Stigma, in Erving Goffman's 1963 book, is an attribute that discredits its bearer in the eyes of others and reduces them from a whole person to a "tainted" one. It may be a mark of the body, a trait of character or membership of a group, and Goffman studies how people live with it: how it is hidden, managed or displayed. Labeling theory (Lemert, Becker) is a theory of deviance: it explains how the social reaction to rule-breaking —official reaction above all— fixes someone in the role of deviant. Stigma is a concept about identity; labeling, an explanation of continued offending.
| Stigma (Goffman) | Labeling | |
|---|---|---|
| Author and work | Erving Goffman, Stigma, 1963 | Lemert, 1951; Becker, Outsiders, 1963 |
| What it is | A general sociological concept | A theory of deviance and crime |
| Who it applies to | Anyone with a discrediting attribute: disability, illness, origin, a record | Someone who has broken a rule and been singled out for it |
| What it studies | Face-to-face encounters and the management of identity | The process by which reaction entrenches deviance |
| Must you have done something? | No: one can be born with the stigma | Yes, or at least have been accused of it |
| Own concepts | Discredited and discreditable; spoiled identity; passing | Secondary deviance; master status; moral entrepreneur |
// What they shareThe common ground
They come from the same place: the interactionist sociology of Chicago, for which identity is not carried inside but negotiated with others. The two main books were published in 1963, and share the observation that made them famous: once someone has been classified, everything else they are stops being seen. Goffman calls it spoiled identity; Becker, master status. Both describe the same thing from different angles, which is why they are used together today: the stigma of a criminal record is the mechanism through which labeling produces reoffending.
// Where they partThe differences that matter
The field. Labeling is about deviance. Stigma, about much more: Goffman distinguishes three types —"abominations of the body", "blemishes of individual character" and "tribal" stigmas of race, nation or religion— and offenders fit only in the second, alongside the mentally ill, the unemployed or alcoholics.
Who applies the mark. In labeling the mark is applied by someone with authority: a judge, a police officer, a psychiatrist. In Goffman no institution is needed; stigma operates in any encounter, in a glance or a silence. That is why it helps explain exclusions no penal system has decreed.
The question. Goffman does not set out to explain why someone offends. His interest is how the stigmatised person lives and what strategies they use: hiding what is "discreditable", controlling information, keeping to their own. Labeling does make a causal claim, and a debatable one: that the label increases future deviance.
// One villain, two readingsErik
Erik, the Phantom of the Opera, shows the difference with unusual sharpness, because he begins as a case of stigma with no crime at all. His face is what Goffman calls an abomination of the body: he is born with it, has done nothing, and it is enough for even his mother to reject him and for him to end up exhibited at a fair. Everything he does afterwards is identity management —the mask, the cellars, the voice without a body—: the effort of a "discreditable" person to control what is known about him. Labeling explains the second act. When he begins to extort and kill, and the whole Opera names him a monster, that name confirms what he already believed, and he acts on it. Goffman tells why Erik lives in hiding. Lemert and Becker, why he ends up being exactly what he was told he was.
The mistake everyone makes
Citing Goffman as the author of labeling theory. He belongs to the same tradition and is associated with it, but Stigma is not a theory of crime: it is a study of identity. The other confusion is reducing stigma to criminal records. Goffman is talking about any discrediting attribute, and his key distinction —discredited, when the mark is visible, and discreditable, when it can be hidden— has no equivalent in Becker.
Which villains each one explains
Case files the archive analyses with each theory. The number is the total; the list shows the first ones.
Sources · further reading
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
- Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
- Link, B. G. & Phelan, J. C. (2001). "Conceptualizing Stigma". Annual Review of Sociology, 27.
- Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E., Shrout, P. E. & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). "A Modified Labeling Theory Approach to Mental Disorders: An Empirical Assessment". American Sociological Review, 54(3), 400-423.
Theory questionsFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between stigma and labeling?
Stigma, for Goffman, is any attribute that discredits a person in the eyes of others, whether or not they have done anything; it is a concept about identity. Labeling is a theory of deviance explaining how the social reaction to rule-breaking, official reaction above all, entrenches someone in the role of deviant.
What are Goffman's three types of stigma?
Abominations of the body (physical deformities), blemishes of individual character (inferred from a record of mental illness, imprisonment, addiction or unemployment) and tribal stigmas (race, nation, religion), which are passed down through lineage.
What is the difference between discredited and discreditable?
The discredited person is one whose stigma is visible or already known, and who has to manage tension in every encounter. The discreditable person is one whose stigma can be concealed, and who has to manage information about themselves.
Is labeling part of stigma?
In today's most cited definition, yes. Link and Phelan (2001) argue that stigma exists when the labeling of a difference, its link to negative stereotypes, the separation of “us” from “them”, status loss and discrimination occur together, in a situation of power that allows them. The label is the first step; stigma, the whole process. That is why mental health and social work research studies the two concepts together.
What is modified labeling theory?
It is the reformulation by Bruce Link and colleagues (1989) that joins the two traditions. Unlike Scheff, it does not claim that the label causes mental illness. It claims that people who receive a psychiatric diagnosis already know society's prejudices and expect to be devalued and discriminated against; to protect themselves they turn to secrecy, withdrawal or educating others, and those responses end up eroding their social networks, job prospects and self-esteem.