Bodily self-stigmatization can take multiple forms. This can include tattoos, piercings, changes to body, self-harm, and more. Bodily self-stigmatization is the process of affecting your body as a result of a self-stigma that you have against yourself. This could be due to any kind of stigma that you or the people around you have. This stigma could be due to an illness, disease, mental health issue, etc… There are also social, mental, and physical stigmas.

The figure above contains a picture of a tattoo resembling a serotonin molecule. Serotonin is released during the process of self-harm and low levels of serotonin are linked with depression. Taylor E, the person in the picture says, “I got a serotonin molecule because it is released in the act of self-harm. I got this as a reminder that I don’t have to hurt myself to be happy. There has been a major lack of stability in my life growing up so I turned to some pretty unfortunate coping mechanisms, but I’m trying so hard to move forward and focus on being a victor, not a victim.”

For Taylor, having a permanent tattoo that has meaning to her and makes sense to those who may see it, may have made her struggle easier to overcome. This, along with many other similar types of tattoos that help people cope with personal struggle, often seems to be a successful way to overcome a stigma. This stigma could be held by that person or by others, and in tattooing the body, one is able to accept and overcome the self-stigmatization they may of have placed around themselves. In this instance, Taylor’s “self-stigma” against self-harm may have helped her overcome it. By accepting this stigma over an issue she used to battle with, she was able to more easily overcome this obstacle. In the example of self-harm, there are stigmas surrounding the practice for good and healthy reasons. Taylor’s ability to recognize the stigma against self-harm and accept it (internally and in the form of a tattoo) may be the reason she is better today.

Article: https://themighty.com/2018/09/childhood-trauma-tattoos/

For my analysis of the State of the Union Address, I chose when President Trump discussed how women have filled 58% of the newly created jobs in the United States. When Trump first announces this, the camera shot stays still and focused on him. The angle while he talks is at eye level; this is an attempt to create a sense of equality and closeness with the viewer. The shot looking at him head-on implies a sense of intimacy and makes the viewer feel that they are almost having a close, engaging personal conversation with the president.

After Trump announces this, the congresswomen then stand up and cheer, all wearing white. The video showing the women cheering has a montage of a few still shots and a maintaining shot, which moves horizontally to show all the congresswomen present at the State of the Union. It also acts as a kind of synecdoche, as even as it moves horizontally, it does not show the “full picture” of all the people present but gives us an idea on a smaller scale.

In addition, a majority of congresswomen in the video are wearing white. The denotation of this act is merely that the women are wearing white clothing. The connotation of the white clothing was a tribute/ solidarity with the women’s suffrage movement; in the early 20th century, women wore all white when hoping to catch media attention in regards to gaining attention and support for women’s suffrage. The myth is that although women have advanced since the time of the suffragettes, they still have a long way to go. While these are the connotations and associations the congresswomen wished for the public to gain from them wearing white, this video also shows polysemy, or multiple meanings in the same image. While some viewers conotated that meaning from the clothing, others associated it with virginity, purity or in some cases, the KKK. While that was not the congresswomen’s intention, it is impossible for an image to have just one association, as people’s personal associations will depend on their culture and how they were raised.

In the article, Brouwer–The Precarious Politics of Self-Stigmatization, the idea of self-stigmatization is viewed as “the willful marking of oneself as ‘tainted'”. When thinking about this concept, one of my favorite female artists, Frida Kahlo, stuck out to me when thinking about how self-stigma is often expressed. In her painting, Two Frida’s (1939), Frida Kahlo used her art to express her understanding of the social stigma of divorce in her culture, mixed with the way that made her feel. Being a divorced woman, constantly pushing the boundaries of what it meant to be considered beautiful and feminine, Kahlo expressed her feelings of loneliness and sadness. Her art was startling and often set her apart from the social norms showing the world she was “tainted”.

Visual representation can be strong medium for persuasion and dialogue; however, it does not come without its risks. Brouwer points out that “HIV/AIDS tattoos follow in a long line of strategies and methods by people with AIDS and AIDS activists to make AIDS and people with AIDS more visible (120).” However, by making visible the fact that one is HIV positive, they lose the “privacy and security that ‘invisibility’ often affords (Brouwer 128). Showing off one’s scars can be an intimidating thing to do and can often attract the scrutiny of hateful and bigoted voices. For many people, the benefits of “visibility” do not out weigh the benefits of “invisibility”.

This same concept can be applied to a variety of situations; however, I would like to focus on the NFL National Anthem protests. Over the past few years, many NFL athletes of all races, began a tradition of kneeling during the pre-game National Anthem to protest the unfair treatment of people of color in the United States. While different from physically tattooing one’s body, this type of protest (carried out on National Television) can certainly be considered self-stigmatization. To many Americans, the tradition of standing during the National Anthem is a sacred symbol of patriotism and support for US veterans and soldiers. The fact that it is such a controversial action, makes it that much more visible; it is now virtually impossible to get into a discussion about the National Anthem without at least remembering Athletes like Colin Kaepernick who took part in this protest and ended up sacrificing their passion. Kaepernick lost his position on the 49ers and was unable to get a contract with any other team, and therefore lost his ability to play. The protest attracted the attention of the President of the United States, who called for players to be cut if they knelt during the National Anthem. Finally, the NFL enacted a policy that required players to stand or the team would be fined. This, on top of all of the attention, anger, and resentment that was directed toward these players from more conservative football fans, certainly illustrates the risks that come with self-stigmatization. However, players like Jurrell Casey have committed to continue the protest despite push back. The NFL has since, frozen its policy on protest leaving players the freedom to kneel during anthem. While the push back from the NFL, White House, and fan-base may be strong, to many players, the perceived advantages of “visibility” outweigh the security of “invisibility”.

Cutting is a form of gruesome self-stigmatization linked with depression and suicidal thoughts. More often that not, people do not show off their scars for anyone to see but if someone takes part in self-harm, they are taking the risk of the scars being seen by putting them on their body. A person does not just start cutting themselves because they are sad or they had a really bad day. This form of self-stigmatization comes when a person is in so much mental pain that the only escape is to physically harm themselves, perhaps because they believe they deserve to feel the pain or because they believe that it will release the pain. Though a person does not get a needle repeatedly impaled in their skin when they cut themselves, like what happens when one gets a tattoo, they are leaving a permanent mark on their body. The difference in between getting a tattoo and leaving scars on a body is that a tattoo is not automatically associated with depression. However, when a person has scars left behind from cutting themselves, it is automatically known that this person struggles with mental illness. People who struggle with self-harm are often called “weak” and have been known to be “attention-seekers”. These terms come from people who have no idea what it’s like to deal with that level of mental illness. The type of attention that these people are calling for is a call for help, not the “oh, look at me” type of attention. That is why a person might opt to give in to self-harm.

In this instance, the individual in question decided to tattoo a reminder of the hardships that they went through in dealing with addiction, and this tattoo is a sign of sobriety. In some people’s minds, addiction is viewed as a weakness of sorts, which has caused a stigmatization of these conditions. This individual in particular has decided that they will not look at their past as a time of weakness, but as a time of learning and healing. While attitudes have changed in more recent years to victims of substance abuse and addiction, there are still many who view it as personal weakness, and that the consequences associated are the fault of the afflicted, which is the attitude that this tattoo wishes to address.

The above image is an excellent example of self-stigmatization. In recent years the use of a semicolon tattoo has come to represent the very real struggle that so many face with mental illness. In grammatical terms, the semicolon is used when the writer could’ve chosen to end the sentence but didn’t. This draw parallels with mental illness and suicide- the person struggling could’ve chosen to end their life but didn’t. Many people who have overcome the battle against mental illness and suicide wear this tattoo as a badge of honor; however, this tattoo could also lead to some negative consequences. For example, there is currently so much controversy related to mental illness and how to treat it that someone wearing a tattoo like this could easily be singled out as someone who is “weak” or “broken.” They could also be considered by others as only getting the tattoo to draw attention to themselves. Wearing a tattoo like this could just as easily bring a person negative treatment as it could positive treatment. On the reverse side of this, there are many people that would praise an individual with this tattoo for their bravery in standing up for something they consider important. That is why, in my opinion, an individual may choose to get a tattoo like this: to bring attention to the issue behind the tattoo. While this could prove hard for the tattoo wearer given the different kind of treatment they may receive, it is more valuable to them to start a conversation over their tattoo with the hopes of getting to the bottom of the real issue: open conversation about mental illness and the search for better ways of treatment.

The above image shows a form of self-stigmatization: the semicolon tattoo. The semicolon tattoo symbolizes solidarity with those who struggle with mental health and tries to make mental health issues more visible. When people choose to mark themselves with this, it has personal and social implications. Socially, the “bearers” of the tattoo want to give people hope who struggle with mental health and increase awareness and visibility of those who suffer from mental illness. Because mental illness is not often something you can see, many people forget it’s there or feel isolated when they do struggle with mental health. These tattoos increase the visibility of mental health and create a sense of community for anyone who has dealt with mental illness. On a personal level, the tattoo may help the bearer come to terms with their mental health or feel peace about loved ones they have lost to mental illness. While the semicolon is a great manifestation of this awareness and catharsis for the mentally ill, there are also risks of choosing to self-stigmatize. When people see the semicolon , they may begin to feel uncomfortable around the bearer or ask them invasive questions about their mental health. Another possibility is people will have stereotypes associated with mental illness, worry that the bearer is unstable and treat them differently. While there are risks associated with self-stigmatization, the semicolon still has personal and social functions and increases visibility for mental health issues.

Self-stigmatization affects many people that live in our world around us. Self-stigmatization happens when a person believes and internalizes prejudices and myths about mental conditions, diseases like HIV, and many other things that society might frown upon. These stigmas about certain things can cause people to feel more depressed than they already were and may lead them to detach themselves from society. People who engage in self-stigmatization take social stereotypes about a particular condition that they may have and internalize these negative stereotypes to be a part of them. This can affect many personal characteristics of a person’s self-esteem and how they view themselves as an active member of society. In the HIV community we can see prejudice and negative attitudes directed at people who are living with this condition by looking at statistics. According to UNAIDS foundation, in 35% of countries with available HIV data, 50% of people had discriminatory attitudes towards people living with HIV (UNAIDS, 2015). This stigma on HIV actually makes people more vulnerable to getting HIV because of their perceived beliefs of what it looks like to have HIV. In our community many people assume that these people live in isolation and can’t touch anyone. They picture them as if they are lying in bed for 24 hours a day and could die any second. Stigma arises from people’s ignorance to being fully aware and educated about a topic, if more people looked deeper into issues rather than what they perceive to know, then this stigma can be erased. People who are living with HIV are afraid of this societal stigma on their condition and will often not share it with anyone. Although the HIV rates have gone down in recent decades there are still thousands of people living among us with this disease. It is important to us that we look deeper at the issue and educate ourselves before we believe myths and prejudices about diseases, mental illnesses, and any other thing that can be stigmatized. In the article written by Dan Brouwer he mentions in the first paragraph that a man named William F. Buckley wanted to get everyone tested for HIV and if they tested positive they should receive a tattoo to let everyone know they tested positive. If this was carried out the stigma on HIV would be far worse than it is today. This would cause people to feel depressed by always reminding them that they are living with a condition and that everyone can know. Furthermore, the fact that many people agreed to wanting people who have HIV get a tattoo shows the ignorance and lack of education we had about HIV in the 80’s. In conclusion the main way to avoid this self-stigmatization is to educate our society about the truths and real-life examples of people living with diseases.

“HIV Stigma and Discrimination.” AVERT, Avert, 9 Apr. 2018, http://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/stigma-discrimination#footnote1_ldij7me.