Other Stigmatized Identities

Being broken is a metaphor for not belonging, lacking social power or being seen as mar­ginal. Injured enlisted infantrymen are not alone in this process. Indeed, the metaphor and reality of being perceived to be broken certainly affects other members of this or­ganization in different ways: injured enlisted infantrymen weren't the only ones so- labeled.

Marines have names for everything or anyone that does not fit, things or people they do not value, things that are stigmatized or reflect an organizational taboo, or those things (or individuals) who fail to conform to the organizational standard. Goffman has used the term “stigma” to define an attribute that is deeply discrediting (Goffman 1963: 3). Stig­mas are not discrediting in themselves. Rather they exist in relation to other things, other people and other meanings. “An attribute that stigmatizes one type of possessor can con­firm the usualness or the normalcy of the other, and therefore nothing is discreditable as a thing in itself” (Goffman 1963: 3).

The stigma, or mark, may or may not be permanently discrediting. It is based on some variant of the following: the duration of the stigma, whether or not the stigmatized individual can overcome the stigma and become socially accepted as normal. Following Goffman, Jones et al. (1984) have added that the mark is only “potentially discrediting” and commonly becomes permanent when it is linked through attributional processes. Only then are certain dispositions seen as deviant. Over time, however, the discredit be­comes more consequential when the deviant dispositions are devalued, judged to be per­sistent, and occur long beyond a specified time frame. As a consequence the stigma be­comes an “essential” part of the marked person's identity (Jones et al.

Markings or stigma as such may or may not be physical. In this particular research the cultural and institutional process of marking begins with physical injury and possible disability. As such, labels, markings, or stigmas do make a difference, since once such marking or label is applied, further information regarding the marine is guided by these connotations.

This cultural process of naming defines belonging by distinguishing or discriminat­ing between those who belong and those who do not. Susan Sontag (1979: 25) expands about how distinctions are created. She maintains, for example, that illnesses such as cancer also serve to “flush out” an otherwise obscure identity. The creation of such dis­tinctions not only confirms the existence of an identity, but also confers identity through the creation of distinctions based on race, sex, and physical ability.

Marines who are overweight are called “fat” Marines, or “diet privates.” The stan­dard says that Marines cannot be fat. No one wants to take orders from a “fat Marine.” They are not respected, they are not models, and they are out of control. No one wants to take orders from someone who is out of control. For another example, all Marines are green, but black Marines are sometimes referred to as “dark green Marines.”

One Marine, Private First Class “Jones,” states:

I was a diet private. I had to lose weight. Half glass of milk, plain salad, no dessert, so you can lose weight. Sure it was physically tough, I am not a runner...

Yet another explicit example of labeling is the case of women Marines. Out of the context of race or weight, all male Marines are simply called “Marines.” Being called by the title of “Marine” confers a particular type of belonging, maleness, and Marine-ness as social identity, and personal status. However, Marines who are female are always called “Women Marines,” or “WMs.” Their title, according to Williams (1989), is always capi­talized, drawing a distinction between women and men.

Women Marines make up only about 5% of the organization. Because of this you are always scrutinized and your reputation is based on perceptions of how you carry yourself. Like if you are wearing something too tight, well these perceptions drive people to think things. I guess it drives me to be that much more of a lady.

In addition, when a Woman Marine marries a Marine, even if she has more time in the Corps, she is referred to as Mrs. X rather than her rank if she is in the company of her husband's peers, in contrast to the situation at her place of work. In yet another example, a Sergeant “Ellen Jones” claims

I had to lose five pounds, and sure, five pounds shouldn't matter, but here it does. Everyone knows that I am overweight. People tease me (pause) but I think they think that I am out of control and no one wants to take orders from an out-of-control woman.

In her landmark study on women and men in nontraditional occupations, Williams (1989) found that the Marine Corps (as an organization) carries an image of masculine toughness and discipline, a preoccupation with masculine symbols, such as guns and muscles, a sense of pride and honor, and a kind of phobia about non-warlike and femi­nine sentiments, such as gentleness and love (Smelser in Williams 1989: ix). But these are just a few examples of how differences are created through a systematic marking of difference in an organization where physical conformity and maleness are the norm, cer­tain bodily norms are valued, and any further deviations from the norm will be activated and named at any given moment.