The origin of stigma finds its roots in the ancient Greek polis, primarily as an inscription engraved on the body of an individual to attach shame and disgrace to an individual. On the continuum of time, it has transcended the form of a straitjacket to emerge as an abstract disqualification because there is a deviation due to the deviance from a socially given norm. Combatting stigma happens in multiple forms. In extreme cases, stigmatised individuals tend to insulate themselves against the ‘normal’ at one end of the spectrum, or they tend to undergo transformations subjected to extreme amounts of adaptiveness to fit into the normative structure of the normal.

Anurag Kashyap’s No Smoking (2007) opens with Plato’s “To Do is To Be”, meaning we will be what we do, introducing in context the freedom to choose. To choose here is to transcend the constraints of the social order and exist as a sovereign individual. A stigmatised individual exposed to the alienation from the social order can be led to insulate the self into the stigmatised practice as an expression of freedom against the totalitarianism that the society imposes. 

It is through K that Kashyap introduces the idea of freedom. K looks in the mirror and tells himself that no one can tell him what to do. It is his life, and he will live it on his terms. It is through K’s narcissism that K expresses himself.  It is important to note here that K is already a discredited individual in the eyes of those who perceive smoking to be evil. To him, however, smoking is an expression of his freedom, and he fails to take into cognisance the critical role played by society up until he chooses to visit Prayagshala, the institution which institutionalises no smoking. This phenomenon can be explained through the Moral Career and Phased Socialisation proposition of Goffman. Such a pattern of socialisation is illustrated by one who becomes stigmatised late in life or learns late in life that he has always been discreditable or discredited, which leads to either of the two circumstances. The first involves no radical reorganisation of the view of his past, the second involves a reorganisation: such an individual has to learn about the normal and the stigmatised long before he must see himself as deficient. Presumably, he will have a special problem in reidentifying himself, and a special likelihood of developing a sense of self. K exhibited the first, where, even post-discovery, he stood firm on his perspective.  Here, it is interesting to note that the absence of radical reorganisation does not imply an attempt at reorganisation because although K contested the stigma, through a passive structural change in his consciousness, he decided to visit Prayagshala, in the pursuit of hindsight, to test the waters. Here, the wise others, especially the normal wise others, can help the Stigmatised in realising who they have to be, which is a representation of Baba Bangali’s Prayagshala in the film.

The cigarette is an intriguing symbol. The cigarette for K represents a status symbol, which provides the claim for prestige and honour, while for the wider society, it represents a stigma symbol, a mode of expression which carries the ramifications of reduction and devaluation of the individual character. 

After having submitted to the regulations of Prayagshala and the invisible compliance mechanism of Baba Bangali, K’s decision to smoke again makes him undergo a tumultuous psychic state. He is subjected to the paranoia of the discovery of his double biography. He is torn between two biographies: his past, which he still consciously wishes to practice and his present life as a non-smoker, which he resents and finds himself alienated from.

Interestingly, as an expression of anomaly to the idea proposed by Goffman where, when an individual moves from distance to the personal plane on the continuum of strangeness, the individual develops a feeling of sympathy for the stigmatized person and their stigma while at the same time attempting to provide themself with a protective space for the performance of his stigma. Contrary to this, A (K’s wife, who also serves as his assistant) already exists on the polar end of the personal plane, yet chooses to hold the stigma towards K, which leads him to pacify his narcissism and visit Prayagshala. This explains that this fine proposition of Goffman cannot be translated to be a generalised proposition.

While in interaction with K, Abbas, being unaware of what K or the rest of the ecosystem might perceive of him, he exhibits self-awareness. This is what Goffman explained as the unawareness of the stigmatised individual of the category the Normal will place them in, which leads them to perform Impression Management and self-awareness. This very same fear of categorisation led Abbas to exhibit a mysterious self and take refuge in a defensive cowering. Now, the type of moral trajectory Abbas would build for himself is very different from the trajectory built by K. Abbas; therefore, having accepted his deficiency, he would first choose to incorporate the standpoint of the normal and thereby go on to acquire the general belief of the wider society, which is exhibited by Abbas quitting cigarettes.

Abbas put to use Goffman’s first technique of passing, that is, of passing the stigma as another less significant stigma, a less stigmatised evil in the eyes of society. Abbas passed off the cutting off of his finger by Baba Bangali due to his failure of compliance as an unfortunate accident, which led to his deformation. Abbas employs the covering technique, which is essentially to reduce tension by covering his hand in anticipation of any question which can lead to further questions.

According to Goffman, there exists a type of Sympathetic Other who takes the standpoint of the stigmatised through a heart-changing personal experience which caters to the needs of the stigmatised. When we contextualise this in tandem with the film, we find a dissimilarity. In the film, we note that Prayagshala and Baba Bangali are the wise men. It is in line with Goffman’s proposition of being offered and accepted, as once the humongous fee of twenty lakh and one rupee is paid by K, Baba Bangali extends his service, but here is the question: how far is the wise going to go to help the stigmatised? Does it perjure the sovereignty of the stigmatised to ensure adherence or a corrective measure? This has not been clarified by Goffman. What we discern here is one of the alternate paradigms where the individual, having accepted the wise, can never take back the consent. As a result, they step beyond their veil and their privacy is breached.

References:

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.

***    

Diptesh Banerjee is pursuing a master’s degree in Society and Culture from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar. He has a deep-rooted love for Sociology and approaches the world through a sociological lens.