Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

Even if we assume you are correct about the lines between behaviors and people being blurred (that's debatable), It only becomes meaningless if one cares less about the spread of "behavioral disease" and more about the feelings of the "class" spreading the "behavioral disease." To me, such priorities are irrational and upside-down, though not uncommon in pop culture. Such asinine priorities are why STD's, AIDS, suicides, illegitimate births, and a number of other social ills are on the rise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was thinking about your concept of pragmatic stigmatization as I took my lunchtime nap, and thought there is an argument, I suppose, to be made for pragmatic stigmatization as being the more "humane" approach to the problem. What we are asking those who consider themselves to be gay or lesbian to do in the Church is become like Catholic nuns (I would say Catholic priests, but ....) . Given that situation is very bleak in a married church whose doctrines revolve around family, perhaps it would be more humane to just resort to pragmatic stigmatization and force people either back in the closet and into loveless marriages or out of the Church completely. I suspect that teenage bullies will continue to stigmatize anyone suspected of being gay regardless of our "officicial policy". So I think there is something possibly more honest in your approach to just overtly stigmatizing folks.

[Stone holm]

Spin it however you wish to sooth your conscience, but you have been vocally fighting an behalf of the various segments of society you believe the Church is at war with, which, logically speaking, puts you at war with the Church.

Christ is also called the "Prince of Peace."

Context is important in resolving this seeming contradiction and also seeing the peace in Christ's gospel and Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I don't think I am at war with the Church and it looks to me like the Church is certainly trying to make peace with its neighbors now -- but I think there is still a "warlike" segment among the membership -- wonder who would be included in that group.

[pmccombs1]

I am sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Stigmatizing, or at least those stigmas I have spoken to, target behaviors, not people. The behaviors being targeted are the "disease," or an integral part of the "disease," And, the spread of those "behavioral diseases," or the "product" as you call it, is dependent upon whether or not the culture utilizes stigmas or not.

Continuing with your "disease" metaphor, think of stigmatizing as an impediment to the spread of "disease," and analogous to the use or lack thereof of sterilization products and techniques by different groups of people. In spite of the unpleasantness of sterilization, those groups of people who actively use sterilization products and techniques tend to experience far less disease than those who do not. If disease is spreading, it may reasonably be attributed to, or blamed on--to use your words, the people or cultures not using sterilization (or stigmas). There is no injustice in drawing this rational conclusion. There is no injustice in using stigmas to decrease the spread of "disease" (deleterious behaviors). Quite the contrary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If it is as you say, then you are correct. But I do not believe it is so--I think that most (not all) behavior is symptomatic of underlying issues rather than the disease itself. I believe there are behaviors that are difficult or impossible to curtail by focusing primarily on the behavior, and that doing so is inherently unjust. When I'm sick, sometimes I can hold in a sneeze, but not always. It would be justice for a neighbor to criticize me for not covering my mouth, but an injustice to criticize me for sneezing in the first place. Maybe "not covering one's mouth" would be a "behavioral disease" that may be appropriate to stigmatize.

I'm not sure that something like homosexuality (or any sexuality) is on that level of behavior, though. Irrepressible sexual urges don't spread like bad manners. There are safe ways to express or deal with them (like covering one's mouth when one has a cough), without repressing them entirely. These generally have to do with responsible behavior within the context of the "disease" (keeping the behavior private, not being promiscuous, using precautions, etc.). Churches don't like to consider these options because they appear to be moral hazards. We don't like things that circumvent the natural consequences, because then we figure preventatives are a license to behave however one wishes. While there is some truth to that, I think we need to be careful about where the boundaries are drawn. Too often the response to moral disease is, "We don't condemn anyone for having a cough, we only condemn them for coughing."

Edited May 17, 2013 by pmccombs1

[mfbukowski]

I think pragmatism might claim that the literal is unimportant if the experience can be had without it.

Bingo!

[mfbukowski]

I am sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Stigmatizing, or at least those stigmas I have spoken to, target behaviors, not people. The behaviors being targeted are the "disease," or an integral part of the "disease," And, the spread of those "behavioral diseases," or the "product" as you call it, is dependent upon whether or not the culture utilizes stigmas or not.

Continuing with your "disease" metaphor, think of stigmatizing as an impediment to the spread of "disease," and analogous to the use or lack thereof of sterilization products and techniques by different groups of people. In spite of the unpleasantness of sterilization, those groups of people who actively use sterilization products and techniques tend to experience far less disease than those who do not. If disease is spreading, it may reasonably be attributed to, or blamed on--to use your words, the people or cultures not using sterilization (or stigmas). There is no injustice in drawing this rational conclusion. There is no injustice in using stigmas to decrease the spread of "disease" (deleterious behaviors). Quite the contrary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Look at smoking. It is just not politically correct anymore.

[Stone holm]

Look at smoking. It is just not politically correct anymore.

Interesting comparison. That was a definite cultural revolution. So you think that stigmatizing smoking accomplished that change?

[Calm]

Interesting comparison. That was a definite cultural revolution. So you think that stigmatizing smoking accomplished that change?

For those that wouldn't do it on their own, it certainly seems to have helped cut down significantly on their behaviour, if not wipe it out all together, from what I've heard some say about the way people look at them and not being able to smoke wherever they want plus the high cost. One of my kid's elementary teacher was smoking outside the school after hours and she begged me not to tell my daughter she smoked, she was so ashamed of it. Said she was having a stressful time but was working at stopping most of the time. Edited May 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

For those that wouldn't do it on their own, it certainly seems to have helped cut down significantly on their behaviour, if not wipe it out all together, from what I've heard some say about the way people look at them and not being able to smoke wherever they want plus the high cost. One of my kid's elementary teacher was smoking outside the school after hours and she begged me not to tell my daughter she smoked, she was so ashamed of it. Said she was having a stressful time but was working at stopping most of the time.

I would have to agree about the change. I remember in high school when somebody would open the door to the teacher's lounge and the smoke would billow out. That would be inconceivable now. So the teacher was firmly back in the closet when it came to smoking. Did you out her to your daughter. To be effective at stigmatizing something as a way of ending bad behaviour it is important to out the person.

[pmccombs1]

Interesting comparison. That was a definite cultural revolution. So you think that stigmatizing smoking accomplished that change?

In the case of smoking, I wouldn't be surprised if stigma had a big hand in the reduction of it. The causes of smoking were largely social and self-image-based, and that's essentially what stigma works on. So stigma replaced the underlying positive image with an underlying negative one. In that case, stigma got to the root of it. This is exactly the "behavioral disease" that wenglund called out.

But when the roots of a problem aren't of that nature, stigma is out of place.

[Calm]

To be effective at stigmatizing something as a way of ending bad behaviour it is important to out the person.

I would think fear of being outed is enough...

She was also smart enough to want to stop because of health issues and the effects on her own children.

[Stone holm]

In the case of smoking, I wouldn't be surprised if stigma had a big hand in the reduction of it. The causes of smoking were largely social and self-image-based, and that's essentially what stigma works on. So stigma replaced the underlying positive image with an underlying negative one. In that case, stigma got to the root of it. This is exactly the "behavioral disease" that wenglund called out.

But when the roots of a problem aren't of that nature, stigma is out of place.

But Wenglund seems to think that it is somewhat the same. If its not hip, you wouldn't have the "lesbian until I graduate" syndrome that sometimes is noted. I personally don't know if it is hard wired or so deeply engrained that it can't be overcome, and if we stop all the name calling in school, etc. then you don't keep people in the closet.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Stone holm

[Stone holm]

I would think fear of being outed is enough...

She was also smart enough to want to stop because of health issues and the effects on her own children.

You realise I' m pushing this to an extreme.

[pmccombs1]

But Wenglund seems to think that it is somewhat the same. If its not hip, you wouldn't have the "lesbian until I graduate" syndrome that sometimes is noted. I personally don't know if it is hard wired or so deeply engrained that it can't be overcome, and if we stop all the name calling in school, etc. then you don't keep people in the closet.

What if sometimes the behavior is chosen because it is "hip," but other times it is "deeply ingrained" and not consciously chosen? What if some people feign illness for a selfish reason, but other people really are ill? Perhaps a stigma would get to the root of the problem and bottle up the pretenders, but it also wreaks havoc on those who legitimately suffer and fails to solve the real issue. The stigma is misplaced; it is on the wrong thing. What we need to learn is that it's wrong to take things lightly and to be irresponsible. The stigma needs to be upon the general celebration of disorder, not on the disorder itself or even the "responsible" expression of it. Who celebrates blindness or sickness? Yet the blind and sick shouldn't be made to feel that they are intrinsically unclean on account of their condition which is present in its expression, even without having to convince everyone generally that, actually, it's hip to have this disorder. When people are contagious, well, it's best for them to stay in the closet. Don't drag them out and say, "look everybody, avoid this guy." The closet is where powerful things like sexuality belong, regardless of how normal or abnormal it is considered. When it escapes, then you get the pretenders who exploit it for personal gain.

[Stone holm]

What if sometimes the behavior is chosen because it is "hip," but other times it is "deeply ingrained" and not consciously chosen? What if some people feign illness for a selfish reason, but other people really are ill? Perhaps a stigma would get to the root of the problem and bottle up the pretenders, but it also wreaks havoc on those who legitimately suffer and fails to solve the real issue. The stigma is misplaced; it is on the wrong thing. What we need to learn is that it's wrong to take things lightly and to be irresponsible. The stigma needs to be upon the general celebration of disorder, not on the disorder itself or even the "responsible" expression of it. Who celebrates blindness or sickness? Yet the blind and sick shouldn't be made to feel that they are intrinsically unclean on account of their condition which is present in its expression, even without having to convince everyone generally that, actually, it's hip to have this disorder. When people are contagious, well, it's best for them to stay in the closet. Don't drag them out and say, "look everybody, avoid this guy." The closet is where powerful things like sexuality belong, regardless of how normal or abnormal it is considered. When it escapes, then you get the pretenders who exploit it for personal gain.

Oh I agree there may be two types, but I think the reasoning seems to be that this is a war on sin and in all wars there is going to be collateral damage, a kind of ends justifies the means, you unleash stigma in all its glory and you "vanquish the foe" as the song goes. Besides most gays and lesbians are going to assert that being treated as if they have a disease or are broken is itself a stigma most people don't really relish being treated like a leper. So if we are going for the stigma thing it really is going to be in for a penny in for a pound sort of thing. Otherwise, we should probably just mind our own religious business and concentrate on converting souls and keeping them active in the Church and letting the rest of humanity make up its own mind how they want to approach the gay/lesbian issue. Maybe as Islam takes over Europe and Europe takes a hard turn to the right again, they will start stoning gays again and we won't be viewed quite so harshly on the issue by the more liberal Americans. Who knows. There will always be those on both sides of this culture war who are out for material and political gain.

[thesometimesaint]

Anytime we have to stigmatize or bully someone into agreeing with our argument we have lost the argument.

[wenglund]

I was thinking about your concept of pragmatic stigmatization as I took my lunchtime nap, and thought there is an argument, I suppose, to be made for pragmatic stigmatization as being the more "humane" approach to the problem. What we are asking those who consider themselves to be gay or lesbian to do in the Church is become like Catholic nuns (I would say Catholic priests, but ....) . Given that situation is very bleak in a married church whose doctrines revolve around family, perhaps it would be more humane to just resort to pragmatic stigmatization and force people either back in the closet and into loveless marriages or out of the Church completely. I suspect that teenage bullies will continue to stigmatize anyone suspected of being gay regardless of our "officicial policy". So I think there is something possibly more honest in your approach to just overtly stigmatizing folks.

What you suggest above, which bears little resemblance to what I have in mind, sounds like a solution that someone with a very limited and shallow perspective might come up with.

As someone who is now in his 60s, and who has never married, I have found ways to manage all the stigmas that keep me in check and motivate me somewhat (Yes...that is right, I am subject to stigmas, and so I know of whence I speak), while finding ways to have a rich and blessed experience in my family-centered Church. One of the ways I have found to do this, which may be generalized to various walks of life, is to focus on what I have and can do, rather than on what I don't have and can't do.

Granted, I could view my situation as a plight, cloak myself in victim status, trumpet my proposed plight, and seek sympathy so as to remove the stigmas related to my plight, and perhaps get society to embrace the sins and unhealthy behaviors I now hesitate to engage in partly because of the stigmas. That way I might not feel bad if I ever decided to indulge the sins and unhealthy behaviors.

But, then, looking past the surface and near term, and judging from the experiences of other, this would be a lose-lose proposition, and thus doesn't make sense to me, though I understand my thinking is way out of the main these days.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If it is as you say, then you are correct. But I do not believe it is so--I think that most (not all) behavior is symptomatic of underlying issues rather than the disease itself. I believe there are behaviors that are difficult or impossible to curtail by focusing primarily on the behavior, and that doing so is inherently unjust. When I'm sick, sometimes I can hold in a sneeze, but not always. It would be justice for a neighbor to criticize me for not covering my mouth, but an injustice to criticize me for sneezing in the first place. Maybe "not covering one's mouth" would be a "behavioral disease" that may be appropriate to stigmatize.

I'm not sure that something like homosexuality (or any sexuality) is on that level of behavior, though. Irrepressible sexual urges don't spread like bad manners. There are safe ways to express or deal with them (like covering one's mouth when one has a cough), without repressing them entirely. These generally have to do with responsible behavior within the context of the "disease" (keeping the behavior private, not being promiscuous, using precautions, etc.). Churches don't like to consider these options because they appear to be moral hazards. We don't like things that circumvent the natural consequences, because then we figure preventatives are a license to behave however one wishes. While there is some truth to that, I think we need to be careful about where the boundaries are drawn. Too often the response to moral disease is, "We don't condemn anyone for having a cough, we only condemn them for coughing."

I agree with you in part. it is unjust for societies to stigmatize Involuntary behaviors or human characteristics that aren't a function of choice (such as skin color, physical and mental disabilities, and to some extent even SSA, OCDs, tics, etc.). Racism is wrong.

However, the stigmas I have in mind are those in relation to voluntary harmful behaviors. Such stigmas are not only just, but rational and pragmatic--i.e. they are in societies best interest.

In terms of public policy, as for relaxing the stigmas to allow for presumably harmless and private expressions of certain behaviors, this should be open to reasoned public debate, though I would advise running the numbers on past societal experiences to determine where, when, how, why, or whether it worked. There may be points at which the relaxing of stigmas on seemingly harmless and private behaviors may eventually run too high a public cost, thereby warranting strengthening the stigmas.

Given the rise these days in STD's, etc., it may be time for stronger pragmatic stigmatization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So the teacher was firmly back in the closet when it came to smoking. Did you out her to your daughter.

Interesting how you use politically charged words like "back in the closet" and "out." Are you aware that using such politically charged words is a form of stigmatizing?

What Liberals like yourself sometimes don't get is that certain things about which they are most vocally against, they at times unwittingly epitomize. Stigmatizing is just one such thing, and prejudice and discrimination are yet others.

To be effective at stigmatizing something as a way of ending bad behaviour it is important to out the person.

Stigmas don't need to become witch hunts or necessarily require tattle-tales to work reasonably effective--your penchant to view things in the extreme notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I agree with you in part. it is unjust for societies to stigmatize Involuntary behaviors or human characteristics that aren't a function of choice (such as skin color, physical and mental disabilities, and to some extent even SSA, OCDs, tics, etc.). Racism is wrong.

However, the stigmas I have in mind are those in relation to voluntary harmful behaviors. Such stigmas are not only just, but rational and pragmatic--i.e. they are in societies best interest.

In terms of public policy, as for relaxing the stigmas to allow for presumably harmless and private expressions of certain behaviors, this should be open to reasoned public debate, though I would advise running the numbers on past societal experiences to determine where, when, how, why, or whether it worked. There may be points at which the relaxing of stigmas on seemingly harmless and private behaviors may eventually run too high a public cost, thereby warranting strengthening the stigmas.

Given the rise these days in STD's, etc., it may be time for stronger pragmatic stigmatization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. Stigmas as a deficit reduction strategy, now there is a proposition worthy of Fox News. But as I have said before stigma is definitely a powerful tool for regulating society. I suspect whether something is referred to as pragmatic stigmatisation or bullying depends on whose ox is being gored. I notice that someone accused the gays of bullying BSA over their policies concerning gays.

[Stone holm]

Interesting how you use politically charged words like "back in the closet" and "out." Are you aware that using such politically charged words is a form of stigmatizing?

What Liberals like yourself sometimes don't get is that certain things about which they are most vocally against, they at times unwittingly epitomize. Stigmatizing is just one such thing, and prejudice and discrimination are yet others.

Stigmas don't need to become witch hunts or necessarily require tattle-tales to work reasonably effective--your penchant to view things in the extreme notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I assume the concept is to drive them into hiding which in modern lingo means in the closet. Not sure outing someone is any different than exposing someone.

[wenglund]

But Wenglund seems to think that it is somewhat the same. If its not hip, you wouldn't have the "lesbian until I graduate" syndrome that sometimes is noted. I personally don't know if it is hard wired or so deeply engrained that it can't be overcome, and if we stop all the name calling in school, etc. then you don't keep people in the closet.

You seem to be obsessed with closets and things like name-calling, and not the least bit concerned with presumably more serious social ills like the rise in STD's, AIDS, gay suicides, illegitimate births, etc. Pop culture seems oriented the same way.

If people, like yourself, ignore the big problems and focus instead on relatively minor issues, then no wonder you would decry, or ironically stigmatize, stigmas. It just doesn't make sense to me to ignore the big problems. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

You seem to be obsessed with closets and things like name-calling, and not the least bit concerned with presumably more serious social ills like the rise in STD's, AIDS, gay suicides, illegitimate births, etc. Pop culture seems oriented the same way.

If people, like yourself, ignore the big problems and focus instead on relatively minor issues, then no wonder you would decry, or ironically stigmatize, stigmas. It just doesn't make sense to me to ignore the big problems. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No you are quite right stigma might be the answer to STDs, AIDS, gay suicides, and illegitimate births. Certainly we have centuries of experience to draw from.

[wenglund]

Interesting. Stigmas as a deficit reduction strategy, now there is a proposition worthy of Fox News.

Given your overly narrow mind, it is understandable that you would mistakenly assume that my reference to "costs" was purely financial. It wasn't--not even predominantly.

But as I have said before stigma is definitely a powerful tool for regulating society. I suspect whether something is referred to as pragmatic stigmatisation or bullying depends on whose ox is being gored. I notice that someone accused the gays of bullying BSA over their policies concerning gays.

I suspect that there will always be people like you who lack the capacity to properly distinguish between stigmas and bullying, This happens when people are not only nuanced challenged, but also when people have a bad habit of mangling words in hopes of winning social arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

No you are quite right stigma might be the answer to STDs, AIDS, gay suicides, and illegitimate births. Certainly we have centuries of experience to draw from.

Yes...as made all the more evident when contrasted with the recent decades of over-permissiveness for which you seem to be a passionate advocate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well I assume the concept is to drive them into hiding...

Besides missing the point, this is, as expected, a false assumption. The concept is intended to discourage harmful behaviors. One would think that after I have repeated this as many times as I have on this thread, it may have registered with you by now. But, as the saying goes, "Some people you just can't reach."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 18, 2013 by wenglund