As occupational therapists we deal with people who are stigmatised. We become, in Goffman's words, the ‘wise’. This article outlines the theoretical concept of stigma. It then examines this concept in the light of research into the actual experience of handicapped individuals. The conclusions drawn are that, whilst the theoretical concept of stigma reminds us that handicap is a social construct, we must not forget the physical disadvantages suffered by many handicapped individuals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Oxford illustrated dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
2.
ScamblerG. Sociological theory and medical sociology. London: Tavistock, 1987.
WaxlerNE. Learning to be a leper. In: MishlerEG, ed. Social contexts of health, illness and patient care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
5.
WilliamsS. Goffman, interactionism, and the management of stigma in everyday life. In: ScamblerG, ed. Sociological theory and medical sociology. London: Tavistock, 1987: 141.
6.
FreidsonE. The profession of medicine. New York: Dodd Mead, 1970.
7.
ParsonsT. The social system. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951.
8.
MorganM.CalnanMManningN.Sociological approaches to health and medicine. Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985.
9.
SontagS. Illness as metaphor. London: Allen Lane, 1977.
10.
FabregaHManningP. Disease, illness, and deviant careers. In: ScottRADouglasJD, eds. Theoretical perspectives on deviance. New York: Basic Books, 1972.
11.
ScottRA. The making of blind men. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.
12.
World Health Organisation. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980: 47, 143, 183.
13.
ScamblerGHopkinsA. Being epileptic: Coming to terms with stigma. Sociol Health Illness1984; 8(1): 26–43.
14.
BlaxterM. The meaning of disability. London: Heinemann, 1976.
FurnhamAPendredJ. Attitudes towards the mentally and physically disabled. Br J Med Psychol1983; 56:179–87.
17.
DavisF. Deviance disavowal; the management of strained interactions by the visibly handicapped. In: BeckerHS, ed. The other side. New York: Free Press, 1964.
18.
WorthingtonME. Personal space as a function of the stigma effect. In: StubbinsJ. Social and psychological aspects of disability. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.
19.
KleckR. Physical stigma and non-verbal cues emitted in face to face situations. Hum Relations1968; 21(1): 19–28.
20.
ThomasD. The experience of handicap. London: Methuen, 1982: 47.
21.
DavisF. Passage through crisis: Polio victims and their families. New York: Bobb-Merrill, 1963.
22.
StrongPM. The ceremonial order of the clinic: Patient, doctors and the medical bureaucracies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
23.
ThomasEJ. Problems of disability from the perspective of role theory. In: GlasserBLGlasserM. Families and crisis. New York: Harper Row, 1970.
24.
JenkinsAEAmosOCGrahamGT. Do black and white college students with disabilities view their world differently?J Rehabil1988: 54(3): 71–76.
25.
WrightBA. Physical disability: A psychosocial approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
26.
AdlerA. The neurotic constitution. New York: Moffat, Yard, 1917.
27.
WolfensbergerW. The principle of normalisation in human services. Toronto: National Institute of Mental Retardation, 1972.
28.
VashCL. The psychology of disability. New York: Springer, 1981; 129.
29.
HigginsPC. Outsiders in a hearing world. London: Sage, 1981.
30.
LockerD. Disability and disadvantage. London: Tavistock, 1984.
31.
ZahnM. Incapacity, impotence and invisible impairment. J Health Soc Behav1973; 14:115–23.
32.
GussowATraceyGS. Status, ideology and adaptation to stigmatised illness. Hum Organisation1968; 27: 873–84.
33.
AnspachR. From stigma to identity politics. Soc Sci Med1979; 13A: 765–73.
34.
RogersJWBuffaloMD. Fighting back: Nine modes of adaptation to a deviant label. Soc Problems1974; 22:101–18.
35.
AbberleyP. The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society1987; 2(1): 5–19.
36.
ToplissE. Social responses to handicap. London: Longman, 1982.
