In the process of drafting a book on stigma I have expanded on my idea that in post-1970s rentier capitalism the concept stigma and the practice of stigmatising (enacted stigma), denoting shame and shaming, have often been ‘weaponised’ via an appending of the concept of deviance and the practise of sanctioning/punishing (enacted deviance), denoting blame and blaming. To paraphrase Goffman, what in the past were typically considered infringements against norms of ‘conformance’ have often morphed into infringements against norms of ‘compliance’. Moral culpability focused on ‘behaviour’ has been attached to ‘ontological imperfection’ focused on ‘being’.
The box below represents a way of elaborating on the basic theme of stigma weaponisation. Obviously there is much to add and these categories are considered and illustrated in some detail in my book. All I can accomplish in this brief blog is to signpost future arguments and to invite colleagues to give some, or further, consideration both to the notion of stigma being weaponised and to the variety of forms this weaponisation can take. There already exist a plethora of empirical studies that allow us to explore further.
However, I will give one highly topical example of ‘sacrificial stigma’. It covers such notorious principals as Jeffrey Epstein, as financially and politically corrupt as he was a destroyer of girls and young women’s lives (see my blog in the ‘greedy bastards’ series), Peter Mandelson and the ex-Prince, Andrew. These were figures who became such an embarrassment to the privileged and powerful that it became necessary, and functional, to publicly shame and disown – ‘sacrifice’ – them in the hope that they would be considered rare bad apples in a generally wholesome barrel. In this way the social structures comprising the system conveying wealth, status and power might escape attention and critique. The loss of impunity for the scandalous few thus serves to protect continuing impunity for other members of the class to which they belonged. ‘All are treated equally under the law’ becomes the disingenuous rhetorical refrain.
| TYPE OF STIGMA WEAPONISATION | DEFINITION |
| Latent stigma | Occurs when powerful figures are held in considerable public contempt, but are immune from any charges levelled against them because of the power and influence at their disposal. |
| Sacrificial stigma | Occurs when powerful figures become liabilities to their peers and are jettisoned to protect the institutions and organisation in which they are represented. |
| Opportunistic stigma | Occurs when unanticipated opportunities arise for those with sufficient power to shame and blame individuals and groups they want to subordinate to their ends. |
| Strategic stigma | Occurs when those with power are able to introduce and bed-in policies to manipulate or exploit vulnerable people or groups |
| Digital stigma | Occurs when communications involving attributions of shame and blame are conducted on digital platforms. |
| Coercive stigma | Occurs when the powerful can deploy controlling, autocratic or militaristic power to exercise their will over select others. |
| Consensual stigma | Occurs when there exists a general agreement on the part of the powerful and the populace over attributes and behaviours that are unacceptable, often with lasting consequences for offenders. |