Stigmatisation, identities and the law: Asian and comparative perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Impressive growth in Asia, as one of most dynamic regions in the world, sometimes happens at the expense of marginalisation.Individuals who do not fit normative ideals, who are deemed economically unproductive or who do not participate in heterosex-centred reproduction are often regarded as different, even deviant, and come to take on or are given identities that are marginalised.These include, but are not limited to, people with physical or intellectual disabilities, the elderly, gender and sexual minorities, never-married parents or unmarried people.Stigmatisation can be pronounced in homogenous or insular societies and communities that use 'culture' and 'tradition' as a justification to extract conformity.It can also appear where the self-sufficiency of individuals and heterosexual, biological and nuclear families is touted as a moral virtue that aligns with neoliberal and anti-welfare ideologies.Against this backdrop, we sought papers that would speak to the theme of this Special Issue.We were interested in the processes of stigmatisation involving a range of interactions and relationships, including being treated as burdensome and unproductive members of society, or regarded as a threat to the social order, as well as social processes in which those who are stigmatised respond to such treatment by coming up with strategies, taking action or deciding not to take action.How do these processes emerge and transform, and what do they look like?How do people respond to differential treatment based on their stigmatised identities at home, at work or against state authorities?How are they protected or persecuted under the law and what forms of recourse do they have?What do these experiences tell us about the manner in which law matters to identities, human relationships and social life?In collaboration with David Engel (SUNY Buffalo, Law), Rosie Harding (University of Birmingham, Law) and Sida Liu (University of Toronto, Sociology and Law), we first put out a call for workshop papers.We received forty submissions, out of which we chose fifteen.Although we had planned to hold the workshop in person in June 2020 at the National University of Singapore, we converted the workshop to an online event due to the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outbreak.At the workshop, the authors received feedback from an online audience around the world, engaged in conversation with one another and received feedback from us and our three collaborators.In the end, six of the authors moved forward with the Special Issue with this Journal.Together, these authors cover a wide range of stigmatised identities: from the more conventional 'blemishes of character' attributes as described by Goffman, such as sex workers, sexual minorities and ethnic minorities, to people whose identities push the boundaries of how we conceptualise stigma, such as elderly prisoners and female international arbitrators.Although our reference to 'stigmatisation' is inspired by Erving Goffman, we did not require the authors to draw extensively from Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963) or subsequent scholarship that built on his work in any particular manner.Nevertheless, their analyses of stigma and the processes of stigmatisation help to bring light to the plight of marginalised identities in different parts of Asia and advance the scholarship on stigma and stigmatisation in the Global South.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».