifi c ba-sis for the researchers of this subject. While

reading the book, it is possible to get the impression that it is only sociology and psy-chology that deal with the subject, which is not true. Th e lack of theoretical proportion of other sciences, as well as limiting only to the ones mentioned above, to my mind, negatively influences the content of the book.

It also seems a fl aw that there is no one common defi nition of the term stigmatisa-tion itself, which constitutes the superior category of the book, and sets the theoreti-cal boundaries. I am of the opinion that the work should provide a variety of defi nitions of this term from the point of view of diff er-ent scier-entifi c disciplines, including the mar-ginalised ones. Such an overview would render the reader more aware of the discus-sions around the term and would allow him or her to specify an opinion on the subject. Simultaneously, the author does not men-tion other works in which the reader could fi nd such an overview.

Reading the book, looking almost from the meta-level, it seems that it stigmatises the term of stigmatisation. It is revealed in the noticeable atmosphere of unfairness and distress prevailing in the content of the book. It is caused, perhaps, by the situation of the people experiencing this phenome-non, which should be discussed. However, it is worth asking the question whether this is its only image. Did not the author fall into a  kind of trap? These questions re-vealed to me as a result of my research con-nected with auto-stigmatisation of people that call themselves ill (mental disorders, anxieties, addictions, not organic illnesses),

and do not want to hide the stigma because of hostile reactions of society, on the con-trary, they present themselves as ill. Th eir illness fi ts the phenomenon called by me the identity marketing, which so far associ-ated with the work of enterprises, has its refl ection in social interaction in primary groups, especially in a  family. Th erefore, I asked myself a question, is positive stig-matisation possible? Th e author only men-tions it and answers the question negative-ly, which is the result of the one track of the stigma analysis. Or maybe we create some stigmas ourselves, and show them only to save someone from something perceived by us or by him as negative? Perhaps it takes place in various crises, when it is bet-ter to remain in a condition that is no long-er useful than to take the risk of changes that are unpredictable? Provided the above is true, can auto-stigma give a  positive identity? Such possibilities of analysis would be available if the author used such ideas as the system theory, social construc-tionism, or the narrative theory by Michael White. Perhaps comparing a  stigma to a mark/scar, which carries negative associa-tions, resulted in the closure of the analyses to the yet untrodden paths.

To improve the content advantages of the book it is possible to provide some clues, the fulfi lment of which could positively in-fluence is evaluation in this respect. The author should take a clear decision as to the character of the book. Th e decision whether it is a book that is strictly theoretical, practi-cal, or connecting both the poles would in-troduce some order which I  sometimes

miss. Provided that we can have the impres-sion that the third option was chosen, it is important to distinctly separate the parts from each other. I  think that the author should provide an overview of the defi ni-tions of the term “social stigmatisation” and choose one that would become the superior defi nition for further analysis. Taking the suggested idea of sciences integration into consideration, I  believe that it would be a good solution to proportionally involve all the sciences that deal with the subject in the discussed topic, e.g. by presenting their the-oretical propositions or research methods. In this case, I am of the opinion that it would be advisable to invite representatives of these sciences to present the issues charac-teristic for their disciplines. It would require a change of the form of the book into a col-lective work edited by one of the authors. Similarly, it would be an excellent idea to expand the theoretical off er with controver-sial images that function in the theoretical space, but have no possibility of institution-alising. It would attract the reader’s atten-tion to intellectual innovaatten-tions. I think that an important element could be a presenta-tion of the institua presenta-tional situaa presenta-tion of sciences or sub-disciplines that are preoccupied with this subject, by enumerating the main re-search centres, periodicals, institutes that conduct research on “social stigmatisation”. In my opinion, it would be helpful to present at least one example of cooperation of the enumerated sciences concerned with one problem, for others to picture what would constitute, following Weber, the ideal type of such a cooperation. Nowadays, it is said

that it should be so, but nobody knows what it should look like.

So… stand in front of a mirror. Look. Who can you see? Yourself… You are doing everything to hide what others consider im-perfect? Or maybe you expose some “little sins” on purpose, just to become a “SOME-BODY”. And if you thought someone would ever want to take it from you, maybe you would lose something that is very impor-tant for you, maybe someone else would lose something very important… Your and his own identity…

Dominika Łęcka

Elżbieta Czykwin, A Comment on the Re-view of the Book Stygmat społeczny [So-cial Stigma]

I would like to heartedly thank the author of the review of the book Social Stigma (PWN, Warsaw, 2007) written by me for an academ-ic, wide, and thorough analysis of this work. I would also like to encourage reviewers to be more daring in presenting critical re-marks in such reviews. All favourable and praising fragments increase the author’s strength and faith in the sense of his or her work, whereas critical remarks make it pos-sible to reconsider the substance of the pre-sented theses, and resultantly, to increase the quality of the content and form of the book. In science, political correctness should be avoided, and a defi nitely harsher tone should be allowed. Th e number of academic books on social subjects is so  extensive, that is makes the interested people, e.g. teachers,