Stigma by Erving Goffman (April 5th)

(Photo credit to PostSecret.com)

I'll be entirely honest here, this book just drained me of life. I'm not sure how I'm even writing this. Goffman's book is loaded with sociology and I must admit that sociology is not a strong point of interest for me at all- I love history because it is, to me, one continuous story whatever the place or culture. This dragged me down a bit... but I've gotten through it and life will go on. I hope.

In the beginning of the book, Goffman spends a lot of time talking about stigmatized people and really hammers home the point that they are viewed as 'different' due to physical or mental disabilities, sexual orientation, disease, race, or occupation (to name just a few). While Goffman is perfectly correct on this point, I do wish he had spent more time affirming the ability of the 'normals' (as he calls those who do not have these stigmas) to be allies. He does indeed touch upon this point, however I noticed that much of his argument revolves around these people having a specific reason for supporting or connecting with groups of stigmatized people. I can't counter sociology, and I've studied enough history to realize that human nature is human nature; but in my personal opinion, it should be more important to focus on the behavior of those who serve as allies (striving to understand or at least better the experience of oppressed people). We are learning about the history of crime and punishment within a certain area and a particular time frame - in my opinion, this class is a stepping stone toward understanding how stigmatized groups are still punished today, and seeing that although perhaps torture and more gruesome means of execution no longer exist in the U.S. (at least as far as the government is concerned) these systems are still in place elsewhere. Again, I'm just a crazy, liberal idealist - but I feel that Goffman could give us a slightly more hopeful outlook in regard to the interactions between 'normals' and stigmatized people. As it stands, it feels like a 'normal' can really only be an ally to oppressed people if they have some deep connection with a person of that group.

It looks like I've written a good amount, but there was also something that jumped out to me on page 87, an excerpt about a prostitute making a court appearance. The girl states that she keeps her head down, never looks around at all, and felt "awful" without knowing who is watching. I found this particularly interesting because it represents an instance of a stigmatized group feeling guilt for their identity. This woman is looked down upon (even referred to in the court as a 'common prostitute') and in a way internalizes that label. By not looking up at all and avoiding the faces of everyone in the room, she hints at a feeling of guilt over who she is and how others view her. I believe this is important to understand with many different stigmatized groups, because it sees a pattern of self-hatred within people who can't change their sexual orientation, gender, disabilities, race, or ethnicity. It is a long road to understanding the troubles faced by people of different identities - particularly when these identities all have histories of oppression behind them - but the concept of self-hatred is one that, depressing as it may be, can really push people to see the experiences of others who have been marked by stigma.

On Capital Punishment

Do you support capital punishment? Why or why not?

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

I'm going to sound terribly idealistic here, but for moral reasons I am opposed to the death penalty. I realize it is of no real use to just sit here and say that killing is wrong and that's why capital punishment is wrong - there are clearly reasons as to why it is practiced in so many countries and many people are of the belief that a crime can only be brought to justice if the perpetrator is sentenced to death. But (being the pacifist that I am) I want to challenge people to see beyond the notion of 'justice being served' and consider this murderer or perpetrator as just another human being.
Not everyone is looking for global peace, but I think almost everyone can agree that the world would be a much nicer place if, say, we could all get along and agree not to kill each other. This ideal I will refer to as 'peace', although that word can typically be interpreted in a much broader (or even more specific) sense.
So my question is this: Do we really progress in creating peace in the world if we condone capital punishment? Imagine a murderer is on death row for killing a child. What is proven by sending this man or woman to his/her death? Supposedly, it proves that the killing of innocent people will not go unpunished. It means that justice is being served, that a person has paid for the wrong that they have committed both against the child, everyone affected by the death, and (in some cultures) a higher power. But why is killing considered a moral wrong in the first place? From my understanding, it is condoned or condemned depending upon circumstance and the context in which it was committed. And yet, at the most basic level, we are all human beings; and though a person may have committed some horrific crime, taking his/her life is hardly a step forward in striving for a world that doesn't involve so much killing in the first place.
The point at which I get stuck in this argument is the 'how'. Going along with Professor Stuart's more rational approach to capital punishment, I wholeheartedly agree that more funds could be put into preventing violent crimes to make up for how much money is spent incarcerating criminals - whether or not they have been sentenced to death for their crime(s). It seems to me that heinous crimes can be stopped long before they happen, by educating people and working toward a peaceful society that places more emphasis on helping individuals to lead happy, successful lives.
I understand that many people have very personal reasons for supporting capital punishment - but my own perspective is marked by my background, in that when I was young a member of my family was murdered, and the man who killed her was never convicted of the crime despite an overwhelming amount of evidence against him (this occurred in another country where the local government was somewhat corrupt). Despite my anger at what happened, I would never want this man to lose his life for taking that of my family member. If he was indeed convicted for the crime, and if he was sentenced to death, I would still feel that no real justice is being served by taking another life. Instead I would prefer that no one else has to lose a person they love because there are so few attempts to prevent violent crimes altogether - a problem that capital punishment cannot solve.