#stigmatization

"We do not want to reckon with a world that is merely unfair; where some people get sick, not because they did something wrong but because the world is unjust, and insofar as it is just, it's random.

"And so, we tell ourselves we understand, which too often means creating explanations that blame the sufferer. Stigma is a way of saying 'you deserved this to happen', but implied within the stigma is also 'and I don't deserve it, and so I don't need to worry about it happening to me'.

"Stigma can become a kind of double burden for the sick. In addition to living with the physical and psychological challenges of illness there's the additional challenge of having their humanity discounted. Think of the word universally used in English to describe Tuberculosis patients in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were called 'invalids'. They were literally invalid.

"People living with TB today have told me that fighting the disease was hard, but fighting the stigma of their communities was even harder."

...

"Finally, the origin, or perceived origin of a disease also matters. If an illness is seen to be the result of choice it is much more likely to be stigmatized.

"So for instance, people with major depression are often told to just 'choose to be happier' just as those with substance abuse disorders are told to just 'choose to quit drinking'. And some cancers and heart diseases are stigmatized for resulting from purported choice as well.

"Of course, this is not how biology works. Illness has no moral compass, it does not punish the evil and reward the good, it doesn't know about evil and good. But we want life to be a story that makes sense, which is why, for example, it was commonly believed up until the middle of the 20th century that cancer was caused by things like social isolation, parents were actually told their kids got leukemia because they hadn't been adequately loved as infants.

"If a clear cause and effect isn't present, we will invent one, even if it's cruel."

st. francis receiving the stigmata

in the "buch der heiligen dreifaltigkeit" ("book of the holy trinity"), alchemistic illuminated manuscript, bavaria, late 15th c.

one thing i've noticed in a lot of leftist spaces is a strong preference for euphemisms, to a degree that can come off as... idk almost performative? obviously there are those that everyone considers dumb, like all the euphemisms for the word "disabled". but there are also those that I don't see talked about as much, like using "unhoused" instead of "homeless" or "person with autism" instead of "autistic person." this honestly annoys me quite a bit. "disabled" isn't a bad word. "homeless" isn't a bad word. "autistic" isn't a bad word. The whole concept feels just so pedantic, and it does nothing to actually address societal stigma or marginalization. Obviously if someone wants to use that language for themself, I'll respect that and call them whatever they choose. But I don't think people outside the community in question should police what term you use. (as long as you aren't saying anything hateful.)

Stigmatization is one of the most fascinating phenomena in religious mysticism, related to the appearance of the marks of Jesus' suffering on religious individuals. The term, derived from the Greek word stigma (mark, shame), refers to wounds that appear on the body in a supernatural way. These wounds can resemble the marks left by the nails of the crucifixion in the hands and feet, but they can also include other painful signs, such as a wound on the side where a Roman soldier struck Jesus, or bruises on the back resembling scourge marks. A crown of thorns mark may appear on the forehead. The stigmata can either be symbolic signs on the skin or deep wounds that bleed and cause pain. Some stigmatized individuals may bear all of these marks, while others may experience only some.

Although the phenomenon is well-known today, historically, stigmatization was rare and almost unknown before the 1200s. The first documented case of stigmata dates back to 1222 in England, when Stephen Langton was said to have received wounds resembling those of Jesus' suffering. Two years later, in 1224, St. Francis of Assisi reportedly suffered from stigmata, and he is still remembered today by many Catholics as a saint who bore the marks of Jesus' suffering in the final years of his life. Catherine of Siena, who lived in the 1300s, was also a well-known stigmatist, but she humbly prayed for her wounds to become invisible – and her prayer was answered. However, about 80% of all stigmatized individuals have been women, and many of them belonged to religious orders.

Why does stigmatization occur primarily in Catholic regions, but almost never among Protestants? This question has sparked much debate over time. Many skeptics believe that stigmata are psychosomatic symptoms or deliberate self-harm. However, Pope John Paul II's recent canonization of Padre Pio, who allegedly suffered from stigmata for decades, has continued to provoke discussions about the nature of the phenomenon. There have also been instances in history where significant church figures harmed themselves to prove their loyalty.

Other skeptics have linked stigmata to Munchausen syndrome, where individuals experience a compulsive need for attention and care by pretending to be ill or even injuring themselves. So, is stigmata a genuine, supernatural experience or merely a psychological phenomenon? This question continues to spark vibrant discussion, revealing how multifaceted the phenomenon of stigmatization is.

Stigmatisaatio on yksi uskonnollisen mystiikan kiehtovimmista ilmiöistä, joka liittyy Jeesuksen kärsimyksen jälkien ilmestymiseen uskonnollisiin henkilöihin. Tämä ilmiö, joka sai nimensä kreikan sanasta stigma (merkki, häpeä), viittaa haavoihin, jotka ilmestyvät kehoon yliluonnollisella tavalla. Nämä haavat voivat muistuttaa Jeesuksen ristin nauloista jättämää jälkeä käsissä ja jaloissa, mutta niihin voi kuulua myös muita kivuliaita merkkejä, kuten kyljen haava, jolle roomalainen sotilas iski, tai selän ruhjeet, jotka muistuttavat ruoskaniskuja. Otsalle saattaa ilmestyä orjantappurakruunun jäljet. Stigmat voivat olla joko symbolisia merkkejä iholla tai syviä haavoja, jotka vuotavat verta ja aiheuttavat kipua. Joillakin stigmaatikoilla voi olla kaikki nämä merkit, kun taas toiset kokevat vain osan niistä.

Vaikka ilmiö on tunnettu nykyään, historiallisesti stigmatisaatio on ollut harvinainen ja lähes tuntematon ennen 1200-lukua. Ensimmäinen dokumentoitu tapaus, joka liittyy stigmaatioon, löytyy vuodelta 1222 Englannista, kun Stephen Langtonin kerrottiin saaneen haavoja, jotka muistuttivat Jeesuksen kärsimyksiä. Kaksi vuotta myöhemmin, vuonna 1224, Franciscus Assisilainen kärsi stigmoista, ja hänet muistetaan tänäkin päivänä monien katolisten keskuudessa pyhänä, joka elämänsä loppuvaiheessa kantoi Jeesuksen kärsimyksen merkkejä. Katariina Sienalainen, joka eli 1300-luvulla, oli myös tunnettu stigmaatikko, mutta pyysi nöyrästi, että hänen haavansa tulisivat näkymättömiksi – ja rukous kuultiin. Noin 80 prosenttia stigmaatikoista on kuitenkin ollut naisia, ja monet heistä ovat kuuluneet uskonnollisiin sääntökunniin.

Miksi stigmaattisia ilmiöitä esiintyy erityisesti katolisilla alueilla, mutta lähes ei lainkaan protestanttien parissa? Tämä kysymys on herättänyt keskustelua pitkään. Monet skeptikot uskovat, että stigmat ovat psykosomaattisia oireita tai tahallista itsensä vahingoittamista. Kuitenkin paavi Johannes Paavali II:n äskettäin pyhimykseksi julistama Padre Pio kärsi väitetysti stigmoista vuosikymmeniä, mikä on herättänyt edelleen pohdintaa ilmiön luonteesta. Historiassa on myös ollut tapauksia, joissa merkittävät kirkon henkilöt ovat vahingoittaneet itseään vakuuttaakseen uskollisuutensa.