Fuck the Patriarchy!
How Feminist Sex Workers Experience the Whore Stigma
Inside and Outside of Activist Communities
A qualitative research on how feminist sex workers in
Germany experience and handle stigmatization.
Halina Mirja Jordan 11253452
Master Sociology, Gender, Sexuality and Society
Supervisor: Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen
Second Supervisor: Dr. Marguerite van den Berg- the Master's
programme you are enrolled in
Halina.m.jordan@gmail.com
Fuck
the Patriarchy
How Feminist Sex Workers Experience the Whore Stigma
Inside and Outside of Activist Communities
Master Thesis
Fuck the Patriarchy!
How Feminist Sex Workers Experience the Whore Stigma Inside and Outside of Activist Communities
A qualitative research on how feminist sex workers in Germany experience and handle
stigmatization.
Image on the front page by Elisabeth Stiebritz
Master Sociology, Gender, Sexuality and Society
Master Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen
Second Supervisor: Dr. Marguerite van den Berg
Halina Mirja Jordan
11253452
July 2017
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 3
1.1 Research interest ... 3
1.2 Feminists in sex work ... 4
1.3 Introduction to the research context: Sex work in Germany ... 5
1.3.1 Legal aspects of sex work in Germany ... 5
1.3.2 Attitudes towards sex work in mainstream society ... 5
1.3.3 Feminist debates on sex work in Germany ... 6
1.3.4 My position as a researcher ... 8
1.3.5 Structure of the thesis ... 8
2 Theoretical perspectives on stigmatization and sex Work ... 9
2.1 The theory of stigmatization ... 9
2.1.1 Goffman’s definition of stigma ... 9
2.1.2 Societal functions of stigmatization ... 10
2.2 The stigmatization of sex work ... 11
2.2.1 Pheterson’s theory of the whore stigma ... 12
2.2.2 Possible consequences of being stigmatized as a sex worker ... 16
2.3 Strategies of handling being stigmatized ... 17
2.3.1 Identity management in sex work ... 17
2.3.2 Practical strategies of identity management and coping with stigmatization ... 18
3 Methodology ... 22
3.1 Operationalization of key concepts and research questions ... 22
3.2 Data collecting methods ... 22
3.3 Methods of analysis ... 24
3.4 Ethical aspects ... 25
3.5 Reflections on data quality and study limitations ... 25
4 Analysis: Experiencing and handling the whore stigma ... 27
4.1. Stigmatization based on psychological dishonor... 27
4.1.1 Experiences within private settings ... 27
4.1.2 Experiences with mental healthcare professionals ... 30
4.2 Stigmatization based on ideological dishonor ... 33
4.2.1 Sex workers on feminism ... 33
4.2.2 Experiences with fellow feminists and other comrades ... 34
4.2.3 Empowerment through activism ... 37
5 Conclusion ... 39
1 Introduction
When I was about 8 years old, my mother and I drove from our hometown to the next bigger city to pick up my father from his work. We were early, so my mother decided to go on a little detour with me. We ended up in a street with many large windows. Behind these windows, I saw women. They did not wear much, but what they wore was colorful and pretty. The way they did their hair and makeup, how they posed so elegantly on their shiny high heels, everything impressed me deeply. I never saw that many beautiful and confident women at one place.
I asked my mother what these ladies did there. She told me they would sell their bodies to men. I did not quite understand what that should mean, how could a person sell one’s body, no one can exist without one, so how should this be possible? My mother took some time and explained what the red-light district we were in was and what kind of work was done there. She ended her explanation with a sentence that I would never forget: “If you don’t go to school and learn, you will end up here”. This is, as far as I remember, the first time I got in touch with an aspect of negative view on sex work that adds up to what U.S. American researcher, teacher and psychotherapist Gail Pheterson calls the “whore stigma”: the assumption that sex work is not seen as normal work, not a job, not a career choice but is linked to a stigma of dishonor (Pheterson 1993).
“The behavior and activities of female sex workers is generally thought to be immoral, anti-social and deviant” (Hammond & Kingston 2014: 331), and therefore a woman1 with an ounce of respect for
herself would not do voluntarily. Either she must have been forced to do it by a pimp or a horrible boyfriend or she must simply be damaged and out of her mind – this is what I learned over the years of becoming an adult.
1.1 Research interest
Only when I started studying for a bachelor degree in Gender Studies I got introduced to feminism. It didn’t take long for me to get involved in radical left political activities, inside and outside of my University and I discovered the fight against patriarchy and white supremacy as a new passion. This was when I first heard about the so-called Sex Wars, the ongoing ideological fight within feminism about whether pornography, BDSM and sex work are degrading women* or, on the other side of the debate, could be empowering (cf. Sanders 2005). While until this point in my life I had only been exposed to negative images of sex work as the one described above, I now for the first time read about proud sex workers and allies that declared that sex work is work and talked positively about their choices and experiences in the sex industry. Coming from a low-income family background, financing my studies had been a constant cause of worry and for the first time I felt like I might not have to be deeply ashamed for considering phone or cam sex to be able to pay my tuition fees. Thinking and debating, politically and academically about sex work also became a bit of a personal issue for me. In the following work, I want to gain insight into how sex workers who consider themselves feminists experience the repercussions of the stigmatization of their work inside and outside their own community and how they deal with them. I want to use Gail Pheterson’s categorization of consequences of the whore stigma in four sub-issues that she calls social, legal, psychological and ideological dishonor and unworthiness (Pheterson 1993) to analyze my interviewees’ narratives. Moreover, I want to apply Goffman’s (1963) ideas on identity management and other strategies that people use to handle being stigmatized. While identity management and sex work has been the topic of a few recent qualitative studies, most of the papers focus on how sex workers use identity management to dissociate their private identity from the work identity they present to their clients
1 Persons of all gender do sex work but it appears that most people in Western societies associate sex work
with cisgender women. When I talk about sex workers, I include all gender identities, cis and trans men and women, non-binary persons and other identities.
(cf. Abel 2011, Brewis and Linstead 2000, Orchard, Farr, Macphail, Wender, and Young 2012). Hannah Murphy, Priscilla Dunk-West and Jill Chonody (2015) who did research on emotional work of sex workers in relationships sum the current status of research up by stating:
“The stigma associated with sex work requires the analysis of social factors alongside biographical and individual contexts. To date, little is known about the everyday experiences of sex workers and how stigma is experienced, managed and negotiated” (Murphy et al. 2015: 1104).
Furthermore, while there has been written a lot on feminist’s views on sex work, it is much harder to find research explicitly focused on feminist sex workers. With my research, I am hoping to contribute to filling these gaps.
Research Question:
1. How do feminist sex workers experience the stigmatization of their job inside and outside of their communities and how do these experiences influence their strategies to cope with
stigmatization?
Sub questions:
2. What strategies do feminist sex workers use in order to handle the stigmatization of their work?
3. How do sex workers experience stigmatization in mental health care?
1.2 Feminists in sex work
Today, some of my best friends are sex workers. And they are feminists. I wholeheartedly believe that academic research and activism, when combined, can mutually benefit. Especially the social sciences can be a place in the academic landscape, where certain social subjects that are seen as taboos and/or highly stigmatized are not only in theory taken out of the shadows. As a social scientist, I can contribute to the ambition of making voices heard that usually are silenced in society. When I was thinking about possible topics and research questions for my master’s thesis in sociology, I didn’t take me long to be sure I wanted to interview feminist sex workers. I find it particularly interesting to find out more about how feminists who do sex work navigate through the possible tensions that come up as a result of the stigmatization of their work, not only by mainstream society but also by fellow feminists.
In his groundbreaking work on stigmatization Erving Goffman (1963) describes stigma as an attribute that can be visible or invisible and which causes a person to fail to maintain social norms. This deviance from the norm has an impact on a person’s acceptability in social situations, often resulting in devaluation of the stigmatized person. Goffman speaks of “spoiled identities” when he analysis the personal consequences of the stigmatized (Goffman 1963). Goffman used sex workers as exemplary for groups of persons with spoiled identities and up until today, many scholars on sex work refer to his theories. In 2015 U.S. American and Canadian sociologists Benoit, McCarthy and Jansson presented their analysis of sex work, stigmatization and substance use. They demonstrated how the stigmatization of sex workers involves stereotyping, labeling, the loss of status, separation from social spheres and society as well as several forms of discrimination affected a wide spectrum of social contexts – including personal life and when seeking help from institutions. Consequently, stigmatization of sex workers is “linked to an array of physical health and mental health problems” (Benoit, McCarthy, and Jansson 2015: 437). This insight coincides with a common stereotype attributed to sex workers, which is repeated by anti-sex work activists over and over again: namely that sex workers, and especially those who declare to do this work on their own accord, must be struggling with mental health issues. Benoit and her colleagues suggest that the higher proportion of mental health issues among sex workers that some studies suggest (e.g. Farley et al. 2004) could be a result of ongoing stigma-based discrimination and therefore caused by society’s view on sex work rather than by the work itself, as anti-sex work feminists like Melissa Farley claim (Farley et al. 2004).
1.3 Introduction to the research context: Sex work in Germany
I have been brought up in Germany and have extended knowledge on the context of sex work through my political activism as well as a good connection to different local sex workers and feminist activist communities. Therefore, it stood for reason to conduct my research here. I chose to interview sex workers in Leipzig and Berlin for multiple reasons. First, I have lived many years in Leipzig and have a good network there as well as in Berlin where I spent a lot of time with friends and for activism. While I initially considered including interviews via Skype, in the end I decided to do all the interviews face to face, for reasons I will explain later. Both cities were easily and relatively cheap to access for me, which was imperative, as I had limited financial resources for my research. Moreover, Berlin has a huge politically engaged sex workers’ community that became more and more interesting during my research. In the following I want to give an overview about the legal framework for sex work in Germany, which is especially interesting as a new law is going to be implemented a few weeks from the time of me writing this paper. Furthermore, I will introduce feminist debates on sex work in Germany and give some information about the queer-feminist sex worker community in Berlin.
1.3.1 Legal aspects of sex work in Germany
In 2002, the Act Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes (Gesetz zur Regelung der
Rechtsverhältnisse der Prostituierten or ProstG for short) has been implemented in Germany. This
brought over a crucial paradigmatic change, as now the protection of the sex worker became central piece of legislation, whereas before sex work had been prosecuted as sittenwidrig (against good morals). With the legalization of sex work, sex workers gained important rights, as for example it now became possible to report to the police if a client did not pay (see Döring 2014).
Sex work is still regulated, most prominently by the Sperrbezirksregel (restricted area rule) that forbids sex workers to do their job in most parts of a town, especially in the vicinity of schools, hospitals and housing complexes. In many cities, sex work is only legal in off center industrial areas, which has been criticized by many sex workers, as it means they must commute to work, often using badly lightened routes through mostly uninhabited – and therefore potentially more dangerous – areas (Döring 2014). With the 1st of July 2017, some major alterations of the ProstG will become effective. As the Federal
Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSJ) states, the reforms are supposed to ensure a better protection of sex workers in Germany and prevent human trafficking (BMFSJ 2016). However, sex workers’ rights organizations as the Berufsverband Sexuelle und Erotische
Dienstleistungen (BesD) strongly disagree with the new legislation, and there have been nationwide
protests by sex workers, feminists and social workers against it. Especially the upcoming requirement to identify oneself as a registered sex worker with a special ID including a facial picture causes much discontent with sex workers. Many fear that the so-called whore ID will make many sex workers work illegally and less protected as they do not want to be registered and possibly outed. Other major alternation will be an annually mandatory health check-up and a likewise mandatory counseling that comes with the registration and is seen as paternalistic by sex workers’ rights activists. Moreover, it will become harder to open a sex work related business as a lot of new regulations regarding the buildings and facilities have to be fulfilled (BesD 2016).
1.3.2 Attitudes towards sex work in mainstream society
It is hard to come up with a statement on German societies general attitude towards sex work. German professor of media psychology Nikola Döring (2014) states that most people in Germany do not have firsthand experiences and knowledge about the sex industry. Images are proliferated through the media (fictional films, newspaper articles, autobiographic novels and such) and when people can’t compare these images to own experiences and knowledge, they are usually seen as depictions of the
truth (Döring 2014). These images are usually rather negative, even though the red-light districts can sometimes be depicted in a romanticized and glorified way. A lot of media attention goes to human trafficking and leaves the impression, that the majority of sex workers in Germany has been trafficked, even though official numbers prove different (Döring 2014). A good example is the headline that appeared in 2006 in the context of the football world cup in Germany: many newspapers reported that around 40,000 trafficked women had been brought to Germany for this occasion which. There was no reliable reference for this number and the estimation has been proven wrong shortly after, but the number stuck with many people in Germany (Der Standard 2006). The polling institute EMNID conducted a survey commissioned by the major tabloid Bild in 2015 with the outcome that 67% of the interviewed are against a ban on sex work (Bild 2015).
1.3.3 Feminist debates on sex work in Germany
There is no consensus on the attitudes toward sex work in feminism, and feminist communities in Germany are no exception. While, especially in Berlin, there is a huge movement of intersectional feminists that include sex workers’ rights in their fights and that as such consists of many feminist sex workers, anti-sex work mindsets are present as well. The most prominent example is journalist and second wave feminist Alice Schwarzer. Schwarzer is very well known in Germany. In fact I would state that still most Germans associate her face with feminism, as she has been very visible in the German media for more than three decades now. Schwarzer is the editor and publisher of Emma, a monthly radical feminist magazine and author of numerous books, including Prostitution – Ein deutscher
Skandal: Wie konnten wir zum Paradies der Frauenhändler werden? (Prostitution – A German Scandal:
How could have we become the paradise for women traffickers?) published in 2013. Alice Schwarzer is a figurehead for anti-sex work activists and SWERFs2 in Germany. She also campaigns against
pornography and made waves with recent anti-muslim statements and showing empathy and support for the racist PEGIDA movement (Taz 2015). In 2013 Schwarzer started a media campaign to ban sex work, including a plea that has been prominently signed by many well know actors, musicians, journalists, politicians and other public and private persons. The plea headlined: “We demand the ban of prostitution! Change the pimp law” (Emma 2103). Referring to the law that legalized sex work in 2001 as explained above. This campaign has provoked counter protests by intersectional feminists, sex workers organizations and social workers.
Protest sign used at a counter protest march in 2013 saying “Shut up Alice”. Picture found at www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de. Image rights: dpa / picture alliance / Wolfgang Kumm.
Schwarzer has a lot of followers in her generation of feminists, and the feminist political party Die
Frauen that evolved out of second wave feminist activism stridently supports Schwarzer’s campaigns
(Die Frauen 2017). They demand to implement the so called Swedish Model, that refers to legislation in Sweden that criminalizes buying sexual services but does not legally punish sex workers. While this
2 The language of the internet brought up the terms TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism/ist) and SWERF
(Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminism/ist) to label individuals and groups with transphobic and whorephobic attitudes to inform others about said persons or groups attitudes.
approach is supported by many anti-sex work activists, opponents comment that this legal model does not stop prostitution but forces sex workers into working illegally and less safe (Menschenhandel heute 2014). German anti-sex work activists often call themselves abolitionists, referring to the abolitionism that demanded to end slavery. I find it very problematic to place slavery and sex work on the same level and therefore will not use this term.
Especially feminists of younger generations express criticism on Alice Schwarzer and anti-sex work attitudes. The biggest feminist blog in Germany, mädchenmanchaft.de, regularly publishes pro sex workers’ rights blog texts, just to name one example of the large online community of intersectional feminist in Germany (Mädchenmannschaft 2016). Not exclusively but especially in Berlin there is a very active subculture of (queer) feminist sex workers. For outsiders, it can be hard to access this community. Due to the radical left politics that many in the community engage with, there are usually little information on social media such as Facebook, and the groups and events that are active are mostly set to private, so that one must know each other in the first place to gain access. There are gatherings and social events such as parties for sex workers and allies that try to provide what Goffman called “back” or “safe spaces” (Goffman 1963).
Table 1: Dominant positions on sex work within feminist debates in Germany
Anti Sex Work(er) Pro Sex Work(er) All kind of sex work is violence against (cis)
women and is only profitable for men, most women* are forced into it.
Self-determined sex work is work and allows sex workers to make profit on their conditions. Sex work must be differentiated from human trafficking.
Sex work/ buying sexual services should be illegal in order to stop sex work.
Sex work must be legal, not only as it should be seen as work but also for the safety of workers. Criminalization does not stop sex work but forces workers to do their job without legal protection.
Most sex workers are migrants that have been trafficked and do not want to work in this business.
Sex workers in Germany have diverse
backgrounds. Sex workers from countries with low income and huge poverty rates often come to work here to earn more and work in a legalized environment.
Sex workers usually have been sexually abused in their childhood or have other mental
conditions that explain their involvement in sex work.
Pathologizing sex workers is wrong. Drawing conclusions and coherences between traumata and mental health conditions and engagement in sex work is unjust and abridged.
Sex work is not feministic. Sex workers betray feminism and support oppressive patriarchal structures.
Sex work can be feministic and empowering. Feminism has to fight for all women*, being against sex work is not feministic.
Moreover, in Berlin and other bigger German cities there exist a number of sex worker positive information centers and advocacy groups like Hydra e.V. or Doña Carmen e.V. in Frankfurt that also does a lot of lobby work against the new law on sex work, including bringing in a constitutional complain at the German Federal Constitutional Court against it (Hydra 2017; Doña Carmen 2017). In addition to these local institutions, in 2013 the Professional Association Sexual and Erotic Services (Berufsverband erotische und sexuelle Dienstleistungen) was founded by sex workers and ex-sex workers to provide a nationwide network and interest group (BesD 2016). Table 1 summarizes and compares major arguments pro and against sex work within feminist debates in Germany. It has to be said that this is an abbreviation to illustrate dominant positions while in reality there are more nuanced views and shades between black and white.
1.3.4 My position as a researcher
I have been trained in feminist science criticism and I believe that, in social science, objectivity cannot exist. When it comes to research ethics, I find it very important to be transparent regarding the researcher’s personal context and background. When I read an academic text, especially in social science, I want to know the perspective of the author to be able to classify their outcomes. Therefore, I am ambitious to provide transparency about my person as well. I am a white queer non-binary femme from a poverty class background. I had to negotiate coming outs in various forms and contexts and hence I am familiar with fearing the consequences of stigmatization.
When I decided to write about sex work, I was very aware that the whore stigma does not stop at the doors of universities, quite the contrary. While I know from subjective experiences as in talking to friends and classmates that the number of students who did sex work or are still involved in the business is not as insignificant as most people would probably think, it is also a job that is rarely talked about in academic circles. The fear of grave consequences regarding their professional and academic future might urge them to stay silent about their job and find ways to cover it. I think this is a severe problem that has not been discussed sufficiently by now. Staying in the closet as an academic sex worker involves the consequence that sex workers stay invisible in universities, feeding the stereotype that only uneducated persons who have no other choice involve in this kind of job. It is of course not the responsibility of the sex worker to change this. It should be the aim of academia to dismantle the discrimination of sex workers – also and especially in university contexts. Sadly, this is still a goal out of reach.
To raise attention and visibility to this issue, I decided to step back from my principles and not to be transparent about the degree of my personal involvement. I want to mirror the experience that sex workers in academia must face, the constant negotiation weather or not to come out. Am I a sex worker myself? Did I decide, as I mentioned in the beginning, to finance my studies with webcam sex or other kinds of sexual services? Or am I an ally for my sex workers friends, an interested student that wants voices to be heard? Maybe one of my long-term partners is a sex worker? If I was a sex worker, would my academic coming out become a burden when I try to get a PhD position as a next career step? How would it influence the way future colleagues would treat me? Some of these questions I could answer for myself, some I could not. For the reader of this work, however, all of them will remain unanswered as I choose to leave my personal involvement in the open, in order to demonstrate the struggles of negotiating risks of coming out for sex workers in academia.
1.3.5 Structure of the thesis
My thesis will be structured as follows: I will begin with an overview on the theory of stigmatization and its consequences for the stigmatized, exploring the basic works of Erving Goffman (1963) and Arlie R. Hochschild (1979) on stigmatization and identity management. In a next step, I will focus on the stigmatization of sex work, by introducing Pheterson’s (1993) work on the whore stigma, as it provides the theoretical basis of my analyses. After having introduced my research methods and approaches, I am going to analyze my findings gained from the interviews I conducted. Here I am going to focus on experiences of stigmatization as well as with various coping strategies. In the conclusion, I will summarize my outcomes and hopefully be able to find a statement that enfolds the experiences with stigmatization of my research group.
2 Theoretical perspectives on stigmatization and sex Work
“It is not our differences that divide us.
It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” Audre Lorde
2.1 The theory of stigmatization
In this subchapter, I want to unpack the concept of stigma. What is a stigma, how is it usually constructed and what kind of stigmas are there? What function has stigmatization in societies? I will elaborate Erving Goffman’s work on stigma, linking it to other authors, such as U.S. American sociologist Arlie Hochschild. I will close this section by summarizing my own thoughts on the previous discussion.
2.1.1 Goffman’s definition of stigma
“While a stranger is before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind […]. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma” (Goffman 1963: 2–3).
In a standard work on social stigmatization, Erving Goffman defines a stigma as an attribute that can be very visible, recognizable by certain signals and signs or not noticeable unless there is specific information about the person available. An attribute that is socially interpreted as negative, undesirable, and that allows to devalue the stigmatized person. Goffman differentiates between three types of stigma that vary regarding their direct and indirect consequences for the stigmatized individual (Goffman 1963).
1. Abomination of the Body This category describes individuals that have a physically and therefore in many cases immediately visible attribute that is not fitting the norm. In societies that sets a so-called abled body as the norm, a person who is using a wheelchair would fall into this category.
2. Tribal Stigma, Goffman writes from the perspective of living in western societies, shaped around white supremacy that puts whiteness as the norm. Individuals who get
stigmatized for not fitting into this norm because of their ethnicity, country of origin and or religion fall into this category.
3. Blemishes of individual character Finally, people can get stigmatized for socially not fitting into the norm. Other than the categories above, this kind of stigma is not seen as linked to an attribute a person is born with or into, but as a personal flaw that is a result of unmoral life choices or personal weakness. It refers to allegedly acquired attributes and characteristics and in the logic of a discriminating norm, the person carrying it can – at least partly – be blamed for it. Goffman lists addiction, imprisonment, unemployment but also homosexuality and mental impairments as well as sex work within this category. It is notable that, despite being written more than fifty years ago and despite ongoing fights against racism, homophobia, ableism and other forms of discrimination and hatred, Goffman’s classifications are still valid today. Even though there has been progress since the 1960s, western societies still stigmatize individuals and groups based on physical or social attributes.
Goffman distinguishes the consequences of stigma further when he introduces the concepts of stigmatized individuals and groups being discredited or discreditable, referring to the visibility of the stigmatizing attribute. Goffman states that people continuously scan others for markers, which allow
them to put their opposite into categories. The example of the wheelchair user would be a discredited individual. In most situations, a wheelchair is immediately visible for others, thus the process of scanning is rather short. A sex worker on the other hand would usually be categorized by Goffman as a discreditable individual, who’s stigma is not immediately visible (unless of course they are working, for example in a window, at the moment of scanning) but, as soon as it is revealed will cause devaluation. A person who might seemingly fit into the social norm will be re-categorized and discredited. Goffman states that the differentiation of discreditable and discredited persons is important regarding the consequences that the stigmatized person must face. While a discredited person usually is very limited in concealing the stigmatizing attribute they carry, a person with a stigma that is, if revealed, discreditable, can use different strategies to cover this attribute and, in the best case, decide for themselves when to or if to come out (Goffmann 1963). It should be noted that a person can be multiply stigmatized and therefore experience different forms and consequences of stigma at the same time. A trans woman of color that does sex work most likely experiences multiple discrimination based on diverse types of stigma that are put on her and that have severe consequences for her everyday life, her safety and her chances for participation in society and access to the satisfaction of basic needs such as housing and health care.
2.1.2 Societal functions of stigmatization
As mentioned above, influential sociologists like Goffman assume that human beings are always busy categorizing individuals around them to find their own place in a social construct. By categorizing others, we simultaneously categorize and re-organize our own standing in society. Using various measurements as morals, norms or laws, people get sorted in or out. Being sorted out, being an outsider usually has negative consequences for an individual – consequences that might reach from not being invited the party of a popular classmate to basic human rights being denied. There are several ways of getting marked as an outsider, linked to a stigmatized attribute that separates a person to a certain degree from the norm. The norm as such can vary according to the (sub-)cultural context and is not universal. What might be seen as deviant behavior in one group of persons can be the norm in another. Whilst shoplifting is condemned by most parts of mainstream society, a person who always pays for their goods can be seen as an outsider in radical anarchist and anti-capitalist settings. But in the bigger picture of western societies, the (male) norm can still be roughly described as Goffman did 50 years ago:
“a young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports” (Goffman 1963: 128). I should add cisgender, able bodied, neurotypical, and without a criminal record to this list. This imaginative person sets the norm, and the further an individual differentiates from it, the more likely it is to belong to a stigmatized group, to be an outsider, a deviant. While not being able to live up to some of these points can be categorized as being discredited because of Tribal Stigma or Abominations
of the Body, dropping out of other parts of the norm are linked to blemishes of the Individual Character.
The latter are often linked to breaking social rules to become an outsider.
U.S. American sociologist Howard S. Becker begins his basic work on social outsiders as follows: “All social groups make rules and attempt, at sometimes and under some circumstances, to enforce them. Social rules define situations and the kinds of behavior appropriate to them, specifying some actions as
right and forbidding others as wrong. When a rule is enforced, the person who is supposed to have broken
it may be seen as a special kind of person, one that cannot be trusted to live by the rules agreed on by the group. He is regarded as an outsider” (Becker 1963: 1).
Becker further explains that rules can be set officially by laws and enforced by state organs as the police, but also unofficial and unwritten rules that most members of a society have knowledge about and will attempt to enforce by social interaction and discrimination (Becker 1963). An example of unwritten rules is what Arlie Hochschild described as feeling rules: the rules on how to feel and express emotions in certain social contexts, e.g. funerals, parties or weddings (Hochschild 1979). Violating
these rules can mark a person as a social outsider, as rude or ignorant, heartless or vulgar. According to Hochschild, people are often forced to work on covering (surface acting) or even altering (deep
acting) one’s emotions, to do emotion work in order not to be deemed deviant when their own
emotions go against the current feeling rules (ibid.).
We can resume that there are several ways to become a stigmatized person, an outsider of society that vary in their degree of deviation and linked consequences as well as in their durability. While some attributes will stick to a person for their lifetime, other can change over time, being concealed or covered. Rules and norms allow individuals, as said above, to categorize others and themselves, while the available categories are not neutral and might be linked to consequences for a person’s reputation, their ability to participate in society and their access to basic human needs and rights. As said consequences can have severe impact on a person’s quality of life, people tend to try, if possible, to be part of the norm. To achieve this, one needs to demarcate oneself from the deviant, without deviance there is no norm, without stigmatization there is no way to mark outsiders, no way to demarcate. Thus, stigmatization has a social function for people. Accordingly, Becker states that, “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender” (Becker 1963: 9). The offender moreover is also likely to internalize and reinforce the rules and does not necessarily protest against being seen as deviant. More recent works on stigmatization, for example from Richard Parker and Peter Aggleton (2003), relate to Foucault and Bourdieu’s writings, and see stigmatization and discrimination in dependence to power and domination. They clarify that stigma is of immense importance for the constitution of social order and more than an expression of cultural values (Parker and Aggleton 2003).
Goffman sees the function of stigmatization furthermore in finding justification to discriminate against others. He explains that people can easily be made to believe that a person with a certain stigma is “not quite human” (Goffman 1963: 5), which makes it easy to exercise different forms of discrimination that puts the person that represents the norm in an advantaged position while it can reduce the chances in life for the stigmatized person. Goffman ends his book on social stigma with the following conclusion:
“The stigmatization of those with a bad moral record clearly can function as a means of formal social control; stigmatization of those in certain racial, religious and ethnic groups has apparently functioned as a means of removing these minorities from various avenues of competition: and the devaluation of those with bodily disfigurements can perhaps be interpreted as contributing to a needed narrowing courtship decisions” (Goffman 1963: 139).
While the latest refers to a Darwinist stream of thoughts I do not agree with, his explanation of the functions of moral, social and racial/ethnical/religious stigmatization are more convincing, even though of course abridged and less nuanced than in social realities.
After having discussed stigma and stigmatization on a broader level I want to continue by applying the theories around it to sex work and show the consequences for those who are engaged in sex work.
2.2 The stigmatization of sex work
I define sex work as any kind of exchange of sexual services for money or in some cases goods, services or housing amongst consenting adults. This includes for example window prostitution, BDSM services, escorts, webcam models, phone sex operators, strippers or erotic massages. While the terms like consent, free will or deliberation in context of work always should be seen as relative in capitalist societies, I still make a sharp distinction between sex work and human trafficking. It is not my intention to disguise the existence of human trafficking in the sex trade but in my conviction, this is not sex work but commercialized rape and this is not what I am talking about when I use the term sex work.
The following subchapter will give an overview on how sex work is contemporarily stigmatized in western societies. I will intentionally waive to discuss the moral aspects of sex work, even though I
personally and politically as an intersectional queer feminist have a well-defined position. It should be said though that the aim of my work is not to judge sex work but to examine the impact on and consequences for the lives of sex workers that come with the judgment and stigmatization by others.
2.2.1 Pheterson’s theory of the whore stigma
Associate Professor of social psychology, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France, Gail Pheterson organized the International Committee for Prostitutes’ Rights and the World Whores’ Congresses together with sex workers in 1985 and 1986. Her text The Whore Stigma: Female Dishonor
and Male Unworthiness was published in 1993 and became an influential and frequently citied work
on the stigmatization of sex workers. While some of the country-specific conditions and legislations might have changed, the main statements are relevant up until today. While Pheterson talks about prostitutes in the outdated sense of cis women offering penetrative sex for cis men, her theory can be applied to sex work in the broader sense and gender while it has to be noted, as said in the beginning, that cis-male sex workers, while having to face homophobia, are not affected by the wide range of misogyny and sexism that can be found when the whore stigma is constructed.
Pheterson explains that women are socialized into not talking about sex, not possessing sexual information or skills and, most important, not to be whores. Patriarchy has an interest, so she states further, into keeping up the division of sex workers and non-sex workers and the devaluation of the first group, as “a sharing of prostitute financial and sexual practices with non-prostitute women challenges that socialization, challenges the divisions it imposes upon women, and challenges the normative assumption of female sexual and financial dependency” (Pheterson 1993: 39). Furthermore, Corina McKay (1999) argues that some women benefit from degrading sex workers and thereby play into the hands of heteronormative oppression by teaching women* from a young age, just like did I learn, that it is deeply undesirable and morally wrong to become a whore.
Pheterson establishes four categories of how the dishonor of sex work is constructed and how they add up the whore stigma – the systematic devaluation of sex work in western society. I want to introduce her categories in more detail and later use them as a structural framework for analyzing my own data.
Legal dishonor and unworthiness
“On a legal level, attributions of female dishonor […] within prostitution take concrete punitive form” (Pheterson 1993: 42). In many countries, various forms of sex work are illegal and sex workers or in some cases their clients face prosecution. In the so-called Nordic Modell that has first been implied in Sweden even partners and family members of sex workers can be prosecuted as pimps, when the sex worker provides for them. While the term Nordic Modell is still used a lot, it has to be noted that it is not accurate and misleading as it implies that said laws are applied in whole Scandinavia, which is not the case. Other countries like Germany or the Netherlands legalized prostitution but regulated it having specific rules around sex work and how it is a to be carried out as well as who is allowed to do it.3 Pheterson states that most legislation and regulation is associated with crime or at least a shadiness
of the business and leads to the further devaluation of sex work:
“The dishonor attributed to the prostitute has, indeed, grave legal consequences. Women are allowed to give free sex but not to negotiate sex without defying a host of laws. A woman who earns money through sex is defined as selling her honor” (Pheterson 1993: 43).
Consequently, legislation on sex work tranches upon an individual’s freedom of speech, as it is not illegal to offer sex, but criminalized or at least regulated to ask for money in exchange for it.
3 I will talk more about the recent changes in the legislation of Germany when presenting the specific regional
Furthermore, regulations have an impact on a sex workers freedom of movement as well as her sexual privacy. Pheterson concludes that the legal discourse is demonstrating the power that stands behind the dishonoring and stigmatization of sex workers (ibid.).
Social dishonor and unworthiness
Pheterson continues explaining that, while being reinforced through the power of legislations, the root of dishonoring sex work is rather social than legal. “Whores are traditional models of female dishonor” (ibid.: 46). While not even necessarily associated with actual sex work, the social construction of a whore consists of many layers. Pheterson is listing a few:
“Engaging in sex with strangers; engaging in sex with many partners; as a woman, taking sexual initiative, controlling sexual encounters, and being an expert on sex; asking for money in exchange for sex; as a woman, using one’s energy and abilities to satisfy impersonal male lust and sexual fantasies; as a woman, being out at night alone, on dark streets, dressed to attract male desire; as a woman, being in situations with supposedly brash, drunk, or abusive men whom one either can handle (“uppity or vulgar women”) or cannot handle (“victimized women”)” (Pheterson 1993: 46).
In their thorough study on the intersections of stigmatization of sex work and policy strategies, Canadian and UK based researchers Andrea Krüssi, Thomas Kerr, Christina Taylor, Tim Rhodes and Kate Shannon conclude that the majority of recent studies on this field suggest that sex workers are still highly stigmatized (Krüssi et al. 2016). Those who engage in the exchange of sexual services for money, goods or other rewards are constructed as deviant as they challenge moral, sexual und societal norms (Sanders 2008). Pheterson’s previously mentioned statement that “[a] woman who earns money through sex is defined as selling her honor” (Pheterson 1993: 43) shows how efficacious sexual morals on femininities are. However, its core can be applied to various gender identities, even though it has to be noted that cis-male sex workers, while having to face discrimination based on homophobic hatred, are not affected by the wide spectrum of misogynist and sexist assumptions that come into play when the stigma on sex work is constructed. The stigmatization of sex work is an example of defending moral norms, power structures and social hierarchies.
Ideological dishonor and unworthiness
The last category Pheterson discussed is approaching the attitude of political activists, like socialists and certain feminist towards sex work. Pheterson (1993) says that feminist and socialist views are especially interesting, as they are involved with women’s and workers’ rights (again, Pheterson is focusing on cis women). While sex workers belong to the group of most oppressed workers by laws and social stigmatization, according to Pheterson, the radical feminist and socialist respond to sex work usually involves an anti sex work perspective and wishes to ban sex work. Pheterson wittily notes that in this mindset the liberation of the worker is paradoxically accomplished by eliminating their work (Pheterson 1993). It is however rooted in the assumption that sex workers are not real workers but victims of oppression by patriarchy and capitalism.
While I already illuminated feminist activist discussions on sex work in Germany, I want to deepen the theoretical discussions in feminist subcultures and give a brief historical overview, as this is going to be one of my focus points in research interest. Before I do so I want to point out that just as there is not one singular opinion on sex work in feminism, there actually is not just one feminism. It would be more accurate to talk about feminisms, as over the decades several schools of thoughts have evolved with often contradiction and opposing ideas. I personally consider myself a feminist but I do strongly disagree with many attitudes and opinions in so called radical feminism. This being just one example of how members of the feminist community deal with ideological differences in the movement. Some of the biggest disagreements emerge around sexuality and started to become major topics of discussions about 40 years ago.
The debate within western feminist communities about sex work, pornography and BDSM, also known as Sex Wars, made massive waves in the 1970s and 1980s and is ongoing until today. Especially when discussing women*’s sexual agency, the opponent sides in the beginning of the Sex Wars have been criticized for holding reductionist views (Heath, Braimoh, and Gouweloos 2016). While radical feminists like famous U.S. American author and anti-porn/prostitution activist Andrea Dworkin saw the existing structures of private and commercialized sexuality as harmful, violent and degrading towards (cis) women (Dworkin 1974), sex positive activists as Gayle Rubin, on the other hand, insisted on the subversive potential of sexuality as means to undermine patriarchal power structures (Rubin 1984). In the context of gender relations within service work in the late capitalist economy, the controversy over sex work culminated in a central issue:
“The question of whether women who work in prostitution are engaging in a form of sexual and physical labor or are victims of a patriarchal, capitalist system that allows male domination to exploit the bodies of women” (Sanders 2005: 320).
The anti-sex work perspective that equates sex work with violence against individuals engaging in it leads advocates of this school of thoughts to the conclusion that sex work can never be work. Through sex work it is argued (cis) women were turned into sexual objects by gender specific unjust power relations while cis-male clients and brothel managers, porn producers etc. were the only ones who benefit (Sanders 2005). This line of argument in result victimizes sex workers, deprives them of any agency and in some cases even accuses sex workers of being accomplices in upholding violent and hateful patriarchal structures and the oppression of women.
By contrast to that, pro-sex work scholars state that offering sexual services must be recognized as legitimate work (Brewis and Linstead 2000, Boynton 2002). The sex workers’ rights movement that just alike has always been a part of western feminism claims that selling sexual services is service work that should be treated equal to other jobs in the service industry and that sex workers “should receive the same status, protection and rights as those bestowed on other employees” (Sanders, 2005: 321). I agree with U.S. Professor of Sociology and Women and Gender Studies Wendy Chapkis who is researching sex work since the 1990s and has published many articles on that issue from a feminist standpoint. Chapkis argues more nuanced than the black/white views of her feminist forerunners that most individuals make an informed and rational choice when they start doing sex work, rather than a free choice, which as such is unavailable for the majority of individuals living in a capitalist society that is hierarchically structured by race, gender and class (Chapkis 1997).
Psychological dishonor and unworthiness
Pheterson describes the attitude of mental health care professionals as rather negative:
“Although psychological analysts are less likely to use words such as dis-honor and unworthiness than words such as maladjustment and neurosis, they nonetheless reinforce formal definitions and popular opinion in their claim that prostitutes and their associates are damaged human beings. The classic psychological profile given to the whore, describes a woman with a childhood of deprivation and abuse who is sexually frigid, hostile toward men, and latently or openly lesbian” (Pheterson 1993: 51).
While psychologists today, about 25 years later, hopefully tend to have a more nuanced few, the notion that sex workers who claim to have made an informed decision when they started working in the business must be in some way traumatized or damaged is very persistent. Especially anti sex work activists like to bring out this theory when confronted with the fact that most sex workers are not victims of human trafficking or other violence (apart from the capitalist violence of having to sell one’s labor in order to survive).
U.S. American psychologist and anti-sex work feminist Melissa Farley published many studies and articles claiming that sex work is linked to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her biggest study has been published in 2004 and includes research in nine countries, including Germany and has been cited by many anti-sex work activists and other opponents of sex work as well as by mainstream media
(Farley et al. 2004). Farley’s work and research methods have been criticized by many activists and researchers. The English Collective of prostitutes published a critical respond to Farley’s work by sex workers’ rights activist Carolina Talavera on their website. Talavera states that:
“Farley bases a majority of her arguments on research done through “Prostitution Research and Education” a non-profit organization founded by Farley herself. While the organization has conducted a large amount of research, most of these studies have not been peer-reviewed and the methodology used in them is questionable. […] One study concluded that sex workers had high rates of assault and rape and thus high rates of PTSD. Yet studies reveal that susceptibility to PTSD has been linked to traumas
experienced earlier in an individual’s life, though diagnosis of PTSD continues to be entangled in a greater discussion of the politics of victimhood and trauma (Finley 2011). Essentially, Farley’s research
manipulates data to support her argument and in this case misleads readers about the nature of PTSD, when in reality it’s possible that sex workers develop PTSD while in the industry but because of previous traumas. Farley also makes no comparison with rates of assault, rape or PTSD in other groups of women such as domestic workers essentially isolating sex work from other jobs. […] It is easy to paint a picture of sex workers as victims and sex work as inherently harmful if the other types of work that women do are ignored” (Talavera 2012).
Other scholars have turned the tables and hold the discrimination of sex workers accountable for possible mental health risks amongst sex workers. Associate professor and head of the department of Population Health at the University of Otago, New Zealand Gillian Abel suggest in her work on sex work and mental health that the stigmatization of their work and their experiences with the consequences of said stigmatization are a crucial factor for the mental health of sex workers. “It could be also that the anticipation of being discriminated against, the covert or implicit perceptions of society towards sex workers, creates anxiety amongst this population which impacts on their mental and emotional health” (Abel 2011: 1178).
As the share of women in western societies who are survivors of sexual abuse is up until today high, it is indeed possible that a person engaging in sex work is a survivor of such violence.4 To deduce from
this fact that their experiences subconsciously affect individuals’ choices to become a sex worker is not only patronizing and victimizing. It is an easy and effective way to devalue positive statements of sex workers. In Peterson’s words:
“A profile of psychological propensity, economic need, and coercion is not all wrong. What is wrong with it is the assumption that prostitutes are more neurotic than other women, more financially needy (due to poverty or greed) than other women, and more coerced into life choices than other women” (Pheterson 1993: 53).
Finally, Pheterson suggest that sex work can for some women* even by a way to deal with their trauma as they can take back control over their sexuality and their bodies, because making clear rules and setting boundaries is an important part of sex work (Pheterson 1993).
Pheterson concludes with an appeal to activists as well as legal, social, and psychological authorities to use their voices and power to implement human rights for sex workers and stop their stigmatization. I appreciate her work a lot, even though it should be extended to a more intersectional approach that does not solely focus on cis women. Her thorough examination of the whore stigma is a valuable basis for my analysis and helps to understand the different aspects that add up to the extensive depreciation of sex work.
4 For Europe including Russia the World Health Organization gave a figure of 27.2 percent of women aged 15
years or older that became victims of “intimate partner and non-partner sexual violence or both” (WHO 2013). A survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) suggests that within the EU “33% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15 [and] 22% have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a partner” (FRA 2014).
2.2.2 Possible consequences of being stigmatized as a sex worker
The strength of the stigma on sex work can present significant, emotional and material penalties (Hammond and Kingston, 2014). In most social situations, being outed as a sex worker had major consequences ranging from exotization at best to exclusion, insult, and violence. Social stigmatization forces many sex workers to stay in the closet, find cover stories for their jobs and mastering other forms of concealing their occupation. Many aspects of the social stigmatization are based on heteronormative, misogynist and sexist assumptions on how female* individuals should behave to be seen as adequate members of society.
Krüssi et al. state that stigmatization of sex work has severe impact on the safety, health and overall quality of life of sex workers as it leads to diverse forms of violence towards them (Krüssi et al. 2016). Forms of social violence such as discrimination and devaluation of a person can force sex workers to lead double lives and cover their profession from strangers, community members, friends, family or even partners.
Intersectionality as a core factor
Benoit, McCarthy and Jansson lay down that all forms of sex work, escorting, pornography, stripping etc. are stigmatized (Benoit et al. 2015). It is nevertheless important to see variation in magnitudes of consequences that sex working individuals face for the stigmatization related to their job. Said magnitudes depend on a range of factors. Italian Professor of political economy Giovanni Immordino’s research on the intersection of laws and stigmatization concludes that sex work is more accepted by society in countries where it is legalized (Immordino and Russo 2015). Most important is however, to include intersectionality when analyzing the differing repercussions of the sex work stigma, as Krüssi et al. bring out: “how sex workers experience, negotiate and resist stigma is influenced by social, material and interpersonal factors, including poverty, ethnicity and gender identity” (Krüssi et al. 2016: 1139). While individual experiences may vary, it can be said that an upper class cis-female escort will face different forms of discrimination and restrictions regarding the access to social participation and the satisfaction of basic needs than a trans woman of color that works on the streets. The probability of experiencing grave violence and discrimination rises with the number of stigmatized attributes that intersect, while on the other hand a set of (white, cis, class etc.) privileges can lessen the impact of sex work stigmatization for the individual. The combination of hatred against sex workers, trans-misogyny and racism can be very dangerous for the individual, as the horrifically high number of murders of trans sex workers of color worldwide prove. The activist website stoptransmurders.org has recently published the following statement on the situation in the USA:
“Trans women of color face devastating amounts of violence, and the criminalization of sex work leaves them even more vulnerable. 12 trans women and gender nonconforming individuals who engaged in sex work were murdered in the U.S. in 2015, 10 of whom were black and one of whom was Latina. They comprised 29% of U.S. sex worker homicide victims. According to a 2012 report, 23% of LGBT homicides that year were sex work related” (Stop Trans Murders 2015).
Moreover, while it is surely true that all kinds of sex work are stigmatized, there are distinctions between the forms of work. A person that works on the streets will usually experience devaluation by society to a bigger extent, than a high-class dominatrix that does not offer penetrative sex, as the second is usually seen as more professional and less dirty, especially as the dominatrix does not sell
her body. I conclude that the magnitudes of discrimination and stigmatization are influenced by a
number of factors and attributes (branch of sex work, gender identity, ethnical background, class background etc.) that intersect.
Internalizing stigma
When analyzing my data in chapter four, one of my interests is to find out how experiences of discrimination due to the stigmatization of sex work might influence my interviewees strategies to
cope with being stigmatized. Before I will go deeper into particular strategies of coping, I want to introduce another possible consequence of belonging to a stigmatized group, the internalization of the stigma or self-stigma. U.S. American psychologists Diane Quinn, Michelle K. Williams and Bradley M. Weisz (2015) found the following definition:
“Self-stigma is defined as the internalization of the negative stereotypes, attitudes and perceptions held of individuals who are members of a socially devalued group […]. An Individual who has internalized stigma not only believes the stereotypes to be true but also believes the stereotypes to be true of himself or herself“ (Quinn et al. 2015: 103).
Quinn et al. moreover suggest, that experiencing discrimination due to stigma is likely to lead to a greater anticipation of future devaluation and discrimination and a higher risk of internalizing the stigma (Quinn et al. 2015). In their study on self-stigma of people with serious mental illnesses, U.S. American and Swiss researchers Patrick Corrigan, Jennifer Rafacz and Nicolas Rüsch (2011) highlight the harms of internalizing stigmatization; they name lower self-esteem, hopelessness and depression as possible consequences (Corrigan et al. 2011). This again shows an important link of stigmatization and mental well-being. When analyzing my data, I want to see if indications of self-stigma can be found.
2.3 Strategies of handling being stigmatized
After here having discussed concepts of stigmatization, it’s function in society and the particular stigmatization of sex work in mainstream society and some feminist schools of thoughts, I want to dedicate the final section of my theoretical framework to strategic approaches of handling being stigmatized based on one’s involvement in sex work.
Abel has highlighted that the way people cope with a stigma has a significant impact on their health. Furthermore, she states that shame and stigma linked to sex work lead to sex workers being more vulnerable to violence and exploitation. Furthermore, they can present a barrier in terms of access to health care, as well as impair their human rights. The management of their stigmatized identity is thus crucial to the wellbeing of sex workers (Abel 2011).
I therefore want to go back to Goffman and Hochschild, and the concept of identity management, discussing strategies of action, every day practices and psychological consequences that might evolve of the theory of managing one’s identity. Having laid the theoretical foundations for approaching my research questions, this shall provide me with a framework for the analysis and interpretation of my data.
2.3.1 Identity management in sex work
Goffmann (1959) argued that individuals, when interacting with others, are keen to present a certain image of themselves. They do so by playing a role, comparable to an actor in a play, while always being careful to uphold the impression that the current presentation is the only one they embody and not just one out of a variety that changes depending on the setting. He stated furthermore that stigmatized individuals like sex workers while in public being seen as others, in private settings do actively construct identities that keep up with the standards of normality (Goffman 1959). Arlie Hochschild (1979) calls this performance strategy surface acting: performing on the surface in order to come across in a certain way and cover up undesirable attributes. In her influential article on emotion work she criticizes Goffman for lacking a view on the emotional side of identity management as he focused solely on the control of outward impressions of feelings or emotions (Hochschild 1979). Hochschild talks about feeling rules when she explains that there are limited sets of feelings that are generally accepted to be appropriate in certain situations (e.g. being sad, desperate and prostrated at a funeral). If one’s actual feeling does not fit into the feeling rule, an individual will most likely try to alternate at least the performance of those feelings in order not to be seen as acting inappropriately. Hochschild explains, that individuals do not only work on alternating the impression of their feelings to make them fit into
a certain situation, moreover one can and (sometimes must) alternate the feeling or emotion one actually feels:
“By ‘emotion work’ I refer to the act of trying to change in degree or quality an emotion or feeling. To ‘work on’ an emotion or feeling is, for our purposes, the same as ‘to manage’ an emotion or to do ‘deep
acting’. Note that ‘emotion work’ refers to the effort – the act of trying – and not to the outcome, which
may or may not be successful. Failed acts of management still indicate what ideal formulations guide the effort, and on that account are no less interesting than emotion management that works” (Hochschild 1979: 561).
Hochschild (1979) furthermore explains that in the workspace, workers can face situation in which they have to alternate their emotions, especially at occupations where there is intense contact with the public. While just the outward expression of an emotion is sold, it can become hard to sustain if the actual feeling is very different from the display. Therefore, in contrast to the performing character of surface acting, deep acting, that is altering once actual emotions, can be a strategy to deal with stigmatization (Hochschild 1979).
For many sex workers, having a job and a private identity serves multiple purposes. “Studies have highlighted the different roles sex workers adopt within their public and private environments and have argued that this is one strategy sex workers use to resist stigma” (Abel 2011: 1177). In other words, sex workers tend to develop a work and a private identity in order to be able to separate the stigmatized identity from their private identity. They might use different names and come up with alternative life stories for their sex work identity. This way, information concerning the work identity becomes more manageable (Goffman 1963) and one can have agency over when and whether they want come out as sex workers.
Moreover, Sanders (2005) or Brewis and Linstead (2000) who did research on sex workers and identity management highlight the importance of having a work identity to play in front of the clients in order to differentiate their private identity and sexuality from the one they perform at work. This differentiation can be acted out in routines and rituals, like using condoms, not kissing a client or using another name at work. Sanders (2005) further mentions that representing a certain identity at work can also function as a business strategy. However, as these aspects of identity management are less relevant to my research question, I will not elaborate on them in further detail.
2.3.2 Practical strategies of identity management and coping with stigmatization
Individuals that carry stigmatized but not immediately visible attributes as sex workers will face situation in which they have to negotiate weather or not they want to come out. Everyday situations, like small talks at parties, can turn into scenarios that require identity management and decisions. A sex worker can easily be in a situation where they might fear to be treated differently when they come out. Especially when they have close persons that do not know about their job, sex workers can fear to be seen in another, possibly worse light than before, which might have consequences for their relation to that person (Goffman 1963). In social situations with less intimate persons, coming out as a sex worker might moreover involve becoming the involuntary center of attention. Stigma are very often linked to certain expectations regarding the persons carrying it and when a person involved in sex work starts to talk open about it, the non-sex workers in the room might treat the person according to their expectations and prejudices. Moreover, Goffman (1963) explains that there usually are certain codes and lines even on how to come out correctly to reduce the possible harm that might suggest emphasizing that one is, despite one’s stigma, as good as normal. All the listed can cause major stress in the stigmatized person that, according Goffman, can even lead to trying to avoid situation in which interaction with strangers that do not share the same stigma is needed (Goffman 1963). This is one possible strategy of dealing with the stigmatization of sex work but it can be assumed that most sex workers will not live isolated and find other ways to deal with the stigmatization of their job.
