Theorizing a denial reaction to coming out: Revising Goffman's stigma through a sexual identity process model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Erving Goffman's seminal theorization of stigma is at the heart of social scientific conceptualizations of identity management. Using data from qualitative interviews with queer South Asian women in Canada, this article proposes revisions of Goffman's Stigma theory . Intervening his supposition of acceptance and hostility as the two possible reactions to stigma revelation, I establish denial as an additional reaction to identity disclosure. A denial reaction has four key characteristics: (1) resistance to queer sexuality, (2) prescriptive enforcement of heterosexuality, (3) refusal to accept lesbian relationships, and (4) avoidance of conversation about queerness. I argue that disclosure to parents does not always translate to outness; rather, it can force the individual back into the closet. I refer to this non‐linear process as the culturally expansive closet. The article presents a sexual identity management process model that accounts for these culturally collectivist experiences. The results are significant for rethinking and affirming non‐Western ways of managing stigmatized identities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".