Sociologists and Psychologists on Disability Stigma

Another six months of Monica, have mercy; I don't care if it harelips the Governor. - Molly Ivins, Time.com

Quotes from the body of the post:

the shame usually associated with a disability

their struggles to develop feelings of self-worth by rejecting the shame of social stigma

There's a very real and abiding pain that comes from knowing your childhood has damaged you in significant ways.

Those in power have the capacity to define the rules of goodness or propriety or morality—to decide or define values, good and evil.

We also learned that some of our (majority group) subjects identified these "rare" groups, minorities, as different or even dangerous. Dangerous groups need to be identified or distinguishable. Our subjects' responses suggested that minorities needed to be made distinctive so that their actions could be monitored. (Emphasis added.)

A minority is weak because they don't have the power to defend themselves

A majority is powerful because they have the law on their side

Joseph Burgo - Challenging the Anti-Shame Zeitgeist:

Andrew Solomon's powerful new book Far From the Tree is the most recent expression of this anti-shame zeitgeist. He details the often heroic efforts of parents to make sure their children don't suffer from the shame usually associated with a disability or sexual difference. He describes gay men and women, little people, deaf and blind people, transgendered individuals, and other groups who insist that their difference is not a disability or defect. Instead, they view their condition as an equal alternative to "normal," and nothing to be ashamed of. Solomon writes with passion and empathy about their struggles to develop feelings of self-worth by rejecting the shame of social stigma and embracing pride. . . .
I am not saying that people with disabilities ought to feel shame, or that I consider it a good thing that they do. I am saying that they inevitably will. It's more a biological kind of shame than a social one, arising from the awareness that typical, expectable development has gone awry. A secure, affluent society such as ours -- and devoted parents with the means to do so -- can marshal their resources to substantially mitigate that shame, but will never fully erase it. . . .
My profession promotes the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques and affirmations to combat shame. . . . There's a very real and abiding pain that comes from knowing your childhood has damaged you in significant ways. (Emphasis added.)

A note: It often seems as if "stigma" is prejudicial discrimination treated by sociologists as inevitable. Before the civil rights revolution, sociology texts often treated being black, Jewish, etc., as inevitably bearing stigma. Burgo is an example of this when he says "people with disabilities . . . inevitably will [feel shame]" above. As Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy wrote, "a brute fact does not dictate the proper human response to it. That is a matter of choice—constrained, to be sure, but a choice nonetheless."

It is worth considering "My profession promotes the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques and affirmations to combat shame." Those of us who are conditioned by the expectation that the disabled should be humble and apologetic could use practice in responding with dignity to disparaging remarks.

Psychology Professor William D. Crano's The Rules of Influence argues:

Those in power have the capacity to define the rules of goodness or propriety or morality—to decide or define values, good and evil. . . . Although the distinctions we've considered so far—number, power, and power's capacity to define virtue or morality—have been used in theories designed to distinguish majorities from minorities, they might not be distinctions that people actually use when thinking about these kinds of groups. How can we tell? We asked them. (Pages 36-37)

We'll try to ignore, for the time being, the amoral sociologism of "power defines morality" (a euphemism for "might makes right") and look at some of the answers Dr. Crano published:

A minority is an exploited group because they are singled out for unequal treatment, which is a negative thing. (Page 38)
A minority is usually misunderstood because people don't know the discrimination they have to deal with, which is a negative thing. (Page 39)

Crano comments on these responses:

The most frequent . . . descriptions used reflected power or status, and number. . . . However, distinctiveness . . . also entered in, as did personal or demographic features. . . . An interesting distinction related to power . . . had to do with whether the group was a target of other people's actions or the initiator of actions. Majorities initiate action; minorities are on the receiving end. . . .
We also learned that some of our (majority group) subjects identified these "rare" groups, minorities, as different or even dangerous. Dangerous groups need to be identified or distinguishable. Our subjects' responses suggested that minorities needed to be made distinctive so that their actions could be monitored. (Pages 39-40)

Further passages in The Rules of Influence which seem to equate power with virtue:

A minority is weak because they don't have the power to defend themselves, which is a negative thing. (Page 40)
A majority is able to do great things because it has the resources to get things done which is a positive thing. (Page 41)
A majority is powerful because they have the law on their side, which is a positive thing. (Page 41)

There's not a lot to be said about this at the moment, except: Politically, all are created equal. Socially, it's more a matter of King Lear's "who's in, who's out."

It could also be noted that both Ph.Ds quoted exhibited a certain fatalism, and perhaps a tendency to intellectualize away the ethical problem posed by a discriminatory society. Our society aspires to liberty and justice for all. It doesn't have to continue the discrimination implied by Molly Ivins' remark at the beginning of this post.