Notas sobre el pragmatismo de Erving Goffman y su concepto de estigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo trata las influencias del pragmatismo en el concepto de Estigma de Erving Goffman. El objetivo principal es develar el influjo de la corriente filosófica norteamericana en la configuración de uno de los conceptos más importantes de este sociólogo canadiense. Para ello, el texto aborda algunos de los postulados más destacados de G.H. Mead y de la Escuela de Chicago, particularmente de algunos de los exponentes del Interaccionismo simbólico. En términos metodológicos, se realizó una revisión hermenéutica de los textos más relevantes de los autores analizados en miras de hallar en ellos los conceptos que permitan construir un puente de diálogo entre perspectivas. En la parte final del texto, se puede apreciar que el pragmatismo no es sólo un elemento secundario en la obra de Goffman, sino que se encuentra en el centro de la configuración del concepto de estigma. -- This essay treats the influence of the pragmatism on the concept of stigma from Erving Goffman. The main objective is to show the influx of this philosophical perspective in the configuration of one of the mains aspects of this Canadian sociologist. For that, the texts aboard some of the proposition of G. H. Mead and the Chicago School, specifically some of the most important exponents from the last. In methodological terms I made a hermeneutic revision of the most relevant texts of this author to find in them some concepts that allow build a dialogue bridge between these perspectives. In the final part of this essay, we can appreciate that the pragmatism is not a secondary element of Goffman`s oeuvres but is one of the most important in the configuration of stigma concept.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".