Invisible discrimination : to say or not to say ?

Current literature on discrimination is very dense but mainly refers to ethnic and racial discriminations, gender issues or physical stereotypes. Invisible discrimination currently seems to be relatively unrepresented in the international scientific literature. However, there is a multitude of situations in which conditions that are not visible at first sight can lead to discrimination. Among the invisible pathologies that may imply a discriminatory feeling, we find both physical (e.g., intestinal or digestive disorders such as Crohn’s disease, or diabetes) and mental disorders (e.g. epilepsy, autistic disorders , Alzheimer-type dementia,…). Concerning women for example, endometriosis and premenstrual syndromes can also be disadvantageous. In terms of nonpathological conditions that can also lead to discriminatory behaviors, we can find religious affiliation, sexual orientation or political beliefs…

In general, invisible discrimination can be defined as a form of stigma that is not perceptible, not remarkable, and not obvious to others. It is in essence a condition that is neither seen nor perceived by those who are not directly concerned (Vickers, 1997). Facing this invisible stigma, there are two possible trajectories : making it visible or concealing it. Unlike the situations of recognized stigma, here the individual is confronted with a choice: to say or not to say. The “disclosure dilemma” becomes a central issue for an individual whose stigmatized identity is not visible at first sight. People with a pathology or a visible disability have no choice but to confront the other and to recognize their stigmatized identity. For those who are victims of potentially discriminable but non-visible conditions, the central problem becomes the management of information about their stigma (Vickers, 1997). What should they reveal and what should they conceal ? To which person should they reveal it ? In what context ?

In that case there are two choices: completely hide a condition or make it obvious to everyone. If it is masked, no social representation of the said condition is possible, which leaves the subject alone bearing the weight it implies, without social support. If it is made visible, this may imply a real stigmatisation (Cuturello, 2011).

In the first case, the strategy of secrecy is very expensive for the person with for instance a constant control of the pain in case of a painful disease or the use of strategies of concealment. For some, “the only way to live with others is to pretend to have nothing” (Cuturello, 2011). It can also be done in a fragmented way: the individual will be completely sincere with loved ones, and opt for a strategy of concealment at work. However, this may lead the person to be perceived as deviant, equivocal or dishonest. Pretending to be in good health can also lead the individual into a vicious circle: in terms of identity negotiation, the subject finds himself in a paradox involving a high cognitive cost (Cuturello, 2011). He can then deny his condition both extrinsically and intrinsically. The question of denial can then arise, with possible distancing.

Vickers (1997) suggests that disclosure of the existence of an invisible pathology may represent a potential traumatic dilemma for affected individuals. She says they feel “Condemned if they do, sentenced if they do not”. The disclosure of their condition represents a risk of labeling, stigmatization and discrimination, posing a real threat to the physical and emotional well-being of the individual. Yet, the reasons for revealing one’s potentially stigmatized condition are varied. Individuals can see their condition as routine information, without real importance in their daily lives and irrelevant to take into account. Others may do so because of some form of obligation (frequent visits to specialists involving absenteeism from the workplace). Sometimes, if the disease is degenerative, the subject will be pushed to make it visible by anticipation. Some will disclose their condition as a coping strategy, others by need to gain social support. Sometimes, the psychological cost is too high in concealing the disease, so revealing a condition can also increase the understanding of others. For some of the individuals affected by invisible conditions, there is a desire to highlight the condition stigmatized by an open refusal to accept the stigma (Cuturello, 2011).

Some researchers also highlighted the weight exerted by the society in this choice. Indeed, our society gives value to individuals without disabilities, youth and physical perfection being desirable. This social pressure in general implies a tendency to mask negativity. Individuals will therefore tend to mask their stigmatized identity by not wanting to be labeled. In some cases, such as liver pathologies, which are generally perceived as the result of overconsumption of alcohol, individuals emit attributions concerning the causes of pathologies. These stigmas often result in a desire for the subject concerned to hide his illness so as not to suffer these erroneous findings.

To conclude, regarding of the internal conflicts engendered by the potentially stigmatized invisible conditions of certain individuals, it can be said that research in psychology has a major role to play as it can focus on highlighting phenomena still hidden, to fight against invisible discrimination, without individuals having to highlight what they would prefer to keep in the shadows.

References

Cuturello, P. (2011). Discrimination : Faire face ou faire avec ? Le(s) sens du mot « discrimination » chez les jeunes d’origine maghrébine », Agora débats/jeunesses, 2011/1 (57), 63-78. doi : 10.3917/agora.057.0063

Vickers, M.H. (1997). Life at work with “invisible” chronic illness: the “unseen”, unspoken, unrecognized dilemma of disclosure. Journal of workplace learning, 9 (7), 240-252. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665629710190040