Stigmatized in D L V L Duals A N D The Process Identity: Joanne M. Kaufman

STIGMATIZED IND l V lDUALS
A N D THE PROCESS OF IDENTITY
Joanne M. Kaufman
University of Miami
Cathryn Johnson
Emory University
We conducted intensive interviews with ten gays and ten lesbians drawing on research
and theorizing on gay and lesbian identity, symbolic interactionism, and stigma. Key
concepts from symbolic interactionism, reflected appraisals and situational identity
negotiation, provide a more coherent theoretical way to examine identity development
and the situated complexity of identity negotiation and disclosure among gays and les-
bians. Romantic relationships are significant because they aid in identity develop-
ment but also complicate social interactions by confronting many heterosexuals’
“phantom acceptance” of gays and lesbians. These findings inform the literature on
gay and lesbian identity by critiquing the stage models of identity and connecting this
literature back to the symbolic interactionist literature on self and identity.
People experience a sense of stigma as an authenticating process.

Within the resistance, you solidih your sense of se&
Alex, a respondent
In 1963 Goffman published the seminal sociological examination of stigma, defined

as any physical or social attribute that devalues an individual’s identity and hence dis-
qualifies the individual from full social acceptance (Goffman 1963). Goffman argues
that to truly understand stigma, researchers should shift from a focus on attributes to a
focus on relationships. He proposes this shift because the main issue for the stigmatized
is social acceptance by “normals,” the nonstigmatized. Since 1963 many researchers in
sociology and related fields have drawn on Goffman’s work to explore how various stig-
matized groups (e.g., gays and lesbians, ethnic groups, mothers with postpartum depres-
sion, the mentally ill, the homeless, the physically disabled, epileptics) have managed
stigma and negotiated identity (e.g., Warren 1974; Ponse 1976; Schneider and Conrad
1980;Herman 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995).
Beginning in the 1970s, researchers focusing on the stigma of being gay and lesbian
developed a literature focusing solely on issues related to the development and mainte-
Direct all correspondence to Joanne Kaufman, Department of Sociology, University of Miami, PO Box 248162, Coral Gables,
FL 33124-2030,e-mail jkaufman@miami.edu
The Sociologicul Quurterly, Vol. 45, Issue 4, pp. 807-833, ISSN 0038-0253, electronic ISSN 1533-8525.
0 2004 by The Midwest Sociological Society.All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy
or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at httrJ/www.
ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
808 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 45/No. 4/2004
nance of a gay or lesbian identity (e.g., Warren 1974; Plummer 1975;Bell and Weinberg
1978; Cass 1979). Much of the literature in the 1970s and early 1980s focused on devel-
oping stage models of identity development to describe how individuals recognized
their gay or lesbian attractions, developed an identity based on these attractions, dis-
closed the identity to others by “coming out,” and successfully adjusted to being a gay or
lesbian adult (Dank 1971; Plummer 1975; de Monteflores and Schultz 1978; Cass 1979;
Coleman 1981/1982; Troiden 1988). Beginning in the mid-l980s, other researchers on
gay and lesbian identity began to question these models of identity development and
maintenance by noting their limitations in assuming a linear process, focusing on the
goal of being a happily “out” gay or lesbian, and ignoring the tremendous variation in
the development and maintenance of a gay or lesbian identity (McDonald 1982; Cain
1991; Rust 1993,2003; Eliason 1996; Horowitz and Newcomb 2001). While some of the
researchers who critiqued the stage models provided alternative models of identity (see
Rust 1993), few considered the broader social-psychological processes that underlie all
types of identity development. Because of this limited focus, the bulk of the research on
gay and lesbian identity has become restrictive and theoretically limited by assuming
that gay and lesbian identity development is unique and dissimilar from the identity
issues of other stigmatized groups and other individuals and by relying extensively on
empirically derived models with limited theoretical development. Further, the meanings
attached to gay and lesbian lives and the related concepts of “the closet” and “coming
out” have changed over the past thirty years, further problematizing traditional concep-
tions of gay and lesbian identity development and maintenance (Seidman, Meeks, and
Traschen 1999).
We propose that to more fully understand how gays and lesbians develop and man-
age their identities, we need to step back from the gay- and lesbian-identity literature
and use broader theoretical ideas from symbolic interactionism that aid in analyzing
identity development and maintenance. Here, we argue that key concepts and theory
from symbolic interactionism provide a more coherent theoretical way to examine identity
development and the situated complexity of identity negotiation and disclosure among
gays and lesbians. These broader theoretical concepts and processes apply to gays and
lesbians as well as other stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals, thus encouraging
the gay- and lesbian-identity literature to move away from unique empirical models and
connect back to the general sociological literature on self and identity.
Specifically, the concept of reflected appraisals, individuals’ perceptions of how others
perceive them, is central in symbolic interactionist research on how social interaction
impacts the self (Gecas and Burke 1995). Recent research on reflected appraisals dem-
onstrates the role of the active individual, that is, one who interprets, acts on, and may
refute reflected appraisals (Gecas and Schwalbe 1983; Felson 1985; Franks and Gecas
1992; Ichiyama 1993; Milkie 1999). In addition, Burke’s (1991) identity theory uses the
concept of reflected appraisals to address how individuals actively construct identity and
present themselves to others. Burke (1991) theorizes that individuals strive for consis-
tency between their view of themselves (identity standard) and their perceptions of how
others see them (reflected appraisals). When inconsistencies arise, individuals act in
ways to bring the reflected appraisals more in line with the identity standard. Burke’s
theory, then, presents a theoretical means of describing situational identity negotiation.
The social basis of self and identity captured in the processes of reflected appraisals
and situational identity negotiation would seem, on the surface, to problematize the
Stigmatized Individuals and the Process of identity 809
situation of stigmatized individuals who may perceive negative information about their
identities more regularly in their environments than nonstigmatized individuals. Both
the stigma literature and the literature on gay and lesbian identity development document
a range of stigma management strategies including “passing” as part of the dominant
group, selectively associating with supportive individuals, and participating in social
movement activities to change the perception of the social group (e.g., Goffman 1963;
Ponse 1976; Anderson, Snow, and Cress 1994; Taylor and Raeburn 1995). Recently,
researchers in both literatures have critiqued the research and related theoretical models
for ignoring the situational complexity of identity negotiation (e.g., Schneider and Conrad
1980; Rust 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995). As we shall see, however, the processes of
reflected appraisals and situated identity negotiation provide a theoretical means to bet-
ter capture this complexity
To examine these complex identity processes, we conducted semistructured interviews
with ten men who identify as gay and ten women who identify as lesbian. We found that
reflected appraisals are crucial in affecting the initial experience of stigma (positive vs.
negative) and development of a stigmatized identity. In addition, for individuals to main-
tain a stigmatized identity, positive reflected appraisals are necessary because they pro-
vide crucial social support and strategies for living. Our respondents stressed the
importance of the situated complexity of identity disclosure and management, thereby
providing further evidence for the limitations of the traditional stage models of gay and
lesbian identity development (e.g., Cass 1979; Troiden 1988). Finally, our respondents
highlighted the unique importance of romantic relationships for the development and
maintenance of a gay or lesbian identity. The importance of relationships for identity
negotiation is rarely addressed in the gay- and lesbian-identity literature or the broader
stigma-management literature. To present these issues, we review the literatures on gay
and lesbian identity, self and identity from symbolic interactionism, and stigmatized
identities. We then present our methods, the results from our interviews, and the impli-
cations for future research.
CAY A N D LESBIAN IDENTITY

Beginning in the 1970s, a variety of researchers began to examine gay and lesbian issues
including coping with stigma (Warren 1974; Ponse 1976), developing a gay or lesbian
identity (Dank 1971; Plummer 1975; Cass 1979;Troiden 1979,1988; Coleman 1981/1982),
and experiencing variations in adjustment (Weinberg and Williams 1974). In particular,
some of these researchers sought to develop models that described the process of devel-
oping a gay or lesbian identity and maintaining that identity Here, we focus on four of
the most developed models. We follow this discussion with critiques of these models and
our own assessment of limitations and gaps in the literature on gay and lesbian identity.
Cass (1979), Coleman (1981/1982), Plummer (1975), and Troiden (1979,1988) all cre-
ated models ranging from four to six stages. All four models begin with a stage called
sensitization, pre-coming out, or identity confusion where individuals are aware of feel-
ing different andlor aware of potential homosexual feelings. After this initial awareness
individuals enter a second stage where they develop greater self-awareness and mean-
ings about homosexuality, have homosexual experiences, and try to manage a variety of
problems including accessing potential partners, managing guiltldoubtslanxiety, and
developing a satisfactory gay or lesbian identity and self-image. This second stage is
810 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 45/No. 412004
variously termed signification (Plummer 1975),identity confusion (Troiden 1988), acknowl-

cdgment (Coleman 1981/1982),and identity confusionlidentity comparison (Cass 1979).
As individuals become more comfortable with the possibility of being gay and begin
to accept a gay or lesbian identity, they are likely to enter a third stage (coming out,
exploration, identity tolerancehdentity acceptance) involving some degree of identity
disclosure. With greater comfort and enjoyment of being gay or lesbian and satisfaction
with the gay and lesbian community, individuals enter the final stages where their iden-
tity stabilizes (Plummer 1975), they develop strong commitments to being gay or lesbian
(Troiden 1979, 1988), they have greater experience with relationships (Coleman 1981/
1982), and they develop identity pride (Cass 1979). Both Cass (1979) and Coleman
(1981/1982) add a final stage whereby the identity becomes more fully integrated into
the web of multiple identities that make up the self, and individuals become comfortable
with both gays and lesbians and accepting heterosexuals. All four theorists acknowledge
the complexities of interactions at all stages that introduce a variety of coping mecha-
nisms (e.g., passing as heterosexual, restricting information, avoiding situations, limiting
interactions to primarily gays or lesbians) that may make successful acquisition of a
comfortable gay or lesbian identity very difficult.
While some of these theorists (Cass 1979;Troiden 1988) claim that their models are
not linear but very flexible, the descriptions of the models themselves clearly show lin-
ear progression from the negative heterosexual identity that does not fit to the positive
happy gay or lesbian person who is “out” in most situations. Although all theorists
acknowledge that individuals may not progress through all the stages or may abandon
the identity reevaluation all together, those choices are seen as the result of an inability
to effectively cope with the complexities of having a stigmatized identity. De Monte-
flores and Schultz (1978) were the earliest to point out that social life was much more
complicated than these stage models suggested and proposed that identity should be
conceptualized more like a feedback loop with self-perceptions, actions, and societal
responses all affecting each other and changing over time. In addition, by the beginning
of the 1980s, a number of researchers began to note the limitations and problems with
the traditional stage models. First, these models assume a linear and goal-directed pro-
cess that has positive values assigned to later stages (Rust 1993). Second, they understate
the importance of social context while overstating the relationship between identity and
behavior (Rust 1993;Brady and Busse 1994;Parks 1999; Kaminski 2000). Third, they fail
to acknowledge or insufficiently acknowledge that managing stigma and disclosure is a
life-long process that is never “resolved” (Cain 1991; Rust 1993;Whitman, Cormier, and
Boyd 2000; Appleby 2001). Finally, they minimize the tremendous variation in experi-
ence brought about by context, race/ethnicity, gender, social class, and other characteris-
tics (McDonald 1982; Rust 1993;Eliason 1996;Horowitz and Newcomb 2001).
While some of the researchers critiquing the stage models introduced alternate models/
conceptions of gay identity development (see Rust 1993; Cox and Gallois 1996; Fas-
singer and Miller 1996; Horowitz and Newcomb 2001), few have examined the broader
social-psychological processes that underlie all types of identity development. Thus,
researchers on gay and lesbian identity have created a restricted literature that empha-
sizes the uniqueness of gays and lesbians but fails to recognize the connections to
broader theoretical concerns. While the stage models were crucial in the development of
research on gay and lesbian identity in the 1970s and 1980s, it is time for the gay- and
lesbian-identity literature to connect back to the literature on self and identity. Almost
Stigmatized Individuals and the Process of Identity 811
all of the literature on gay and lesbian identity regardless of the field of the writer (soci-
ology, psychology, health, gay/lesbian/queer studies) mentions the “social constructionist
perspective,” but few researchers (for an exception, see Plummer 1975) expand on this
term and its linkages with symbolic interactionism. Thus, the examination of concepts
from the literature on self and identity in symbolic interactionism would help illuminate
the broader ideas debated in the gay- and lesbian-identity literature and would aid in
understanding the complexity of gay and lesbian identity development and maintenance.
SELF A N D IDENTITY
The writings of Mead (1934) and Cooley (1902) form the basis of the symbolic interac-
tionist perspective and highlight the social nature of the self and the importance of
social interaction for self-formation, maintenance, and change. More recent researchers
have expanded our understanding of the various aspects of the self, including the self-
concept (i.e., the conglomeration of an individual’s thoughts and feelings about self)
(Rosenberg 1979) and identity (i.e., the various meanings that are ascribed to a person
by herself and by others) (Gecas and Burke 1995).The literature on self and identity in
symbolic interactionism is very broad, but for the purposes of this discussion, we focus
on the concept of reflected appraisals and Burke’s identity theory (1991).
Developed from both Mead’s (1934) and Cooley’s writings (1902), the process of
reflected appraisals, involving the impact of others’ perceptions on the self, is central in
symbolic interactionist studies of the social aspects of self-concept formation (Gecas
and Burke 1995). While Cooley (1902) referred to the reflected appraisal process in the
concept of “the looking-glass self” and early researchers assumed an overly passive view
of self-concept formation, more recent research and reexamination of Cooley’s writings
illustrate that individuals are very active in interpreting others’ appraisals (Gecas and
Schwalbe 1983; Franks and Gecas 1992; Ichiyama 1993; Milkie 1999). In particular, indi-
viduals may reject reflected appraisals that are not important to them or come from others
that they do not value, or they may look for objective information in the environment
that may counter the reflected appraisals (Felson 1985; Ichiyama 1993; Milkie 1999).
Further, the reflected appraisal process likely involves the influence of generalized
others and the projections of the individual on others rather than the impact of specific
individuals (Felson 1989).Thus, the process of reflected appraisals is broad and may vary
across individuals, situations, and the issues at the base of appraisals. Although reflected
appraisals may not operate as early researchers thought, these newer findings are more
in line with the dynamic view of Cooley (1902) and provide for the broad application of
this social-psychological process to a range of research on self and identity.
Drawing on symbolic interactionism, Burke’s (1991) identity theory’ focuses on pro-
cesses of self-verification that apply to many types of identities from role-based identi-
ties (e.g., parent, PTA member) to non-role identities (e.g., shyness). Burke’s version
assumes that an individual wants others to perceive her as she perceives herself even if
her self-view is negative (Swann, Pelham, and Krull 1989; Burke 1991). An individual
compares the information she perceives about herself from others in the environment,
repected appraisals, with her internal view of herself, her identity standard. If the self-
in-situation meanings are consistent with her identity standard, she will continue to
behave in a way that produces these self-perceptions (Stets and Burke 1996). If her per-
ception of the environmental information fails to match her internal view of herself, she
will engage in behavior that alters the interaction until her perception of others’ apprais-
als is consistent with her internal view. In this way, an individual is motivated to act in a
way that will produce self-verifying information from the environment (Burke 1991).
Minimal discrepancies between perceptions of others’ view of an individual and her
view of herself may cause minor distress. By engaging in behavior that alters how she
perceives others’ perceiving her, an individual handles these minimal discrepancies
fairly easily and returns her identity to a state of equilibrium, thus decreasing the dis-
tress (Burke 1991; Stets and Burke 1994). For example, when a man who sees himself as
very masculine perceives that a friend thinks of him as slightiy feminine, the man is
likely to exaggerate his masculine behavior so that his perceptions of his friend’s view
match his identity standard. Several studies support this fundamental idea (Stets and
Burke 1994,1996; Riley and Burke 1995).
While these ideas from symbolic interactionism illuminate general processes of self
and identity, they potentially problematize the situation of individuals with stigmatized
identities. If one’s conception of self and the importance of one’s identity depend so
strongly on social relationships and social interactions, how does an individual develop
and sustain a stigmatized identity? While the more dynamic view of reflected appraisals
allows for the possibility of ignoring or refuting reflected appraisals from various sources,
how do individuals manage over the long term? We now turn to an examination of how
prior research addresses these questions.
LIVING WITH STIGMA

Goffman’s (1963) groundbreaking work on stigma draws attention to the “moral career”
of the stigmatized, which includes learning experiences regarding the stigma and changes
in the conception of self over the life course. This moral career includes managing rela-
tionships with the nonstigmatized in various personal and social situations. The issues of
managing stigma depend on the type of stigma-obvious or known (a discredited per-
son) versus nonobvious or unknown (a discreditable person) (Goffman 1963). If the
person is discredited already, the issues revolve around managing tensions in interac-
tion. When a person is discreditable, the issues primarily revolve around managing
information.
With his focus on relationships, Goffman discusses many ways that the stigmatized
cope with the stigma itself and with social interactions. Examples of such coping strate-
gies include attempting to correct the stigma (exp. surgery, therapy), devoting efforts to
mastering other areas of life, and passing as “normal.” The bulk of research on stigma
focuses on strategies of stigma management. Individuals faced with stigmatized identi-
ties may seek to become “normal,” that is, become like the dominant group using tech-
niques such as therapy. Also, individuals with stigma, such as students with physical
disabilities, try to master other areas of life that exclude the stigma, such as academics or
sports (Weitz 1991;Taub,Blinde, and Green 1999).
Researchers also found that individuals who are able to hide the stigma often try to
“pass” as part of the dominant group and thereby feign normalcy. This strategy was
attempted by former mental patients (Anspach 1979), residents of Newfoundland, Can-
ada, following Canadian confederation (Cohen 1975), individuals who thought they may
be gay or lesbian (Warren 1974; Herdt 1989; Troiden 1993), individuals who identify as
gay or lesbian (Weinberg and Williams 1974;Ponse 1976;Fein and Nuehring 1981/1982),
and gay men with HIV/AIDS (Weitz 1991). Several studies also show that individuals
try to dissociate themselves from the identity or retreat from society (Warren 1974;Ans-
pach 1979; Weitz 1991; Troiden 1993; May 2000). For example, murderers’ relatives
would withdraw from most social interactions for a period of time soon after the public
became aware of their stigma (May 2000).
Of great importance to many stigmatized individuals and their choices are “sympa-
thetic others,” those who share the stigma (Goffman 1963). In interactions with fellow
stigma sufferers, the stigmatized can get instruction on coping with the stigma, social
support, rhetoric and language about the stigma and the life of the stigmatized, and
alternative interpretations of the stigma (Goffman 1963)? In studies of various stigma-
tized individuals, such as gays and lesbians and mothers with postpartum depression,
individuals redefine the stigma as positive through reading positively oriented material
often provided by organizations that deal with the stigmatized (e.g., Ablon 1981;Jenness
1992; Plummer 1995; Taylor 1996; Levine 1998). They also attempt to enhance the new
identity by developing a social network that supports the stigmatized identity (e.g., War-
ren 1974; Weinberg and Williams 1974; Becker 1981; Anderson, Snow, and Cress 1994;
Taylor 2 996; Levine 1998; Ponticelli 1999) or restrict interaction with nonstigmatized
society (e.g., Ponse 1976;Snow and Anderson 1987,1993;Weitz 1991).
Many of these stigma-management strategies comprise what Snow and Anderson
(1987, 1993) term identity work, including such activities as selective association with
other individuals or groups and verbal construction and assertion of personal identities
(i.e., identity talk). By examining how homeless street people construct positive per-
sonal identities through identity talk, Snow and Anderson (1987, 1993) illustrate how
individuals even at the bottom of a status system attempt to construct positive personal
identities. Some researchers have also examined how engaging in social movement work
to reconceptualize the stigma is a stigma-management strategy (Anspach 1979;Taylor
and Whittier 1992; Herman 1993; Troiden 1993; Anderson, Snow, and Cress 1994;
Taylor and Raeburn 1995;Taylor 1996).
Goffman argues that “separate systems of honor” were on the decline in the early
1960s such that the stigmatized tended to hold the same beliefs about themselves and the
stigma as the nonstigmatized (1963, p. 7). Since that time, however, many social move-
ments (e.g., civil rights movement, gay liberation movement, etc.) have sought to change
the way that individuals, society, and courts view various groups (see Melucci 1989,
1995; Gamson 1992; Klandermans 1992). Thus, recent research in the 1980s and 1990s
suggests that many stigmatized individuals do, in fact, develop alternative and positive
conceptions of their stigma (Taylor 1996).
Goffman also mentions the importance of the situational context in affecting how the
discreditable stigmatized person handles information. Because social situations are not
always so simple as either fully open and accepting or fully closed and rejecting, Goff-
man proposes that it is better to focus on the various contexts where interactions occur
(public streets, service relations, workplaces, neighborhoods, domestic life) and the asso-
ciated interactions that may require different stigma-management efforts (1963, p. 55).
Currently, many researchers support and expand upon the importance of the situational
complexity of identity management for both the discredited and discreditable such as
wheelchair users, ex-psychiatric patients, murderers’ relatives, lesbians, and epileptics
(Schneider and Conrad 1980;Herman 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995;May 2000; Mon-
tini 2000). However, much of the gay and lesbian literature assumes that such strategies
represent a failure to accept the identity (Plummer 1975; Cass 1979;Troiden 1979,1988;
Coleman 1981/1982).As Goffman proposed, most of the discreditable stigmatized try to
engage in some form of information management to prevent being disqualified from
normal social roles such as jobs and social activities (Goffman 1963;Schneider and Con-
rad 1980; Herman 1993; May 2000).
Finally, Goffrnan points out that the stigmatized are often encouraged to achieve a
“good adjustment” whereby they cheerfully accept themselves but still withhold them-
selves from situations where the nonstigmatized would be uncomfortable accepting
them (1963, p. 121). Those who take the perspective of the wider society recommend
that the stigmatized seek such a good adjustment, essentially so the nonstigmatized are
protected while the stigmatized have the idea that they are accepted. Goffman argues
that this “phantom acceptance” provides a basis for a “phantom normalcy” (1963, p, 121).
Even with the advent of recent social movements, nonstigmatized individuals’ expecta-
tions of a “good adjustment” by the stigmatized are still relevant.
The various strategies of managing a stigmatized identity discussed by Goffman and
other stigma researchers inform the situational identity negotiation discussed by Burke
(1991) in his identity theory. With these strategies individuals are comparing their cur-
rent identity standard with the reflected appraisals in that situation and are choosing a
strategy that best presents the image which she or he is comfortable presenting to others.
If that identity is very new and the identity standard is not that strong, strategies like
“passing” as part of the dominant group may make sense. Alternatively, the identity
may not be relevant to the situation, such as a job interview where one’s sexual orienta-
tion should not be relevant. As prior research on reflected appraisals illustrates, individ-
uals are very active in rejecting the reflected appraisals of those they do not value or in
looking for alternative information in the environment (Felson 1985; Franks and Gecas
1992; Milkie 1999). Although the choice of strategy varies across situations and time, the
similar empirical findings for gays and lesbians and other stigmatized groups illustrate
how the broad concepts of symbolic interactionism can apply for various stigmatized and
nonstigmatized individuals. Because, by definition, reflected appraisals vary across per-
sons and situations, this concept is broad enough to encompass the variations within
individuals, across different stigmatized individuals, and across time periods. We now turn
to how we apply these theoretical ideas to our interviews with gays and lesbians.
METHODS
We draw on data gathered through semistructured interviews. We used a multiple-start
snowball approach to obtain a sample of ten women and ten men. Interviews were con-
ducted between July and December 1995 by the first author. Eleven of the participants
were contacted through various gay and lesbian organizations (i.e., organizations that
function for service and advocacy, social support, artistic endeavors, professional inter-
ests, and sports) in a large southeastern city. The other nine participants were contacted
through friendship networks of prior respondents and of the first author. Both of these
methods are fairly common and accepted for locating gays and lesbians for research
(Harry 1986).3
The participants are diverse in race, age, income, and experiences with disclosing the
identity. We interviewed three African American women, seven European American
women, two African American men, one Asian American man, and seven European
American men. Age of the respondents at the time of the interview ranged from eigh-
teen to sixty, with six aged forty-five and older. The respondents’ income ranged from
$10,000 (for a student being supported by parents) to $100,000.The mean income was
$41,250. Of those twenty interviewed, six had disclosed the identity to others (e.g.,
friends, coworkers, or family) within four years prior to this interview, six had disclosed
the identity to others between five and ten years before the interview, and the final eight
had disclosed the identity to others eleven or more years before the interview.
Intensive interviews were conducted to capture the process of development and
negotiation of the gay or lesbian identity in the participant’s life. They lasted two to
three hours and proceeded in a relatively structured fashion. We developed the initial
interview guide by drawing on prior work on gay and lesbian identity, self and identity
in symbolic interactionism, and on stigma-management processes. Specifically,we devel-
oped questions that addressed issues related to self and identity including the presence
of various identities, variation in the importance of those identities, conflicts between
identities, reflected appraisals or perceived information from various sources in a per-
son’s environment (family when growing up, friends when becoming aware of attrac-
tions, town or city where they grew up, society in general), emotional experience of
awareness of gay or lesbian attraction, meaning of gay or lesbian attractions at various
times in life, self-perceptions and self-acceptance, and social activities and friendship
networks linked to the identity. In addition, we also focused on a number of issues
derived from the literature on stigma and gay and lesbian identity including initial
awareness of the stigma (developing moral career), disclosure choices and meaning of
disclosure or “coming out,” experiences and behaviors in social situations of nonaccep-
tance (experiences with the nonstigmatized), experiences and behaviors in social situa-
tions where the individual was challenged about the stigmatized identity, use of various
stigma-management strategies, and perception of stereotypes related to the stigma.
After conducting three pretrials of the interview where the respondents were given
the chance to talk back to us, we discovered that we were missing information by having
too many structured questions. We, therefore, added more open-ended questions that
allowed the individuals to speak about themselves and their personal experience of
their identity process. Specifically, we added some questions asking people to talk about
the time period in their life when they admitted to themselves they were having same-
sex attractions and to think back on their lives from that awareness until the present and
recall what stands out as personally important for them in that time frame. In addition,
these initial respondents also stated that to more fully understand the development and
experience of being gay or lesbian, we needed to ask about people who served as role
models, romantic relationships, the impact of romantic relationships on the self and
identity, and experiences where the individuals were comfortable being gay or lesbian.
After adding those questions, the interview guide remained the same.
Interviews took place at a southeastern university, at various public venues such as
coffeehouses, and in respondents’ homes. Each interview was transcribed verbatim,
resulting in 430 pages of typed notes. We began the analysis by reading and rereading
the transcripts separately to see what general ideas and processes seemed to come from
the respondents’ experiences. In this reading we were guided by some general themes
including reflected appraisals and their impact on the development and maintenance of
the identity, stigma-management strategies including their use over time and impact on
the self and identity, and the situational complexity of identity disclosure and mainte-
nance. While we were guided by these themes in our analysis, we also wanted to allow
for themes to come out of the data. Because we had revised our interview guide after
the pretrial interviews, some of the newer questions were not derived from prior
research but rather were related to the lived experience of being gay or lesbian. There-
fore, we separately developed an initial list of categories (most before the initial reading
and some after) that appeared to be important. We then discussed the data and catego-
ries jointly and in detail to ensure agreement on category assignment. We then reread
the interviews to decide if they were consistent with those categories. We ended the inter-
viewing after the twentieth interview because we were hearing very consistent experi-
ences and processes from the respondents. The research, thus, appeared to have reached
saturation.
RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION
The literature on gay and lesbian identity provides identity development models that
are problematic because of their linear assumptions and inability to capture variation
across groups and time (Rust 1993). In this analysis we demonstrate how the broader
theoretical concepts from symbolic interactionism provide a more coherent means to
examine the complexities of identity development and negotiation among gays and les-
bians. We focus on three main themes: reflected appraisals and their importance for
identity development and maintenance, the situated complexity of identity disclosure
and maintenance, and the importance of romantic relationships for the development
and maintenance of a gay or lesbian identity. Our respondents also used stigma-manage-
ment strategies throughout all stages of their moral careers. Thus, we discuss these strat-
egies concurrently with the other three main areas and show how they are integral to
situational identity negotiation. We gave all respondents fictitious names but have not
altered any other information about them.
Reflected Appraisals in Identity Development and Identity Maintenance

In examining the development of a gay or lesbian identity, we asked respondents to talk
about their experience of their awareness of same-sex attractions. Respondents described
the importance of perceived information from others in the environment about self and
homosexuality in general. How individuals experienced the awareness and development
of their gay or lesbian identity depended largely on these reflected appraisals. Thus,
those who experienced few negative reflected appraisals about being gay or lesbian had
few difficulties examining their sexual identity. On the flip side, those who experienced
negative reflected appraisals about being gay or lesbian often had difficulty coping with
their awareness. The variation in these experiences with initial awareness of same-sex
attractions is not adequately captured in the stage models of gay and lesbian identity.
While these models note the importance of context, they do not provide a theoretical
means to describe the variation in contexts. Here we will demonstrate how reflected
appraisals and situational identity negotiation theoretically allow for this variation.
Further, a respondent’s choice of stigma-management strategy depended on those
reflected appraisals. The experience of positive reflected appraisals, in particular, was
crucial for identity development and maintenance. Some individuals experienced these
naturally (e.g., liberal school) while others actively sought them out (e.g., support groups,
S t i g m a t i z e d Individuals and the Process of Identity 817
books). Respondents were very active in using stigma-management strategies to help

alter their self-view (identity standard) and shifting their reflected appraisals to more
accurately match their self-view. Because of this active construction of identity, stigma
does not problematize the social basis of identity. Rather, the concepts of reflected
appraisals and the identity negotiation are sufficiently fluid to capture the complexities
of a stigmatized identity.
Reflected Appraisals and Identity Awareness

All respondents revealed that they began negotiation of a gay or lesbian identity by first
recognizing some internal awareness of same-sex attractions. This finding is consistent
with prior research on gay and lesbian identity (Plummer 1975;Cass 1979;Troiden 1979,
1988; Coleman 1981/1982). For example, Adam explains:
I was always very clear about my sexual interest and had no problem knowing what
that was. I knew that f r o m the time I was four, three and a halt I remember being
madly fascinated with the males. . . . I had no labels for that. But I was very aware o f
the attraction. I didn’t have any sense that it meant anything. . . . It didn’t begin to
bother me until I was in high school. . . . I began to understand that there were very
powerful negative labels that were attached to being gay. . . . I was reading and I began
doing research. I discovered the section in the library and started reading and discov-
ered that it was supposed to be a phase. A n d so I didn’t worry about it an awful lot. I
was just waiting for the phase to be over. But it didn’t go away. (emphasis added)
In Adam’s experiences the first awareness carried no negative meanings; those nega-
tive meanings came much later, thereby illustrating the socially constructed nature of
sexual meanings (Plummer 1975). How Adam coped with his awareness depended upon
his reflected appraisals involving his perception of how homosexuality was viewed in
general (primarily by the psychology/psychiatrycommunity). This illustrates how reflected
appraisals from the generalized other may affect the self (Felson 1989). As Adam
states here:
I just wasn’t interested in girls. That’s when I began to get the feeling that something was
wrong. I wasn’t growing out o f the phase and I was supposed to have already grown
out of it. . . . It was mostly just confusion. What is going on? I don’t fit the book. Some-
thing is wrong. B y that point I was pretty clear that I fell into the category of homosex-
ual. I very much did not want to be in that category because it meant that y o u were a
psychopath, that y o u were someone who would never achieve anything, that y o u were
all this incredible list of negatives. By the time I hit 18 or 19, I was stuck and was very
depressed about it. I had no social skills. I basically withdrew more and pulled into m y
studies and I guess f o r the next four or jive years became progressively more and more
depressed. (emphasis added)
Adam describes going from being relaxed because it is a phase to completely withdraw-
ing from others and focusing his energy on other areas of his life, his studies. Using the
terms of identity negotiation described in Burke’s (1991) identity theory, Adam’s iden-
tity standard or self-view was negative and the reflected appraisals were negative, and
both were reinforcing each other. Adam’s choice of coping strategies (withdrawing,
focusing energy elsewhere) appear to derive from both the identity standard and the
reflected appraisals. Thus, he chose strategies that deemphasized the gay identity due to
his negative self-view and negative reflected appraisals.
For many respondents, accepting the new awareness was not an easy process. About
half of our respondents had some degree of discomfort negotiating the awareness of
same-sex feelings. Respondents were more likely to experience such discomfort when
they perceived negative reflected appraisals from family and friends. For example,
Jenna, who is still in the middle of negotiating her awareness, describes some of the con-
flicts between her self-view and her perception of how her family and friends view gays
and lesbians:
In myself I‘m fine, I mean, as far as how I am personally feeling. But other people, that’s
dijferent. As far as m y parents go, they’re not happy. But m y roommate, I just told her.
. . .Yeah, I’m fine personally I mean I’m, I don’t know.. . . It’s like no one (buck home
knows) I mean because of my parents. If they did know they would be shocked, not be
um at all accepting to it. . . .That’s just how it is I mean that’s how, yeah I mean ith a
small southern town that’s Baptist. I mean, I don’t know how to explain it; it’s just um,
it’s looked down on. (emphasis added)
Jenna’s perception is that her family, friends, and hometown are not accepting of gays
and lesbians. Thus, even though she feels fine with it, she is forced to negotiate the
awareness and identity because of others’ views. Her strategies of disclosure to one
friend and nondisclosure in her hometown depend primarily on the reflected appraisals
in those contexts and her positive identity standard. In other words, Jenna likely would
not have disclosed to the friend if she perceived that her friend thought negatively about
lesbians. Plummer (1975) and others (e.g., Cass 1979; Coleman 1981/1982;Troiden 1988)
state that homosexuality cannot be understood in isolation from the reactions of a soci-
ety that potentially stigmatizes it. However, this perception of stigma varies across indi-
viduals and contexts.
Some respondents actually experienced very little discomfort with their awareness of
same-sex attractions and were able to smoothly transition to being gay or lesbian.
Madeline talks about her awareness:
[As a kid], 1 knew one lesbian couple and I liked them. We were good friends.. . . [I
first admitted it to myself] when I was in the third grade. I was confused. I knew what
I was feeling was different and not accepted. I heard other kids being called names
relating to being gay. [But], it gave me the right to act as a tomboy. I let myself play
the part of the tomboy. I played with the butch energy and I accepted myself. I
started to come out at the bars when I was 16. I had my first sexual encounter when
I was sixteen. . . .The high school was real accepting of gays. There were lots of gays
and lesbians in the school.
Madeline knew lesbians at a young age and was surrounded by a fairly supportive
immediate environment even though she was aware of negative views of gays and
lesbians more broadly. Having positive reflected appraisals from many people in her
environment, such as friends and teachers, allowed her to have a smooth transition
toward accepting the lesbian identity. Positive reflected appraisals, in general, were a
key aspect of negotiating awareness of same-sex attractions. This is a topic we
develop now.
Positive Reflected Appraisals, Identity Development, and Maintenance

In negotiating this new identity, all the respondents’ mentioned the importance of some
type of supportive response from others. Many respondents actively sought out these
positive reflected appraisals by selectively interacting with friends and family, support
groups, and supportive therapists, reading gay and lesbian books and magazines, and liv-
ing in specific parts of a city that were gay and lesbian friendly (Goffman 1963; Dank
1971; Ponse 1976; Ablon 1981; Fein and Nuehring 198111982; Jenness 1992; Troiden
1993; Plummer 1995; Ponticelli 1999). Respondents often chose these avenues to help
support and nurture their sense of self, including this new identity. Thus, these stigma-
management strategies provided a means to shift one’s reflected appraisals and self-
view (identity standard) in a supportive direction.
Goffman (1963) originally focused on positive support strategies for the purposes of
finding “sympathetic others” and getting social support. In the social context of the
1950s and early 1960s, he pointed out that stigmatized individuals were unlikely to
develop a positive conception of their stigma because “separate systems of honor” were
on the decline at that time (Goffman 1963,p. 7). Since the publication of Stigma in 1963,
many social movements have occurred where activists fought for civil and legal rights
and respect of various disadvantaged groups. Thus, in the current social context, many
stigmatized individuals actively seek a positive conception of self and identity, even
when the identity is stigmatized. Mike describes how he began to accept his gay identity:
Time and experience, I guess. Learning more about the gay culture. Learning a lot
about it. It is just not partying all the time.There are a lot of responsible gay people.
Lots of role models too now. . . . I have never been the type to hang on once I feel
that people aren’t necessary in my life anymore and if they can’t really accept who I am,
I really have no need for them. Same thing with people who weren’t supportive of my
artistic endeavors. You know parents, relatives-who needs them; I just move on. . . .
[I am] very comfortable with my sexuality. I think I am more accepted by my friends
and peers than I ever was in the so-called heterosexual world. (emphasis added)
Mike’s comments illustrate the importance of meeting other gays and lesbians for learn-
ing about homosexuality and the importance of selectively associating with supportive
others. Selective association is a strategy involved in “identity work” whereby individu-
als try to sustain an identity that is congruent with their self-concept (Snow and Ander-
son 1987). Prior research on both gay men and lesbians supports the importance of
meeting other gays to gain knowledge and support such that individuals can redefine the
meaning of being gay or lesbian (Dank 1971;Jenness 1992).Yip’s (1997) research on gay
male Christians also illustrates the active role that gays make in redefining the category
as positive and in cognitively and rhetorically challenging negative conceptions. Because
Mike was developing a positive identity standard, he chose (and was able) to actively
shift his social environment to provide positive reflected appraisals.
For those who struggled with accepting the awareness and the stigmatized identity
attached to it, finally finding some type of support or positive reflected appraisal was often
crucial in helping them accept the identity. Liana talks about her significant experiences:
I decided to leave [a mid-sized Southern city] when I was 21 because I knew it was
the only way. Being a lesbian was the primary reason for moving. I saw myself as
inferior and I knew I had to change everything. . . . I moved to [a large southeastern

city] to be with a woman, but she was married and I continued to date men. Even
when she divorced, she was locked into appearing straight and started dating another
guy. . . . Finally, I met gay people and broke up with her. I made the decision to live gay,
(emphasis added)
Respondents who had struggled with the identity often expressed that it was too difficult
to continue to struggle and that identity acceptance (positive identity standard) was the
only solution.
Adam talks about how he finally came to terms with being gay:
When I was 33, I finally began to be able to get beyond social convention to get an
idea that I could actually actively construct who I am. To hell with everybody else. . . .
I Sell in love with a guy who was absolutely gorgeous. It created such a sense of disso-
nance f o r m e that that was really what pushed m e over the edge and into treatment.
Finally it was like if I’m queer I’m queer. What am I going to do about it and how am
I going to live my life? I’m 33 and not getting younger and life isn’t going to sort itself
out by my not doing anything. So I went into therapy. Ifinally began to sort things out
and build a fairly succemful gay identity. (emphasis added)
Unlike Goffman’s finding of the stigmatized going into therapy to make themselves
“normal” (1963), Adam actually went into therapy to accept the stigma, being gay. Of
further importance for Adam was the continued presence of the same-sex attractions.
Because those feelings had not gone away, and in fact had intensified, Adam felt he was
forced to negotiate a gay identity. As his identity standard shifted to acceptance of being
gay, Adam altered his reflected appraisals by seeking the gay-friendly therapist. A few
other respondents also used this strategy.
No matter how the respondents found their positive reflected appraisals (therapy,
selective association, or seeking the gay and lesbian community), this support proved
crucial for negotiating identity awareness and coming to some type of self-acceptance.
These results provide support for applying the concepts of reflected appraisals and iden-
tity negotiation to understanding identity processes among gays and lesbians. The stage
models of gay and lesbian identity do not allow for the variation that occurs across indi-
viduals, contexts, and time. However, our respondents demonstrated how their experi-
ence of the awareness of their gay or lesbian identity and their choice of coping strategies
depended largely on the perceptions of how others viewed gays and lesbians. As individ-
uals began to shift their identity standard or self-view, they often actively sought reflected
appraisals that matched that self-view. This finding confirms how individuals are active
in dealing with reflected appraisals and how Burke’s identity theory may operate for
newly acquired identities.
In addition, while Goffman proposed that alternative positive interpretations of
stigma were declining in the late 1950s and early 1960s, our results suggest that gays and
lesbians do actively seek to develop a positive personal and social identity. The recent
literature on new social movements more broadly discusses these historical changes in
collective identity processes (see Melucci 1989,1995; Gamson 1992; Klandermans 1992).
Other recent research on gays and lesbians also confirms the changing nature of sexual
meanings, which impacts the development of gay and lesbian identities (Parks 1999;
Seidman, Meeks, and Traschen 1999; Seidman 2002). The stage models of gay and lesbian
identity are not able to capture these historical shifts, but the symbolic interactionist
processes of reflected appraisals and identity negotiation are able to capture this variation.
Situated Complexity of identity Maintenance

Traditional stage models of gay and lesbian identity development (Plummer 1975; Cass
1979; Coleman 1981/1982;Troiden 1988) obscure the situational complexity of individu-
als’ lives and overestimate the impact of identity on behavioral choices (Rust 1993;
Parks 1999). Cahill and Eggleston (1995) examined wheelchair use and public kindness
and concluded that researchers need to stop “conceptually evading the situated com-
plexity and variability of identity construction, preservation, spoilage, and restoration”
(p. 696). Even when individuals accept and feel very comfortable with their identity,
they still are often forced to engage in stigma-management strategies to negotiate
through their lives. Depending on the circumstances and the location, respondents often
felt they had to choose some type of strategy for stigma management such as withdraw-
ing, concealing the identity, or announcing the identity (Goffman 1963; Schneider and
Conrad 1980; Herman 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995; May 2000; Montini 2000). For
example, Johnette talks about dealing with her family:
Whenever there was a family gathering, by family I mean my father’s wife’s family, I
would actually leave. I%Iznot supposed to have any relationships. Nobody asks me if
I’m seeing anybody. They didn’t respect me. They didn’t try to change me, but they
didn’trespect me. (emphasis added)
In this situation Johnette was already “out” to her family; however, she still had to find a
way to cope with their lack of respect or interest in her romantic life. Her solution here
was to withdraw from the situation. Thus, even with a positive identity standard, the
context-specific reflected appraisals largely determined her choice of strategy.
Although we discussed the process of “coming out” to self and others, respondents
continually stressed how that categorization of the process is too simple in that it does
not take circumstances into account or allow for the situated negotiation that individu-
als often confront, thus challenging the linear stage models of gay and lesbian identity.
For example, Madeline who defines herself as an “out” lesbian, describes her experi-
ences on a job:
I was working for the McDonald’s corporation and they had written in their hand-
book a discriminatory clause that said we don’t hire homosexuals nor do we promote
them. At the time I needed a job. So I chose not to disclose that I was a lesbian. I was
not aware of their policy when I took the job. I was hired by a lesbian. I didn’t realize
that she was closeted. (emphasis added)
This experience of the situational complexity of stigma management reaffirms Goff-

man’s original theorizing in this area (1963).Thus, we need to focus on the constraints of
situations rather than whether any relationship is open or closed since social reality is
more complex.
Madeline’s experiences were not unusual. The discussions with respondents high-
lighted how problematic the concept of “coming out” is. Only a couple of our respondents
claimed to be out to everyone regardless of circumstances or location. For most, the issues
were to whom, when, why, and what are the risks. Most respondents engaged in selective
self-disclosure due to consideration of all of these issues. Selective self-disclosure or
information management is one of the most common and supported stigma-management
strategies. Goffman originally proposed its use by the discreditable stigmatized, and
other stigma researchers have found it to be used among a variety of stigmatized indi-
viduals (Plummer 1975; Ponse 1976; Schneider and Conrad 1980; Davies 1992; Herman
1993; May 2000). Jordan talks about his friends and family:
But the bulk of m y friends who are still current now are from the gay fraternity that I
joined. I would have to say that those are my best friends. You know I love every sin-
gle one of them, we’ve become real close and they are like the people that are proud
and know what they want in their life. . . . I don’t feel that [my parents] have a need to
know and they don’t need to know why; why bring up something that is just going to
cause conflict? Um, I feel unless they become more educated and more aware of what
my lifestyle is, they really don’t have a right to know, or a need lo know. It is not some-
thing that bothers me that they don’t know. (emphasis added)
Thus the concept of “coming out” or “being out” could be better conceptualized as
more of a revolving door where one’s degree of self-disclosure depends on the context.
Schneider and Conrad (1980) proposed such a conception from their research on epi-
leptics. They found that epileptics chose selective disclosure depending upon the risk in
the situation. Thus, being in or out of the closet of epilepsy had much less to do with
one’s identity and much more to do with the practical issues of preventing others from
disqualifying one from normal social roles. Schneider and Conrad (1980) concluded that
it would be better to consider looking at strategies of selective concealment based upon
a revolving door of “being out” and “being in the closet.”
The amount of conscious negotiation that respondents engaged in adds a layer of
complexity to everyday interactions that the nonstigmatized are less likely to encounter.
This point is best illustrated by Alex:
I feel fine. I feel good. I mean God,for the most part I don’t think about me being gay.
But I think about situations, like how should I deal with situations like how are people
thinking? All of these everyday decisions, evaluations, dilemmas type things. So, my
focus of attention is sort of the outward interactional sense; it is not directed inward
like am I okay. (emphasis added)
Another crucial aspect of identity negotiation is creating self-affirming spaces where

individuals selectively associate with friends and family and choose to congregate in
“safe” parts of town (Goffman 1963; Becker 1981; Fein and Nuehring 1981/1982;Snow
and Anderson 1987;Troiden 1993;Anderson, Snow, and Cress 1994; May 2000). Made-
line explicitly states, “I choose my friendships based on the fact that they are going to
accept me as a lesbian.” Selective association to maintain positive reflected appraisals is
a preferred strategy regardless of whether or not individuals have stigmatized identities.
People generally prefer to associate with those who give them positive feedback about
their positive attributes (Swam, Pelham, and Krull 1989). Although this may be an
important part of forming a gay or lesbian identity, it becomes a crucial part of maintain-
ing a gay or lesbian identity because individuals in general are not likely to be support-
ive of such a stigmatized identity. David talks about his friendships:
1 think I have more gay and lesbian friends now. I think that is a recent development.
Ordinarily I would probably say about half and half; since I have gotten so involved
with the [gay softball] organization straight friends have somewhat disappeared.
Peter describes his choices:
Q: Tell me about some situations where you felt really comfortable being guy?
A: That would happen in any room where I would be with other gay people. For
example, I wouldn’t go to a pool hall, where there are pool sharks and other guys,
people who question your character, where I would be [uneasy]. I wouldn’t go to a
sports bar. I wouldn’t go to a strip bar where they have women who dance etc., etc. I
wouldn’t be comfortable and I wouldn’t go. So I would not go to places I would not
feel comfortable. (emphasis added)
The politically active side of selective association is choosing participation in a social

movement so that one may actively change the general perception of a particular group
(Taylor and Whittier 1992;Taylor and Raeburn 1995;Taylor 1996). Most of our respon-
dents participated in some type of activity related to the gay and lesbian movement,
usually marching in a pride parade. However, respondents often defined pride as a
social rather than as a political event. For example, Rick describes marching in gay pride
and his feelings about activism:
Three years ago for the first time I marched in the gay pride parade. I was reluctant; I
did it with the father’s group. I was reluctant because that is usually not me to march and
shout. But within one block, I was marching and shouting and I had a wonderful time.
Q: Do you feel that you are involved in political action for gays and lesbians in any way?
A: I’d have to say no. The only time I really show any support would be gay pride.
But, I do try to spend my money at a gay business or a gay-friendly business.
Although Rick is peripherally involved in the movement, he continued to go to gay

pride partly because of the self-affirming aspect of that event. This aspect of pride is
likely a result of collective-identity processes that are a regular part of social movement
activities (Taylor 1996).
A few respondents explicitly identified as gay or lesbian activists. Liana describes her
activities:
I’m on the Board of Directors of a prominent gay organization and an aid advisor to
the mayor for the gay community. I’m part of the gay games. I’m on the board of a
new company to get nondiscrimination clauses on every organization. I’ve organized
dances to raise money for women’s organizations and AIDS organizations.
Regardless of their comfort level around activism, most of the respondents were aware
of many activities related to the gay and lesbian social movement. Many had histories of
prior activism, and some lamented no longer having the time to participate in the move-
ment. As Rick’s comments illustrate, even minor levels of participation can have very
positive, self-affirming results.
Some of the traditional stage models of developing a gay or lesbian identity explicitly
regard full disclosure as reaching the last stage of identity development (Plummer 1975;
Cass 1979; Coleman 1981/1982;Troiden 1988). In reality, social life is more complex for
gays and lesbians, other stigmatized individuals, and nonstigmatized individuals. Our
results confirm this and support the applicability of general processes of identity mainte-
nance as described by Burke’s identity theory (1991) to a stigmatized group and gays
and lesbians in particular. These results also support Goffman’s (1963) original theoriz-
ing and related stigma literature on both the situational complexity of stigma manage-
ment and the use of various stigma-management strategies (Schneider and Conrad
1980; Herman 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995; May 2000; Montini 2000). In addition,
these results illustrate how gays and lesbians actively redefine stigma, develop positive
conceptions of self, and seek positive reflected appraisals to maintain these positive iden-
tity standards or self-views. Similar to the results for the prior section, these results high-
light the importance of the historical context of social movements’ having impacted the
maintenance of stigmatized identities by allowing for new and positive definitions of
stigma and conceptions of self.
Romantic Relationships and Identity

A final area of negotiation that respondents emphasized involves their experiences with
being in a romantic relationship and negotiating respect for that relationship from fam-
ily, friends, and coworkers. For many respondents being in a romantic relationship was
very affirming personally and helped to crystallize their sense of self as a gay man or les-
bian. The flip side of this experience was learning to deal with a new aspect of negotia-
tion in everyday interactions because of the increased visibility of their gay or lesbian
identity. Being seen as a gay or lesbian couple makes the gay or lesbian identity more
visible to others. Because it is visible, others are likely to react to it. Although most
respondents recognized and acknowledged that society does not approve of homosexu-
ality, being directly confronted with that fact reifies their stigmatized status. While the
literature on gay and lesbian identity recognizes the importance of relationships for the
developing identity, this literature fails to address the complexities that such relation-
ships introduce for everyday interaction. Here again, concepts and theorizing from sym-
bolic interactionism aid in illuminating the broader theoretical processes at work.
Johnette talks about three of her romantic relationships:
Being with the first woman affected my identity because we were seen as a couple and
confirmed everybody else’s knowledge of my identity. In the second relationship,
being a partner with someone in a household and being safe allowed me to branch
out and join other organizations. So that helped m e be more into the community. . . .
The fifth one (current) is my partner at functions these days. She’s with me there
always. And it is kind of like seeing Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas together.
That’s how 1 feel. It doesn’t streagthen m y identity as a lesbian but it makes m e feel
more comfortable in the role that I a m in, that I’m not doing it on my own. (empha-
sis added)
For Johnette her early relationships solidified her identity by confirming other’s knowl-
edge that she is a lesbian.
For other respondents being seen as a couple in a public space raised many issues
that they were not quite prepared for, such as facing others’ homophobia and nonaccep-
tance. John talks about a recent experience:
I can say within the last two weeks, being out in public [with the person I’m dating]
has forced m e to recognize that this is a heterosexual society that really doesn’t accept
gay people all that well. Just in general, like public places like Starbucks Caf6 where I
have been. [I would get] looks, looks people have, um just kinda like staring and glar-
ing at you and uh just that kind o j I don’t know, it sounds weird, but this general
uneasy feeling when you are in a situation. And I don’t know if that’s as much the
establishment, or like I said again just the general atmosphere of society as a whole,
just the oppressive nature that forces you to think, you know, I shouldn’t hold hands or
I shouldn’t kiss or whatever. [I felt] very uncomfortable, it kinda like shatters your whole
conception of coming out I guess like um, I don’t know like I said I just had this big
rosy atmosphere about coming out, and it’s like hello, reality hits you. (emphasis added)
Being seen as a gay or lesbian couple makes the gay or lesbian identity more visible to
others and that visibility may incur negative reactions like John’s experience of getting
stares and glares from other patrons at Starbucks. Thus, being seen in a couple may
bring more negative reflected appraisals than being seen individually.
In Goffman’s terms, being seen in a gay or lesbian relationship clearly moves that
person from discreditable status to discredited status (1963). Thus, rather than dealing
with managing information, the issues revolve more around acceptance and managing
situations with the nonstigmatized. Being confronted with a gay or lesbian couple con-
fronts nonstigmatized individuals’ “phantom acceptance” of gays and lesbians. While
some heterosexual individuals clearly do accept gays and lesbians, many still are openly
hostile or want gays and lesbians to make a “good adjustment.” A good adjustment
involves the stigmatized accepting themselves as normal while withholding participation
in society in ways that would make the nonstigmatized uncomfortable (Goffman 1963).
While individuals profess acceptance of gays and lesbians, many are uncomfortable
when actively confronted with a gay or lesbian couple, thus calling their “phantom
acceptance” into question. For gays and lesbians these experiences reify that they are
still stigmatized.
Being in a romantic relationship also makes one’s identity as a gay man or lesbian
fully visible to one’s family. Negotiating the gay or lesbian identity with family members
is often difficult enough. Trying to negotiate one’s romantic relationship with family
members further compounds these problems and raises issues about the lack of legiti-
macy for gay and lesbian romantic relationships in general. Bob describes his interac-
tions with his brother:
My relationship with my brother is huge because of his Christianity. My parents and

Ralph and I were supposed to go to his house and I called him maybe three days
before and said look is it okay for Ralph to come. And he said fine. The day before
we were supposed to get there, my sister-in law called my mother and said oh, when
Ralph comes is he going to be staying at his Aunt’s house? My brother called me at
work and said well I don’t think that it is a good idea for you to bring Ralph, um,
because homosexuality is a sin or the bible speaks against homosexuality. I’m like fine.
He says so I’ll see you tomorrow. I say no. He says I thought you said it was okay. I
said it is okay for you to believe what you believe, but I’m not going anywhere where
my partner is not welcome. That is the bottom line. (emphasis added)
For Bob going to his brothers’ house alone as a single gay person would not be a prob-
lem, but bringing his partner clearly crossed a boundary by making it clear to his brother
that Bob is a gay man. In particular, Bob is a gay man in a relationship that his brother
does not recognize as legitimate and, because of that, refuses to even acknowledge.While
Bob was certainly aware of his brother’s negative views on gays, presenting his partner
to his family brought these views to the forefront.To defend the legitimacy of his relation-
ship in the face of these negative reflected appraisals, Bob chose to confront his brother.
Some respondents experienced similar problems when they disclosed their gay or les-
bian identity to coworkers in the context of being in a romantic relationship. Devon
describes her experiences relating to her coworker:
A t work I befriended a woman who is Muslim and initially I did not tell her that I was
lesbian because I knew what her beliefs were and I knew how she was and I didn’t
think that we could be friends. Over the years we have become friends. When I came
out to her it really kind of rocked her world because all of a sudden she is conflicted.
She had been taught that this is wrong. She will call me up and say well let’s go to
lunclz and I’ll say well if you talk about your husband then I am going to talk about my
partner. I think that all of a sudden she can’t see any lesbian traits in me. Because I
don’t fit these stereotypes that she has heard about, and she knows that I am respon-
sible, and she knows that I raised three siblings, and she knows that I go to work
every day. She knows m y partner. She has met m y partner. I do think that once people
truly know gays and lesbians as people they cannot listen to that garbage anymore.
(emphasis added)
Devon’s, Bob’s, and John’s comments illustrate that gay and lesbian romantic rela-
tionships are often treated as second-class relationships by family, coworkers, and soci-
ety in general. For heterosexuals being seen in a relationship reifies the norm, the way
things ought to be. For gays and lesbians being seen in a relationship reifies stigma. So
although being in a relationship can be very affirming personally and aid in crystallizing
the identity, it also introduces a new aspect of negotiation in interactions. Further, being
seen or known as a gay or lesbian couple moves these individuals into the discredited
category and illustrates that they are not making a “good adjustment” (Goffman 1963).
These findings are particularly important for informing research on gay and lesbian
identity that often fails to acknowledge the difficulties which relationships introduce to
the process of identity negotiation.
CONCLUSION
Our goal in this paper was to demonstrate that identity concepts and processes from the
symbolic interactionist tradition provide a more coherent theoretical framework for
describing identity development and maintenance among gays and lesbians than the
stage models of identity proposed in the 1970s and 1980s (Plummer 1975; Cass 1979;
Coleman 1981/1982;Troiden 1988).While those stage models of gay and lesbian identity
were crucial for developing and encouraging research on gay and lesbian identity in that
time-period, they were limited in that they assumed a linear process from nonacceptance
to a happily “out” individual, and they ignored the tremendous variation both in the
development and maintenance of a gay or lesbian identity (McDonald 1982;Cain 1991;
Rust 1993,2003; Eliason 1996; Horowitz and Newcomb 2001). (See Figure 1A for a brief
summary of the stage models of identity.) While some of these researchers have pro-
posed alternate models, we recommend stepping away from developing stage models
Stigmatized Individuals and the Process of identity 827
A Summary of Stage Models of Gay/Lesbian Identity
Commitment/Identity Stabilization/
Identity PrideLdentity Integration
B Situational Identity Development and Negotiation for GaydLesbians
Gay/Lesbian Identity Identity

Reflected Appraisals t--, Standard (self-view) *----,
Standards
FIGURE 1. COMPARISON OF STAGE MODELS WITH SYMBOLIC

INTERACTIONIST VIEW OF IDENTITY
and moving toward connecting the research on gay and lesbian identity back into the
sociological research on self and identity in symbolic interactionism.
Specifically, we examined reflected appraisals and how they impact the development
and maintenance of a stigmatized identity, the situated complexity of identity disclosure
and maintenance, and the importance of romantic relationships for gay and lesbian
identity development and maintenance. Within these three main themes, we also exam-
ined the use of various stigma-management strategies over time and the impact these
strategies have on the self.
To fully capture the process of identity, we conducted semistructured interviews with
ten men who identify as gay and ten women who identity as lesbian. Reflected apprais-
als, perceived information about self from others, are key to our understanding of both
the development and maintenance of a stigmatized identity. Gays and lesbians who
experienced positive reflected appraisals in relation to homosexuality were much more
likely to have an easier time developing a gay or lesbian identity. Meanwhile, individuals
who experienced many negative reflected appraisals were likely to have a difficult time
accepting themselves as gay or lesbian. Finding positive reflected appraisals was crucial
for all of the respondents to be able to successfully develop and maintain a gay or les-
bian identity. While some found these positive reflected appraisals easily (open-minded
family and friends), many had to actively seek them to create situations that affirmed
their self-view. These results support the use of traditional identity concepts and pro-
cesses for understanding gay and lesbian identity processes.
Although prior research on gays and lesbians often emphasized the significance of
the “coming out” process (Plummer 1975; Cass 1979; Coleman 1981/1982; Troiden
1988), our respondents pointed to the situated complexity of self-disclosure and how
that disclosure often depended more on circumstance than level of self-acceptance.
These findings support Goffman’s (1963) original theorizing and recent research on
wheelchair users, ex-psychiatric patients, murderers’ relatives, lesbians, and epileptics
(Schneider and Conrad 1980; Herman 1993; Cahill and Eggleston 1995;May 2000; Mon-
tini 2000). In his research on gay men, Davies (1992) confronts the assumptions behind
accounts of “coming out” whereby the process should lead to an openly gay man in all
areas of life. Davies argues that we need to consider multiple identities and how individ-
uals try to achieve satisfaction with all of them rather than focusing on the gay identity
as the superordinate organizing principle (p. 77). Future research should continue in this
vein, considering “coming out” as self-disclosure that may be constrained by choice or
circumstance and moving away from seeing partial self-disclosure as failure to attain the
final stage of gay or lesbian identity development. We propose such a broader concep-
tion of identity processes in Figure 1B.
In Figure 1B we summarize our framework on situational identity development and
negotiation for gays and lesbians. Here we draw on Goffman (1963), Burke (1991), the
research on reflected appraisals (e.g., Gecas and Schwalbe 1983; Felson 1985; Franks
and Gecas 1992; Ichiyarna 1993; Milkie 1999), the research on stigmatized identity man-
agement (e.g., Ponse 1976; Schneider and Conrad 1980; Anderson, Snow, and Cress
1994; Cahill and Eggleston 1995; Taylor and Raeburn 1995), and critics of the stage
models of identity (e.g., de Monteflores and Schultz 1978; McDonald 1982; Rust 1993;
Eliason 1996; Horowitz and Newcomb 2001). In this framework we use the concept of
reflected appraisals to allow for the broad variation in identity development and negoti-
ation across historical time periods, social categories such as race and gender, geo-
graphic and social location, and the immediate situational context. This recognition of
the importance of social context and variation in experiences is stressed by these various
literatures. In addition, we note that these many layers of context and the resulting
reflected appraisals impact the relevance of the gay or lesbian identity as well as other
identities. Finally, behavioral choices (identity disclosure, identity management strate-
gies) depend on the context-laden reflected appraisals, the gay or lesbian identity stan-
dard or self-view (if relevant), and other relevant identity standards or self-views.
Respondents also highlighted the importance of negotiating gay or lesbian romantic
relationships in everyday life. Being seen as a couple often crystallized one’s personal
sense of self while also making the identity more visible to others. Thus, there are both
positive aspects and problems in coping with one’s status in a gay or lesbian couple. For
family members and the general public, being in a couple makes the gay or lesbian iden-
tity real. But this reification may also exacerbate more general problems relating to the
lack of legitimacy of gay and lesbian romantic relationships and homophobia. Most of
the literature relating to gay and lesbian identity and various other stigmatized individuals
does not address the importance of romantic relationships. Theoretically, being in a visible
gay or lesbian relationship moves the individual from the discreditable stigmatized to
the discredited stigmatized (Goffman 1963).Further, social interactions between gays and
lesbians in relationships and the nonstigmatized (heterosexuals) highlight the continued
viability of Goffman’s concept of the “good adjustment” because many heterosexuals’
“phantom acceptance” of gays and lesbians is directly confronted. Although being in a
romantic relationship is an important part of negotiating a gay or lesbian identity, is this
important for other stigmatized individuals? Future research should begin to examine
the importance of romantic relationships and the concomitant difficulties of such rela-
tionships for both gays and lesbians and other stigmatized individuals.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates how key symbolic interactionist concepts
and processes provide a more coherent theoretical way to study gay and lesbian identity.
Rather than trying to alter the stage models of gay and lesbian identity to address their
limitations, we propose that researchers on gay and lesbian identity connect their work
back to the broader sociological research on self and identity. Reflected appraisals and
the process of situational identity negotiation described in Burke’s (1991) identity the-
ory provide a means to analyze identity development and maintenance processes among
gays and lesbians without resorting to unique models. In addition, the concept of
reflected appraisals allows for the variation across contexts, individuals, and time that
the stage models of identity fail to capture. Finally, romantic relationships are an impor-
tant area of inquiry for gay and lesbian identity and broader stigmatized identity pro-
cesses because of the complexities that such relationships introduce into daily interactions.
While the gay- and lesbian-identity literature notes the self-affirming aspects of relation-
ships, this literature ignores the complexities that these relationships also bring. Given
the current push for legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships and families and
the increasing visibility of gay and lesbian partners with children, it is important for
researchers to examine the impact of these relationships on self and identity processes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Nancy Eiesland, Karen Hegtvedt, Timothy Dowd, and Robert
Agnew for their invaluable advice and critical readings of early drafts of this paper.
We also thank Alex Hicks, Dawn Robinson, Michael Shanahan, Jan Stets, various
anonymous reviewers, and particularly the editor for helpful comments and sugges-
tions. A grant from Emory University (URC# 2-50754) to the second author supported
this research.
NOTES
1. Burke’s (1991) identity theory developed from Stryker’s identity theory that focuses pre-
dominantly on identities related to social roles (Stryker and Serpe 1982). These identities vary in
terms of the relative importance of each identity for the self (salience) and the degree to which the
individual has various types of social relationships based on that identity (commitment) (Stryker
and Serpe 1982; Caller0 1985, 1992). For any individual, his choice of behavior in a situation is
likely to depend upon the salience and commitment of the relevant identity. For example, if a man
has few relationships based on his role as a father and many relationships based on his role as an
attorney, he is likely to choose working late on a case over going home to spend time with his
child. Thus his commitment to his attorney identity likely affects the salience of that identity, mak-
ing it seem more important, and his behavior reflects this combination of salience and conimit-
ment. There is evidence to support these proposed relationships between identity salience,
identity commitment, and behavior (Burke and Reitzes 1981; Hoelter 1983; Caller0 1985; Burke
and White 1987; Serpe 1987).
2. Also of importance in interactions with the fellow stigmatized is the reconstruction of biog-
raphy that often takes place as an individual develops a particular identity. Informal interactions
(friendships, acquaintances) and formal interactions (support groups, organizations) with fellow
stigmatized provide opportunities to learn a new discourse and rhetoric about the stigma and the
life of the stigmatized (Goffman 1963; Denzin 1987, 1995; Herman 1993; Plummer 1995; Taylor
1996;Yip 1997; Ponticelli 1999; May 2000). Goffman was the first to highlight this process whereby
a person reinterprets past life experiences to account for his current beliefs and practices about
the stigmatized and nonstigmatized (Goffman 1963, p. 38-39). More recent researchers have
expounded on how this process occurs in different groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Exodus
(ex-gay ministry), Aftermath (support group for murderers’ relatives), and various support groups
for postpartum depression or gays and lesbians (Dank 1971; Denzin 1987, 1995; Plummer 1995;
Taylor L996; Ponticelli 1999; May 2000). This is an important process, and we hope to examine this
in future research.
3. Harry (1986) suggests that current samples (post-1970s) of gays and lesbians through orga-
nizations and friendship networks are likely to be more representative than in the past (1970s and
before) for two reasons. First, large cities now tend to have a number of organizations catering to
diverse aspects of the gay community. For example, the southeastern city where we conducted our
research has more than 100 gay and lesbian organizations. Second, increasing percentages of gays
and lesbians are likely to participate in the gay and lesbian community in some way (organiza-
lions, friendship networks, bars and restaurants, etc.). These changes have occurred because the
gay movement of the 1970s altered the makeup and behavior of the gay and lesbian community by
increasing the general visibility and activity of gays and lesbians in various formal and informal
groups.
REFERENCES
Ablon, Joan. 1981. “Dwarfism and Social Identity: Self-Help Group Participation.” Social Science
and Medicine 15B:25-30.
Anderson, Leon, David A. Snow, and Daniel Cress. 1994. “Negotiating the Public Realm: Stigma
Management and Collective Action among the Homeless.” Research in Community Sociol-
ogy. 4 Suppl. no. 1:121-143.
Anspach, Renee R. 1979. “From Stigma to Identity Politics: Political Activism among the Physi-
cally Disabled and Former Mental Patients.” Social Science and Medicine 13A:765-773.
Appleby, George Alan. 2001. “Ethnographic Study of Gay and Bisexual Working-class Men in the
United States.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 12(3-4):51-62.
Becker, Gaylene. 1981. “Coping with Stigma: Lifelong Adaptation of Deaf People.” Social Science
and Medicine 15B:21-24.
Bel1,Alan P., and Martin S. Weinberg. 1978. Homosexua1ities:A Study of Diversity among Men and
Women. New York Simon and Schuster.
Brady, Stephen, and Wilma J. Busse. 1994. “The Gay Identity Questionnaire: A Brief Measure of
Homosexual Identity Formation.” Journal of Homosexuality 26(4):1-22.
Burke, Peter J. 1991. “Identity Processes and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review 562336-
849.
Burke, Peter J., and Donald C. Reitzes. 1981. “The Link Between Identity and Role Performance.”
Social Psychology Quarterly 44(2):83-92.
Burke, Peter J., and Clovis L. White. 1987. “Ethnic Role Identity among Black and White College
Students: An Interactionist Approach.” Sociological Perspectives 30(3):310-331.
Cahill, Spencer E., and Robin Eggleston. 1995. “Reconsidering the Stigma of Physical Disability:
Wheelchair Use and Public Kindness.” The Sociological Quarterly 36(4):681-698.
Cain, Roy. 1991. “Relational Contexts and Information Management among Gay Men.” Families
in Society 72(6):344-352.
Callero, Peter L. 1985. “Role-Identity Salience.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48(3):203-215.
. 1992. “The Meaning of Self-in-Role: A Modified Measure of Role-Identity.” Social Forces
71(2):485-501.
Cass, Vivienne C. 1979. “Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model.” Journal of
Homosexuality 4(3):219-235.
Cohen, Anthony P. 1975. “The Definition of Public Identity: Managing Marginality in Outport
Newfoundland Following Confederation.” Sociological Review 23( 1):93-119.
Coleman, Eli. 1981/1982.“Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process.” Journal of Homo-
sexuality 7(2/3):3143.
Cooley, Charles H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken Books.
Cox, Stephen, and Cynthia Gallois. 1996.“Gay and Lesbian Identity Development: A Social Iden-
tity Perspective.” Journal of Homosexuality 30(4):1-30.
Dank, Barry M. 1971. “Coming Out in the Gay World.” Psychiatry 34:180-197.
Davies, Peter. 1992. “The Role of Disclosure in Coming Out among Gay Men.” Pp. 75-83 in Mod-
ern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience, edited by K. Plummer.
New York: Routledge.
D e Monteflores, Carmen, and Stephen J. Schultz. 1978. “Coming Out: Similarities and Differences
for Lesbians and Gay Men.” Journal of Social Issues 34(3):59-72.
Denzin, Norman K. 1987. The Alcoholic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
. 1995. The Alcoholic Society: Addiction and Recovery of the Self 2nd ed. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Eliason, Michele J. 1996. “Identity Formation for Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay Persons: Beyond a
‘Minoritizing’ View.” Journal of Homosexuality 30(3):31-58.
Fassinger, Ruth E., and Brett A. Miller. 1996. “Validation of an Inclusive Model of Sexual Minor-
ity Identity Formation on a Sample of Gay Men.” Journal of Homosexuality 32(2):53-78.
Fein, Sara Beck, and Elane M. Nuehring. 1981/1982.“Intrapsychic Effects of Stigma: A Process of
Breakdown and Reconstruction of Social Reality.” Journal of Homosexuality 7(1):3-13.
Felson, Richard B. 1985. “Reflected Appraisal and the Development of the Self.” Social Psychol-
ogy Quarterly 48(1):71-78.
. 1989. “Parents and the Reflected Appraisal Process: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 56(6):965-971.
Franks, David D., and Viktor Gecas. 1992. “Autonomy and Conformity in Cooley’s Self-Theory:
The Looking-Glass Self and Beyond.” Symbolic Interaction 15(1):49-68.
Gamson, William A. 1992. “The Social Psychology of Collective Action.” Pp. 53-76 in Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory, edited by A. D. Morris and C. McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Gecas, Viktor, and Peter J. Burke. 1995. “Self and Identity.” Pp. 41-67 in Sociological Perspectives
on Social Psychology, edited by K. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. House. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gecas, Viktor, and Michael L. Schwalbe. 1983. “Beyond the Looking-Glass Self Social Structure
and Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 46(2):77-88.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harry, Joseph. 2986. “Sampling Gay Men.” The Journal of Sex Research 22(1):21-34.
Herdt, Gilbert. 1989. “Introduction: Gay and Lesbian Youth, Emergent Identities, and Cultural
Scenes at Home and Abroad.” Journal of Homosexuality 17(1-2):1-42.
Herman, Nancy J. 1993. “Return to Sender: Reintegrative Stigma-Management Strategies of Ex-

Psychiatric Patients.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22(3):295-330.
Hoelter, Jon W. 1983. “The Effects of Role Evaluation and Commitment on Identity Salience.”
Social Psychology Quarterly 46(2):140-147.
Horowitz, Janna L., and Michael D. Newcomb. 2001. “A Multidimensional Approach to Homosex-
ual Identity.” Journal of Homosexuality 42(2):1-19.
Ichiyama, Michael A. 1993. “The Reflected Appraisal Process in Small-Group Interaction.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 56(2):87-99.
Jenness, Valerie. 1992. “Coming Out: Lesbian Identities and the Categorization Problem.” Pp. 65-
74 in Modern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience, edited by K.
Plummer. New York: Routledge.
Kaminski, Elizabeth. 2000. “Lesbian Health: Social Context, Sexual Identity, and Well-Being.”
Journal of Lesbian Studies 4(3):87-101.
Klandermans, Bert. 1992. “The Social Construction of Protest and Multiorganizational Fields.” Pp.
77-103 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by A. D. Morris and C. McClurg
Mueller. New Haven, C T Yale University Press.
Levine, Martin P. 1998. Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone, edited by M.
Kimmel. New York: New York University Press.
May, Hazel. 2000. “‘Murderers’ Relatives’: Managing Stigma, Negotiating Identity.” Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography 29(2):198-221.
McDonald, Gary J. 1982. “Individual Differences in the Coming Out Process for Gay Men: Impli-
cations for Theoretical Models.” Journal of Homosexuality 81(1):47-60.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, SelJ and Society. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads ofthe Present. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
. 1995. “The Process of Collective Identity.” Pp. 41-63 in Social Movements and Culture,
edited by H. Johnston and B. Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Milkie, Melissa A. 1999. “Social Comparisons, Reflected Appraisals, and Mass Media: The Impact
of Pervasive Beauty Images on Black and Whites Girls’ Self-Concepts.’’Social Psychology
Quarterly 62(2):190-210.
Montini, Theresa. 2000. “Compulsory Closets and the Social Context of Disclosure.” Sociological
Perspectives 43(4):5121-5132.
Parks, Cheryl A. 1999. “Lesbian Identity Development: An Examination of Differences across
Generations.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69(3):347-361.
Plummer,Kenneth. 1975. Sexual Stigma:An ZnteractionistAccount. Boston: Routledge and Began Paul.
.1995. Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change and Social Worlds. New York: Routledge.
Ponse, Barbara. 1976. “Secrecy in the Lesbian World.” Urban Life 5(3):313-338.
Ponticelli, Christy M. 1999. “Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction.” Social Psychol-
ogy Quarterly 62(2):157-172.
Riley, Anna, and Peter J. Burke. 1995. “Identities and Self-verification in the Small Group.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 58(2):61-73.
Rosenberg, Morris. 1979. Conceiving the Self New York: Basic Books.
Rust, Paula C. 1993. “‘Coming Out’ in the Age of Social Constructionism: Sexual Identity Forma-
tion among Lesbian and Bisexual Women.” Gender & Society 7(1):50-77.
.2003. “Finding a Sexual Identity and Community: Therapeutic Implications and Cultural
Assumptions in Scientific Models of Coming Out.” Pp. 227-269 in Psychological Perspec-
tives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, 2nd ed., edited by L. D. Garnets and D. C.
Kimmel. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schneider, Joseph, and Peter Conrad. 1980. “In the Closet with Illness: Epilepsy, Stigma Potential
and Information Control.” Social Problems 28(1):3244.
Seidman, Steven. 2002. Beyond the Closet, The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life. New
York: Routledge.
Seidman, Steven, Chet Meeks, and Francie Traschen. 1999. “Beyond the Closet? The Changing
Social Meaning of Homosexuality in the United States.” Sexualities 2(1):9-34.
Serpe, Richard T. 1987. “Stability and Change in Self A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Expla-
nation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 51(1):44-55.
Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1987. “Identity Work among the Homeless: The Verbal
Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities.” American Journal of Sociology 92(6):
1336-1371.
,1993. Down on Their Luck:A Study of Homeless Street People. Berkeley and Los Angcles:
University of California Press.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. 1994. “Inconsistent Self-views in the Control Identity Model.”
Social Science Research 23:236-262.
.1996. “Gender, Control, and Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59(3):393-220.
Stryker, Sheldon, and Richard T. Serpe. 1982. “Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behav-
ior.” Pp. 199-218 in Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, edited by W. Ices and E. Kneels.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Swann, William B., Brett W. Pelham, and Douglas S. Krull. 1989. “Agreeable Fancy or Disagree-
able Truth? Reconciling Self-Enhancement and Self-verification.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 57(5):782-791.
Taub, Diane E., Elaine M. Blinde, and Kimberly R. Green. 1999. “Stigma Management through
Participation in Sport and Physical Activity: Experiences of Male College Students with
es.” Human Relations 52(11):1469-1484.
Taylor, Verta. 1996. Rock-a-By Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New York:
Routledge.
Taylor, Verta, and Nicole C. Raeburn. 1995. “Identity Politics as High-Risk Activism: Career Con-
sequences for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Sociologists.” Social Problems 42(2):252-273.
Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1992. “Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities:
Lesbian Feminist Mobilization.” Pp. 104-1 29 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited
by A. D. Morris and C. McClurg Mueller. New Haven, C T Yale University Press.
Troiden, Richard R. 1979. “Becoming Homosexual: A Model of Gay Identity Acquisition.” Psy-
chiatry 42: 362-373.
. 1988. Gay and Lesbian Identity:A Sociological Analysis. Dix Hills, N Y General Hall.
. 1993. “The Formation of Homosexual Identities.” Pp. 191-217 in Psychological Perspec-
tives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences, edited by L. Garnets and D. Kimmel. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Warren, Carol A. B. 1974. Identity and Community in the Gay World. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Weinberg, Martin S., and Colin J. Williams. 1974. Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adapta-
tions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weitz, Rose. 1991. Life with Aids. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Whitman, Joy S., Sherry Cormier, and Cynthia J. Boyd. 2000. “Lesbian Identity Management at
Various Stages of the Coming Out Process: A Qualitative Study.” International Journal of
Sexuality and Gender Studies 5(1):3-18.
Yip, Andrew K. T. 1997. “Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back.” The British Journal
of Sociology 48(1):113-127.

Stigmatized in D L V L Duals A N D The Process Identity: Joanne M. Kaufman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stigmatized in D L V L Duals A N D The Process Identity: Joanne M. Kaufman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stigmatized in D L V L Duals A N D The Process Identity: Joanne M. Kaufman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STIGMATIZED IND l V lDUALS

A N D THE PROCESS OF IDENTITY

People experience a sense of stigma as an authenticating process.

In 1963 Goffman published the seminal sociological examination of stigma, defined

CAY A N D LESBIAN IDENTITY

variously termed signification (Plummer 1975),identity confusion (Troiden 1988), acknowl-

LIVING WITH STIGMA

Reflected Appraisals in Identity Development and Identity Maintenance

books). Respondents were very active in using stigma-management strategies to help

Reflected Appraisals and Identity Awareness

Positive Reflected Appraisals, Identity Development, and Maintenance

inferior and I knew I had to change everything. . . . I moved to [a large southeastern

Situated Complexity of identity Maintenance

This experience of the situational complexity of stigma management reaffirms Goff-

Another crucial aspect of identity negotiation is creating self-affirming spaces where

Peter describes his choices:

The politically active side of selective association is choosing participation in a social

Although Rick is peripherally involved in the movement, he continued to go to gay

Romantic Relationships and Identity

My relationship with my brother is huge because of his Christianity. My parents and

A Summary of Stage Models of Gay/Lesbian Identity

B Situational Identity Development and Negotiation for GaydLesbians

Gay/Lesbian Identity Identity

FIGURE 1. COMPARISON OF STAGE MODELS WITH SYMBOLIC

Herman, Nancy J. 1993. “Return to Sender: Reintegrative Stigma-Management Strategies of Ex-

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.