TIPIFICACIÓN DE LAS FAMILIAS DE LOS ESTUDIANTES CON DESEMPEÑO

Sociology and social psychology have contributed to modern conceptions of stigma and have developed several key theoretical perspectives (Ahmedani 2011). The complexity of stigma, and the volume of literature dedicated to understanding it, has resulted in a wide range of definitions and theoretical models. Each has their own distinct, yet interrelated, conceptualisations of stigma, how it operates and how it can be measured (Ahmedani 2011).

Certain models emphasise stigma as a process arising from a set of attitudes, while others define it as an attribute of a person. Socio-cognitive models are a commonly used constructs to make sense of public stigma (Ahmedani 2011). They seek to ‘explain the relationship between discriminate stimuli and consequent behaviour by identifying the cognitions that mediate these constructs’ (Corrigan et al. 2008: 34). They posit that stigmatised attitudes are socially learned, linguistically constructed knowledge

structures that are developed and reinforced through personal and vicarious experience (Corrigan et al. 2008). As noted by Ahmedani (2011), social constructionist approaches that view stigma as developing at a societal level before being internalized by

individuals have proved valuable in providing effective theoretical accounts of how stigma develops and becomes entrenched in contemporary society. Socio-cognitive

models emphasize the stigma process as being comprised of three main components: stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination (Corrigan et al. 2003). As part of these components, certain cues (erratic movements, talking to oneself or ways of dressing) lead to stereotypes about the person (that individual is crazy), that, in turn, lead to prejudice in the form of an emotional, affective response (visible disgust or fear). This results in a subsequent discrimination that occurs through a behavioural response (I won’t talk to that individual, I will try to avoid them) (Corrigan et al. 2003: 163-164). They are based on the premise that humans seek causal understandings for behaviour. Stereotypes can involve the ascription of either negative or positive characteristics to certain behaviours or groups that, though often widely believed to be true, can be inordinately rigid in their characterisation or be factually incorrect (Barney 2007).

Another frequently employed model of stigma in social psychology is attributional theory. Like social-cognitive models, this perspective is based on the belief that humans seek causal explanations for emotional and physical behaviour, particularly if it falls outside of the norms of society (Weiner 1988). The attribution of certain ways of thinking to particular types of behaviours is thought to be primarily undertaken by individuals and groups in order to understand their environment to better control it. This helps prevent threats to the social, ethical, emotional, behavioural and moral standards of dominant social groups. Weiner (1985: 548) noted that ‘once a cause, or causes, are assigned [a particular way of thinking], effective management may be possible and a prescription or guide for future action can be suggested’. Researchers adopting this model have found the degree to which stigmatized behaviours are viewed by society as being controllable influences the associated affective and behavioural responses of the viewer (Hinshaw 2007: 82-84). Physical deformities often lie outside of the control of many human beings (some people are born with one arm or leg). As such, the associated affective and behavioural responses are often mild, though potentially still stigmatising (for example, demonstrating pity). Mental illnesses, along with criminal and deviant behaviours, are often viewed by society as being potentially controllable and, as a result, illicit more punitive affective and behavioural responses (for example, anger, fear, disgust and avoidance) (Weiner 1988; Hinshaw 2007: 82-84, 124). This causal link, in conjunction with research that shows that certain mental health issues lead to violent and unpredictable behaviour (Cain et al. 2014), helps to explain societal reactions to mental illness in contemporary Western society.

The behaviour of mentally ill people can also be understood from this perspective as challenging the moral integrity and social basis of dominant societal ‘in-groups’. If mental illnesses are the result of chemical imbalances in the brain, or other

uncontrollable factors, that can occur in any member of the population, then ‘healthy’ members of society are incapable of preventing themselves from potentially one day being afflicted by a disorder that may relegate them to the realm of the ‘irrational’ (Hinshaw 2007: 81-82, 83, 95-97, 123-124). The fact that they are currently ‘rational’ has little to do with controllable factors, as it is based largely on chance or fortune. Such a notion reminds ‘healthy’ members of society of the vulnerability of rational thought and the arbitrary and unstable nature of life by interfering with the strong desire of people to manage their anxieties about life, death and tragedy (Hinshaw 2007: 82-83, 95-97). In this way, sufferers of mental illnesses face a difficult situation. As Hinshaw (2007: 124) argues:

When their disturbed behaviours are viewed as the products of deterministic forces that transcend their personal control, a sense of pessimism or even fatalism is likely to predominate. On the other hand, the attribution to an underlying weakness or lack of resolve fosters harsh, moralistic reactions. Either way, responses are unlikely to be benign or empathic.

This is an important point to highlight. As is shown in Chapters Six through Nine, certain visitors at all three of the case study sites grappled with the sense of

vulnerability that mental health issue can engender. This had an impact on the way visitors viewed the exhibitions and influenced how they engaged and disengaged with the material.

One problem with these theories is their focus on perpetrators of stigma. This means that those who suffer from stigma and who engage in self-stigmatising practices are often overlooked when discussing the issue of stigma (Yang et al. 2007). As

stigmatisation is likely to be derived from a number of sources, it is difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon without reference to structural, social and individual frames of understanding. Yang et al.’s (2007) conceptualisation of stigma goes some way to restoring a balanced focus on both the stigmatised and the stigmatiser and helps to demonstrate the link between social and structural forces and their impact on stigma.

of stereotyping, prejudice, emotional reactions (that is, affective responses) and status loss (for example, structural discrimination by workplaces, such as being defined as incapable of contribution to the workforce, etc.). All of these occur after the application of negative labels to people, groups and actions. Labels allow society to define and categorise differences and similarities through the process of comparison. In essence:

People distinguish and label human differences: … dominant cultural beliefs link labeled persons to undesirable characteristics – to negative stereotypes … and labeled persons experience status loss and discrimination that lead to an unequal outcome (Link and Phelan 2001: 367).

It is argued that labeling stems from the human instinct to identify with in-groups and out-groups (Hinshaw 2007: 76-77; Markowitz 2014). Association with a particular group that is perceived as similar to oneself, or as being able to promote one’s social interests and needs, serves several functions. It provides improved access to resources (both social and physical), increased chance of survival, the ability to accrue status and prestige, and a heightened chance of reproduction (Hinshaw 2007: 76, 91). While research suggests that denigration of out-groups is not necessary to the formation of in- group social identity, humans from cultures the world over exhibit tendencies to ridicule those identified as outsiders (Hinshaw 2007). This is particularly true when competition for resources is scarce, with the helpless, needy and undesired often being seen as an unnecessary drain on the moral fiber or physical resources available to society

(Hinshaw 2007: 91-92). Eugenics programs in the US operating until the 1990’s and the sterilization of the disabled and homosexuals during the 20th century are modern

examples of this (Hinshaw 2007: 17, 161-165). By ridiculing out-group/s, the status, structure and perceived legitimacy of the social and political hierarchy of the in-group/s are inevitably strengthened through comparison (Ottati, Bodenhausen and Newman

2005). This defines and reinforces commitments to the social norms and ethical and moral standards of the in-group and protects against behaviours that could challenge the status quo (Phelan, Link and Dovidio 2008).