Goffman’s Perspective: From Visible Deviance to Social Exclusion
In StigmaA social mark of disgrace that discredits individuals or groups based on perceived deviance., Erving Goffman explores the mechanisms by which societies mark individuals whose appearance, behavior, or background is considered deviant from social norms. A stigma is not an inherent attribute, but rather a social judgment that is ascribed to a person.
- Physical stigmas (e.g., visible disabilities)
- Character-related stigmas (e.g., criminal records, addiction, mental illness)
- Group affiliation (e.g., ethnicity, religion, origin)
In criminology, it is especially relevant how criminal behavior or imprisonment can lead to long-term stigmatization. A former offender is often not seen as „rehabilitated“ but rather as „ex-convict“—a label that creates new social challenges.
“There is a discrepancy between virtual social identity and actual social identity.”
Erving Goffman (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
Definition: Stigma
A stigma refers to a socially devalued attribute that discredits a person and causes them to be seen as “deviant” in the eyes of others. It may be physical, social, or character-based and often leads to social exclusion. In criminology, the concept is central to the study of deviance, recidivism, and the labelling theory.
Key Points
Erving Goffman – Stigma
Main proponent: Erving Goffman (1922–1982)
First published: 1963
Country: USA
Core idea: Social stigmatization is a process in which individuals with deviant characteristics are marked as “different” or “inferior” by society.
Foundation for: Sociology of deviance, labelling theory, prison research, critical criminology
Related theories: Labelling Theory (Becker), Secondary DevianceDeviance refers to behaviors, beliefs, or characteristics that violate social norms and provoke negative social reactions. (Lemert), Total Institutions
The Discredited and the Discreditable
A key analytical distinction Goffman introduces is that between the “discredited” and the “discreditable.” The discredited live with a known or visible stigma—such as a physical disability or a publicly known criminal record. The discreditable, on the other hand, carry a stigma that is (still) hidden—such as a mental illness, deviant sexual orientation, or criminal past. This distinction strongly influences social behavior: the discreditable live in constant fear of exposure, while the discredited face the immediate consequences of social rejection.
“The term stigma and its synonyms conceal a double perspective […] In the first case one deals with the plight of the discredited, in the second with that of the discreditable.”
Erving Goffman (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
This distinction is not only theoretically significant but also practically relevant—in contexts such as imprisonment, mental health care, or public responses to addiction. It highlights how stigmatization depends not only on actual traits but also on social perception and context.
Stigma and Crime: Connection to the Labelling Approach
Goffman’s analysis forms a sociological basis for the labelling theory as developed by Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert. It shows how deviant behavior often results from social reactions. The exclusion, mistrust, and prejudice linked to a stigma can hinder reintegration—and in some cases even promote reoffending.
Example: Recidivism Risk Due to Stigmatization
Former prisoners often face barriers in finding employment, housing, or building stable social relationships. The label “ex-convict” acts like a social scar that is difficult to remove. Research shows that lack of social reintegration is a key risk factor for reoffending—making this a central issue in resocialization policy.
Total Institutions: Prison as a Stigma Amplifier
A key concept in Goffman’s work is the total institution. This includes prisons, psychiatric hospitals, care homes, or military barracks—institutions where individuals live under continuous observation, control, and standardization. Here, individuals are not only managed but actively depersonalized.
In the context of deviance, this means that stigma is institutionally reinforced. Life in prison shapes not only behavior but also self-perception—often complicating reintegration after release.
Comparing Perspectives: Goffman and Foucault on Institutions
Both Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault studied institutions where people are systematically monitored, disciplined, and de-individualized—such as prisons, asylums, or boarding schools. However, their theoretical approaches differ significantly:
- Goffman focuses on the individual and their strategies for coping with institutional control and stigmatization.
- Foucault analyzes the historical and structural conditions under which institutions exercise power over bodies and subjects.
| Perspective | Erving Goffman | Michel Foucault |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Microsociological, interactionist | Macrosociological, historical-genealogical |
| Central question | How do individuals experience stigmatization and institutional control? | How do power relations emerge, and how do they operate within institutions? |
| Analytical focus | Self-image, identity management, roles, face-work | Power, discipline, normalization, knowledge production |
| Relation to the individual | The individual is central—how they navigate between “normality” and “deviance” | The individual is a product of power relations—shaped by disciplinary techniques |
| Concept of the “total institution” | A site of identity degradation and reshaping (e.g., prison, hospital) | A site of discipline, surveillance, and internalized control (panopticism) |
Strategies and Types of Stigma Management
Goffman identifies various strategies of stigma management used by individuals depending on the visibility of the stigma, the social context, and personal circumstances:
- Disclosure – openly addressing the stigma, e.g., “I’ve been in prison, but…”
- Concealment – hiding the stigma, especially when it is invisible (e.g., mental illness or HIV)
- Information control – managing what others know or assume through selective storytelling or self-presentation
- Solidarity with others – seeking support in peer groups, subcultures, or activist movements
These specific strategies can be grouped into broader types of stigma management. The table below provides an overview:
| Type of Coping | Examples of Strategies | Contextual Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Proactive Coping | Disclosure, reinterpretation, joining support groups | Participation in reintegration programs; openly addressing past convictions in job applications |
| Reactive Coping | Concealment, information control, withdrawal | Avoiding contact with police or authorities; omitting prison time from résumés |
| Individual Coping | Self-presentation, impression management | Avoiding conspicuous clothing while on probation; emphasizing a conventional lifestyle |
| Collective Coping | Solidarity, collective empowerment | Engagement in peer support groups, ex-offender initiatives, activism against stigmatization |
Types of Stigma Management According to Goffman
- Proactive strategies: Disclosure, reinterpreting the stigma (e.g., reframing as strength), joining support groups
- Reactive strategies: Concealment, withdrawal, information control—often driven by fear of rejection
- Individual strategies: Self-presentation, role adjustment, impression management
- Collective strategies: Solidarity, political articulation, empowerment through shared experience
Case Study: Tattooed Women and Stigma (Based on Beverly Yuen Thompson)
In Covered in Ink, sociologist Beverly Yuen Thompson explores how heavily tattooed women are perceived and treated in society. Drawing on Goffman’s theory, she shows how visible body modifications can trigger moral judgments and social exclusion—especially when they violate traditional gender norms. Women in her study adopt different coping strategies: some choose to “pass” by covering their tattoos at work, others openly embrace their appearance and challenge social conventions. The book exemplifies how stigma is shaped by the intersection of visibility, gender, and cultural expectations.
These distinctions help us better understand the behavior of stigmatized individuals—including in criminal justice contexts. In areas such as reintegration, restorative justice, probation, or prevention, stigma management strategies are crucial for social inclusion. Goffman shows that deviance and crime are not just individual phenomena, but also the result of social reactions and interactional dynamics.
Connection to “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”
Goffman’s analysis in Stigma (1963) is closely related to his earlier work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956). Both studies center on the social behavior of individuals—particularly how people present themselves to provoke or avoid certain responses.
In The Presentation of Self, Goffman describes life as a kind of stage where individuals enact “roles” and engage in strategic self-presentation. This dramaturgical model helps us understand how stigmatized individuals attempt to hide or reframe their deviant attribute. They play a “normal” role to gain social acceptance—by hiding a flaw (“passing”) or managing first impressions (“impression management”).
Likewise, in Stigma, the social self is portrayed as something actively created through interaction. Coping with stigmatization is not merely a response to social labeling—it is a performative act on the social stage. The tension between visible and invisible traits, between “front stage” and “back stage,” links Goffman’s concept of stigma to his dramaturgical theory of interaction.
Further Reading
A detailed overview of Goffman’s dramaturgical approach is available in the article Erving Goffman – The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956). The “performer” described there closely connects to the self-presentation and concealment strategies analyzed in Stigma.
Criticism and Reception
Goffman’s work has been widely received in both sociology and criminology. Some critics point to its descriptive rather than analytical approach and the lack of a clear normative position. Yet in qualitative research and ethnographic criminology, Stigma remains a foundational text for examining social exclusion and deviant careers.
Relevance and Contemporary Significance
Current debates around crime, migration, homelessness, or mental illness show how relevant Goffman’s concept of stigma still is. Criminal policy faces the challenge of not only punishing offenses but also addressing the consequences of social labelling. In times of public shaming and media polarization, Goffman’s analysis offers a vital reflection on the moral mechanisms of exclusion.
Further Reading: Goffman and Braithwaite
A compelling theoretical extension of Goffman’s concept is John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming. While Goffman describes how social labels can lead to permanent exclusion, Braithwaite distinguishes between stigmatizing and reintegrative shaming. The latter condemns the act but not the person and aims for reintegration rather than exclusion. Braithwaite explicitly builds on Goffman’s work on stigmatization and social interaction—especially Relations in Public—and translates it into a practical framework for criminal justice.
Example: Stigmatization in Policing
People with certain attributes (e.g., living in “problem neighborhoods,” visible tattoos, certain skin color) are more likely to be stopped or suspected by police—a mechanism connected to the concept of racial profiling. These social labels are stigmatizing and can have long-term impacts on the relationship with law enforcement.
Thinking Ahead
How can we build a society in which stigma does not lead to permanent exclusion? What roles do police, social work, media, and politics play in this? And what does this mean for dealing with deviant behavior in a pluralistic society?
References
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
- Lemert, E. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Thompson, B. Y. (2015). Covered in Ink: Tattoos, Women, and the Politics of the Body. New York: NYU Press.
Further Information
YouTube: What is Stigma? Explaining Goffman’s Idea of Spoiled Identity
