Talk:Stigma (sociological theory)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merge proposal
I think the article Social stigma should be merged with this one. --Antonielly 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me, I'll add merge tags. delldot talk 09:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - I believe both articles are referring to the same subject, thus should be one article Doctoroxenbriery (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be merged, it can be included in social stigma as a shortened section but it should be said Goffman's way of describing and explaining stigma is one of the theoretical expressions of this notion and shouldn't be confused with others, hence it should stay in a seperate article. 129.242.226.91 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current research
This topic in sociological theory is missing discussion of the wide range of research that uses social stigma as a central concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.210.196 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good progress on current research section
Overview statements and discussion of particular research are coming along.
- However, I feel like there must be current research on stigma as it relates to sexual identity, to criminal and felon status. Another improvement would be to be more clear about distinctions between disabilities, and types of diseases, and on the other hand, mental illness.
- I will look for some examples. Yep, there are many. Try these google scholar search terms:
- stigma felon
- stigma disability
- stigma aids
- stigma sexuality
- stigma amputee
- stigma mental illness
--Htw3 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I still don't like the intro
The initial discussion of stigma should not be a goffman love fest. it should be about the concept. discussion of goffman and his role in the development of the theory should come in a section on the development of the theoretical construct. --Htw3 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what is the deal with the sensationalistic headings?
I suspect these are left over from early drafts, but jazz like this "Who are the Stigmatized / Who are the Stigmatizers??? Everyone" is not in the least bit consistent with an encyclopedic entry.--Htw3 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Goffman is totally misrepresented here
Aside from what I have just added, Goffman's conception of stigma is not represented here at all. Goffman writes of a social practice which occurs within any group--the way the group will treat others who are not normal according to that group's expectation of normality. The article takes the view that certain attributes are stigmas, and others are not, absolutely, and moreover that certain individuals are "stigmatizers" as if there is something to be said about the act of "stigmatizing"; Goffman defines stigma in a way totally incompatible with this conception, and speaks of the many types of reactions that normals have to the stigmatized. If the former is to be the conception of stigma presented in the article, Goffman's work should be separated from it. —Jemmytc 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. In correcting the representation of Goffman, I have probably given the article a somewhat incoherent character. That is why such separation needs to be done--but I'm not going to do it now, it's too much work. —Jemmytc —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why?
Why not just turn in to a real encyclopedia, or only let significant figuers enter information.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.198.95 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
