Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

In another thread on this Board Wade Wenglund use the phrase or term, "pragmatic stigmatizing". I thought it a novel term and he objected to my referring to it as "bullying". I believe this raises a very interesting issue. In the course of that thread it was argued that for centuries STD's that developed as a result of homosexual activity were kept in check by the stigma that attached to homosexuality. I am not that interested in whether that proposition is true, but more interested in the idea that stigma can be used as a form of social control. And more importantly whether the use of stigma is a legitimate tool as a form of social control and training for Latter-Day Saints under any circumstances.

I take it as a given that stigma can and is a very potent deterrent and that when we remove the stigma that attaches to certain individuals in society we also remove the deterrent. As a person who grew up in the 50's and 60's, I am very well aware of the stigma that attached to homosexuality. We had one boy in our class who was extremely effeminate. And although most of us were fairly clueless as to what it really meant to be homosexual, we were very much aware that it was not good to be an effeminate boy. The sneering, insults, and various snide comments that were aimed at the boy were pretty intense. He was amazingly able to deal with it. I have no idea as to whether he later in life became a homosexual or not, I know that he never lost his effeminate characteristics. But, the ridicule that he went through certainly caused all the rest of us to be sure that we did not behave anything like him.

I also remember a star athlete in our class who managed to impregnate his girlfriend in their senior year. He acknowledged the child and married the girl. The result under the rules of the time was that the girl had to drop out of school and he was disqualified from all extracurricular activities. They had a lot of family support and both succeeded in life and to my knowledge are still married. For other girls, it meant the end of their education, and for some boys as well. Normally, the girl would ever after be labeled a "slut" or "easy," whic served as a deterrrent to other girls.

The girls had no varsity athletics and there was a mild stigma which attached to girls back then who were interested in any athletics other than cheerleading, dance and twirling. Girls were not allowed to take shop classes and boys were not allowed to take home economics. Both courses, however, were required for the appropriate gender.

The point of all this was to drive home in our minds that boys were boys and girls were girls. Does that sound familiar?

There has been a major drive to eliminate bullying in our schools and in our Church. The question is -- is there ever justification for pragmatic stigmatization in order to deter certain types of behavior and to preserve certain types of roles? If there is, when is it appropriate. This is not a totally abstract question. I remember being offended when Elder Oakes made a slur about the type of people over in Vermont shortly after Vermont approved Civil Unions -- he apparently didn't realize there were Vermonters in that particular New Hampshire Stake, not that it was an excusable thing to have done in the first place. But under a certain way of thinking, the use of slurs is an effective deterent -- the question is, is it ever justified?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Stone holm

[KevinG]

We must be careful not to conflate standards and stigmas. While we should praise worthwhile actions and behaviors we should also refrain from ostracizing those who fail to meet those standards. Peer pressure can be positive or negative.

This is where mercy and love are required.

The only place where I am inclined to thing shunning and ostracization are appropriate is when someone is a predator or intentionally seeking to harm others.

Edited May 7, 2013 by KevinG

[thesometimesaint]

[Stone holm]

We must be careful not to conflate standards and stigmas. While we should praise worthwhile actions and behaviors we should also refrain from ostracizing those who fail to meet those standards. Peer pressure can be positive or negative.

This is where mercy and love are required.

The only place where I am inclined to thing shunning and ostracization are appropriate is when someone is a predator or intentionally seeking to harm others.

I would tend to agree. But, do we under all other circumstances drop stigmatizing as a tool, and sometimes there can be a very, very fine line between enunciating a standard and trying to stigmatize someone's because of their behavior.

[wenglund]

To correctly understand my comments in context, it is important to note that I am referring to stigmas in relation to harmful BEHAVIORS, and not in relation to PEOPLE.

And, by way of drawing a salient distinction between stigmas and bullying, as well as to make a point in relation to topic of the thread, while drawing on an example in the OP, I would like to note as well that over the last several years there has been significant negative public pressure brought to bear against bullying of our youth in schools and on-line. Bullies and bullying has been resoundingly condemned and shamed, and ironically stigmatized. Is stigmatizing bullying not a legitimate means of social control under any circumstances?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

[media=]

Good video. So I take it you aren't big on using stigma as a pragmatic tool.

[Stone holm]

To correctly understand my comments in context, it is important to note that I am referring to stigmas in relation to harmful BEHAVIORS, and not in relation to PEOPLE.

And, by way of drawing a salient distinction between stigmas and bullying, as well as to make a point in relation to topic of the thread, while drawing on an example in the OP, I would like to note as well that over the last several years there has been significant negative public pressure brought to bear against bullying of our youth in schools and on-line. Bullies and bullying has been resoundingly condemned and shamed, and ironically stigmatized. Is stigmatizing bullying not a legitimate means of social control under any circumstances?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good point. We do stigmatize bullying. Kind of like being intolerant of intolerence.

[mfbukowski]

I think it goes beyond all this- the fact is that the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females. "Stigmatization" may be unfortunate, but it is a regulatory system society has come up with to enforce those standards.

I believe that we should live according to standards of behavior which we can generalize to all of humanity- that if all of humanity lived these standards, humanity would survive and prosper. You can figure the rest out for yourself, I am sure.

If a behavior would, if generalized, and everyone did it, lead to the destruction of humanity, I would think that it would be clear that that would not be a good behavior to encourage. It seems quite simple to me.

Kind of like your mother told you: "What if everyone did that?"

[Stone holm]

Good point. We do stigmatize bullying. Kind of like being intolerant of intolerence.

You also made the point that we stigmatize smoking tobacco. So whether stigmatizing something is acceptable depends on what? Our level of education? Our social values? What about the person with tatoos?

[mfbukowski]

To correctly understand my comments in context, it is important to note that I am referring to stigmas in relation to harmful BEHAVIORS, and not in relation to PEOPLE.

And, by way of drawing a salient distinction between stigmas and bullying, as well as to make a point in relation to topic of the thread, while drawing on an example in the OP, I would like to note as well that over the last several years there has been significant negative public pressure brought to bear against bullying of our youth in schools and on-line. Bullies and bullying has been resoundingly condemned and shamed, and ironically stigmatized. Is stigmatizing bullying not a legitimate means of social control under any circumstances?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Also, should we stigmatizing and bully those who speak up for traditional standards? There seems to be a lot of that going around lately as well.

[Stone holm]

I think it goes beyond all this- the fact is that the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females. "Stigmatization" may be unfortunate, but it is a regulatory system society has come up with to enforce those standards.

I believe that we should live according to standards of behavior which we can generalize to all of humanity- that if all of humanity lived these standards, humanity would survive and prosper. You can figure the rest out for yourself, I am sure.

If a behavior would, if generalized, and everyone did it, lead to the destruction of humanity, I would think that it would be clear that that would not be a good behavior to encourage. It seems quite simple to me.

Kind of like your mother told you: "What if everyone did that?"

So if everyone were a homosexual that would eventually lead to the destruction of humanity. So under those terms shouldn't we encourage the use of slur terms towards homosexuals amongst even our smallest children? I mean if it is appropriate, why would we teach our children it is innappropriate?

[mfbukowski]

You also made the point that we stigmatize smoking tobacco. So whether stigmatizing something is acceptable depends on what? Our level of education? Our social values? What about the person with tatoos?

In Los Angeles, you are seen as weird if you are in a certain age group and do NOT have tatoos. And if you are also a virgin? Uh oh! Clearly you are into some kind of religious cult and to be avoided.

[mfbukowski]

So if everyone were a homosexual that would eventually lead to the destruction of humanity. So under those terms shouldn't we encourage the use of slur terms towards homosexuals amongst even our smallest children? I mean if it is appropriate, why would we teach our children it is innappropriate?

The point I am making is that traditionally, indeed, that is the way it worked.

I am not saying that was or was not a "good" thing. I agree with Wade that we need to condemn behaviors, not people.

[thesometimesaint]

Good video. So I take it you aren't big on using stigma as a pragmatic tool.

Stigma rarely works as a pragmatic tool. What are we if not what we do? As with all punishment(s), and stigmatizing anyone is a type of punishment, it does extinguish bad behavior, at least temporarily. What it can not do is instill good behavior. So the bad behavior either returns or is made worse.

[Stone holm]

Also, should we stigmatizing and bully those who speak up for traditional standards? There seems to be a lot of that going around lately as well.

Do we stigmatize the bully because he is victimizing people? So you would say that people shouldn't stigmatize someone who is speaking up for the right to maintain his or her standards as we call them "traditional standards", should we stigmatize the person, however, who is seeking to impose "traditional standards" on a non-traditional type person? Like the meme that reads "The problem is not your religious belief, but your belief that i should conform to your religious belief." Is there a distinction there?

[Stone holm]

The point I am making is that traditionally, indeed, that is the way it worked.

I am not saying that was or was not a "good" thing. I agree with Wade that we need to condemn behaviors, not people.

How does that work that you stigmatize smoking without stigmatizing the smoker, or you stigmatize bullying without stigmatizing the bully, or you stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual, or you stigmatize pre-marital sex without stigmatizing the mother of an illegitimate child? I have always heard the saying, "Hate the sin, and not the sinner" -- try explaining how that works as a practical matter.

[wenglund]

Good point. We do stigmatize bullying. Kind of like being intolerant of intolerence.

Seems you missed the point in one respect (which was to draw a clear distinction between stigmas and bullying--there is an important and meaningful difference--as well as to negate your claim that stigmas are not to be employed under any circumstances), while unwittingly underscoring my point in another respect. Nicely done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You also made the point that we stigmatize smoking tobacco. So whether stigmatizing something is acceptable depends on what? Our level of education? Our social values? What about the person with tatoos?

There is a huge clue in the tobacco analogy, though I am not surprised that you missed it. Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with people not liking white wrapping paper (ZigZags).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

How does that work that you stigmatize smoking without stigmatizing the smoker, or you stigmatize bullying without stigmatizing the bully, or you stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual, or you stigmatize pre-marital sex without stigmatizing the mother of an illegitimate child? I have always heard the saying, "Hate the sin, and not the sinner" -- try explaining how that works as a practical matter.

Hard to do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

[wenglund]

Also, should we stigmatizing and bully those who speak up for traditional standards? There seems to be a lot of that going around lately as well.

There are numerous examples like this that can be given of stigmatizing on the Left. And, so, you can understand my surprise when the Left universally rejects stigmas (it is a key plank in their indoctrination) since it is so self-condemning--that is, until I realized that to the Left, stigmatizing is only wrong when Right does it, or it is only stigmatizing when the Right does it.

As I see it, this is yet another way, as Rush has pointed out, in which the Left conveniently changes/mangles the language in order to win the argument since that can't do so otherwise. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

What about the person with tatoos?

Depends. It is a barbed wire and roses tramp stamp or a cute teddy bear on the ankle?

[wenglund]

How does that work that you stigmatize smoking without stigmatizing the smoker, or you stigmatize bullying without stigmatizing the bully, or you stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual, or you stigmatize pre-marital sex without stigmatizing the mother of an illegitimate child? I have always heard the saying, "Hate the sin, and not the sinner" -- try explaining how that works as a practical matter.

It may be quite difficult to do with people who are nuance-challenged, and lack the capacity to distinguish between behaviors and people.

The good news is, most people, including some on the Left, have the capacity to make that distinction, and don't define people as a whole by certain select behaviors.

For example I may have a bad/unhealthy habit of eating too much sugar at times, but that isn't who or what I am. And so when the self-appointed food police on the Left fire up their formidable stigmatizing machine (commonly referred to as Political Correctness), and launch their shaming campaigns against fast foods and the like, while I may not agree that it is any of their business, I have the intelligence to understand that they are stigmatizing the behavior of eating of fast foods, and not the people doing the eating.

Again, with all the stigmatizing coming from the Left, I am puzzled that you can't grasp the difference between behaviors and people. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Rule of thumb: "Am I correcting someone to make them feel better (in the long run) or to make myself feel better?" See D&C 121 for a wonderful sermon on this.

[Stone holm]

Hard to do. But that is what we are commanded to do.

Hard to do? I would guess it is pretty near impossible to do. I think that Wenglund is right in that stigma is a major deterrent. He is at least honest about it. Sometimes I get the feeling that we engage in rhetoric and then try to excuse ourselves from the consequences of that rhetoric. We are very vocal about gay marriage, and then can't seem to come to grips with why young people might form bands and go after gays with baseball bats. A more honest thing to do would be hey, if we refer to "these people" with slurs and do it consistently then our children will and that will help keep things in check. Except, when people start pushing back with slurs of their own. Isn't it kind of like he who lives by the sword dies by the sword? If you keep up the rhetoric then you get it slammed back in your face.

I tend to learn from people around me. I have a brother who does not smoke, but comes to the defense of smokers all of the time -- which annoys my straight-laced children who have been brought up to abhor smoking. The reason he rises to the defense of smokers is that he is very involved in AA and there is a general feeling apparently in the community that staying sober is more important than your personal health and if you try to give up both vices you may wind up back on the bottle. So I have quit attacking smokers.

I remember though that social stigma was considered a useful tool by my parents generation. Perhaps it is still around, just in another guise -- perhaps it isn't a question of whether we use it, but against whom we use it. Although I am beginning to believe that perhaps it isn't particularly useful at all since it substitutes reason and dialogue with pure emmotion and sometimes it causes us to just not think at all about the tone of what we are saying and how we say it. Like accusing people of mangling language, or referring to people as not having developed intellect, or writing off a whole culture as undeveloped, etc.

[Garden Girl]

I think it goes beyond all this- the fact is that the survival of the species depends on males being males and females being females. "Stigmatization" may be unfortunate, but it is a regulatory system society has come up with to enforce those standards.

Really? In the world of today, it seems like just about anything goes... without much of any stigmatization to speak of...

However, back in the olden days of the 50's when I was a teen, there was indeed a stigma in regard to certain behaviors that kept things in control...

For instance, the standards of the Church were faaarrr easier to live because of that stigmatization, i.e. only those types of girls smoked... or drank... or dressed provacatively... or made out (if a girl was considered "easy" her reputation was absolutely shot). This is just the way it was at that time, and it made it easy for me to keep the standards as a faithful LDS girl.

Whereas today, attitudes are so casual about these types of things, and our young people face difficult challenges and peer pressures while trying to maintain the dress and behavioral standards of the Church.

Being able to get birth control or abortions without parental consent was not even on the radar... and was shocking to imagine.

GG

edit to add... I just read the posts about tatoos... well, in my day (heh-heh), again only those girls had tatoos... or had pierced ears for that matter. I just don't see the same level of stigma today...

Edited May 7, 2013 by Garden Girl