What the Response to Coronavirus Teaches About Stigma

Dr. Victoria Frye co-authored this post.

In the past several weeks, as daily life has turned upside down for most of the world, we have seen many examples of collectivist, altruistic, and even heroic behavior in response to the coronavirus (or COVID-19) crisis. At the same time, however, we have seen a darker side to the response, revealing that there are components of the stigma process at play.

Stigma occurs when negative stereotypes are attached to individuals labeled as members of a devalued group, leading to a differentiation between “us” and “them.” But why are certain groups labeled and negatively stereotyped? In an influential 2008 article, Jo Phelan, Bruce Link, and John Dovidio theorized that there are three major motivators for stigmatization: exploitation and domination (“keeping people down”), norm enforcement (“keeping people in”), and disease avoidance (“keeping people away”). In the case of coronavirus, keeping people “in” and “away” are official public health responses to contain the epidemic in highly affected areas. In fact, “social distancing"—which overlaps unfortunately with “social distance,” a behavioral dimension of stigmatization—is being required in most locations. This might suggest that what is occurring in the response to coronavirus might not be stigma, but an adaptive exercise of caution.

However, there is evidence that something else is also occurring in many of the responses to the coronavirus epidemic. Negative responses are not so much being attached to people who have become ill (who are largely the recipients of sympathy and concern), as to people who are considered to be irresponsible “spreaders.” In these cases, a moralistic dimension, more akin to the social norm enforcement of “keeping people in,” seems to be operating. Those who appear to be flouting social distancing recommendations (often because they have no choice, if they live in congregate housing settings or lack housing altogether) are looked down on (see the comments section of this article for examples of this type of disdain).

We are also witnessing another key component of stigmatization—scapegoating—as members of certain groups are blamed for the crisis, specifically Asians or Asian-Americans (because of the presumed origin of the virus in a region of China), Northeasterners (since the current epicenter of the epidemic in the U.S. is located in the New York-metropolitan area), or urban residents (who live closer together and therefore are more likely to spread the virus from person-to-person). We have seen examples of micro and macroaggressions (from a decline in Chinese food orders to demeaning comments, stares and physical shoves aimed at people who don’t appear to be socially distancing), to systemic discrimination toward people from New York City (with the governor of Rhode Island stating that state police would stop cars with New York state license plates and go “door to door” to identify and question people from New York City—bizarre responses that would actually increase risk for viral transmission), to horrific hate crimes (unprovoked attacks, generally against people of Asian appearance, that seem to be purely driven by hatred and a desire to direct rage over the crisis at a convenient target).

Finally, we see another driver of stigmatization coming into view as racial disparities in mortality emerge: “system justification” (discussed in relation to mental health stigma by Pat Corrigan and colleagues). Here, negative stereotypes are applied to a labeled group in an effort to justify existing inequities; stigmatized groups are targeted because stigmatizers believe that they deserve it and this belief supports their world view. Asians got the virus because of their strange dietary practices! Northeastern cities are dens of iniquity with large immigrant communities where people live unnaturally close to one another! People living in congregate settings have criminal histories, substance use problems, or mental illness—moral failings of their own making, not the responsibility of a system that does not provide an adequate supply of decent, affordable housing! People who are white and/or wealthy are less likely to become infected, and if infected, more likely to survive the virus, because they live healthier, more virtuous lives, not because of their ability to afford to “socially distance” or greater access to high-quality health care! People of color are more likely to die of COVID-19 due to “pre-existing conditions,” like diabetes or asthma, because they lack discipline, not because historic and current social policies guarantee that they are less likely to build wealth and thus avoid infection, and have less access to healthy housing and food, opportunities to exercise, and safe and flexible working conditions.

An array of official agencies, including the World Health Organization, Asian-American Psychological Association, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have acknowledged that coronavirus-related stigma exists and have issued suggestions for how to minimize and respond to it. But beyond reminders that appeal to the “better angels of our nature,” the above examples of coronavirus-related stigmatization indicate powerfully how it is now being used to keep people “down” via system justification (which has facilitated the oppression of women, people of African descent, and people with serious mental health conditions for hundreds of years). To quote Frederick Douglas (via Ibram X. Kendi): “When men oppress their fellow-men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” We must stand up to stigma in all its forms.