Discrimination is not a symptom of the person who is subjected to it. It arises in actions, rules, judgments, and institutions that give people different opportunities and expose them to different risks. The consequences can nevertheless be physical and psychological: hypervigilance, shame, fatigue, fear, low mood, or difficulty trusting a situation. Clinical support can be important in such cases, but that support must not make the victim the cause of what has happened.
This chapter distinguishes between discrimination, stigma, and domination. These concepts describe related but distinct social processes. Discrimination involves disadvantage and unequal treatment. Stigma is a process in which labeling, stereotypes, segregation, loss of status, and discrimination are intertwined within unequal power relations. Domination is a more enduring relationship in which one actor can influence another actor’s circumstances without the latter having a secure and effective means of objecting. These processes can limit agency without eliminating it.
Legal and Sociological Discrimination
Swedish anti-discrimination legislation requires a connection between a disadvantage or violation and one of seven grounds for discrimination: gender, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation, and age. The Discrimination Ombudsman distinguishes between six forms: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, lack of accessibility, harassment, sexual harassment, and instructions to discriminate.
In simple terms, direct discrimination means that someone is treated less favorably than another person in a comparable situation, and that the treatment is related to a protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination, on the other hand, involves a rule or practice that appears neutral but particularly disadvantages a protected group, unless the rule has a legitimate purpose and is appropriate and necessary. This distinction is important. Inequality does not always require explicit intent; it can arise from the way a rule actually functions.
The sociological question is broader than the legal one. Sociology can examine recurring patterns of exclusion, devaluation, and resource allocation even when it has not yet been determined whether a specific incident meets the requirements of the law. This does not mean that sociological analysis settles a legal question. It helps you distinguish between three things: what happened, the social pattern to which the event may belong, and what needs to be assessed by a labor union, an anti-discrimination agency, a lawyer, or another competent authority.
Distinguish Between an Event, a Pattern, and a Legal Issue
Purpose: To describe a potential discrimination issue precisely without requiring you to determine the legal outcome yourself.
Choose a specific incident. Note the time, place, decision, or action, the roles of those involved, and the specific outcome that resulted.
Distinguish what you observed yourself from what you heard afterward and from your interpretation of the cause.
Note whether the same rule, judgment, or treatment has recurred. Include only what you have evidence for.
Indicate which level requires further investigation: interaction, workgroup or relationship, organizational procedure, or a legal issue.
Choose a trusted recipient for the next step, such as a union representative, the responsible manager, a student affairs office, an anti-discrimination agency, the Discrimination Ombudsman, or a healthcare provider to address the consequences.
Afterward: Store documentation securely and distinguish between material supporting a sociological analysis and evidence in a legal proceeding.
Limitations and when not to conduct this exercise: Do not document other people’s sensitive information without their consent. In cases of threats, violence, coercion, or a clear risk of retaliation, the next steps should be planned with professional support.
Intersectionality: When Rules and Positions Interact
Kimberlé Crenshaw developed the concept of intersectionality to show how an analysis can overlook people when it treats, for example, racism and sexism as entirely separate processes. In the legal cases she analyzed, the experiences of Black women could not be understood by first examining gender and then ethnicity as two separate, additional factors. Institutional rules created a specific position where these processes operated together.
Intersectionality is therefore not primarily a list of identities. It is a matter of how the division of labor, selection, accessibility, norms, and decision-making processes can have different consequences depending on how social positions intersect in a given situation. The analysis should not assume that belonging to a particular group automatically results in a certain experience. It should examine which rules and resources are actually at work.
It is also possible to distinguish between position and identity. Position describes how a person is situated within a network of rules, resources, and expectations. Identity concerns how the person and others understand who the person is. They may be interconnected, but they are not the same thing. An intersectional analysis therefore does not need to require anyone to account for their entire identity. It can begin with the concrete institutional situation.
Intersectional Analysis of Conditions
Purpose: To examine how multiple rules or power structures interact in a specific situation without ranking identities or suffering.
Choose a situation in which access, treatment, assessment, or support has been affected.
Write down which formal rules and informal norms governed the situation. Describe their effects, not the characteristics a person is expected to have.
Examine whether two or more rules had a combined effect that is not apparent when examined individually.
Describe the resources required to understand, follow, or challenge the rules: language, time, money, health, connections, digital access, or formal authorization.
Propose a change to a rule, procedure, accessibility, or decision-making process. Specify which institution can implement it.
Afterward: Summarize the analysis in one sentence about the conditions and one sentence about the institutional requirement.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: The exercise must not require you or anyone else to disclose sensitive personal information. It must not be used to make a person’s group affiliation an explanation of that person’s characteristics.
Stigma is a multi-step process
Bruce Link and Jo Phelan describe stigma as a process in which several stages converge. A difference is first assigned a social label. The label is linked to negative stereotypes. Those labeled are symbolically separated from a presumed “we.” Loss of status and discrimination may then follow. In their view, stigma arises when these stages operate within a power relationship that causes the label to have real-world consequences.
A negative perception, therefore, does not in and of itself constitute a complete stigma. The sociological intermediary factor is that certain actors have greater opportunities than others to put their perceptions into practice in employment, education, healthcare, housing, services, or everyday recognition. The concept thus helps shift the analysis from the question of an individual’s attitude to the question of how categories, decisions, and resources are interconnected.
Stigma and discrimination should not, however, be conflated. Discrimination refers to disadvantage or unequal treatment. The stigma process shows how labeling and stereotypes can set the stage for, justify, and perpetuate this disadvantage. A person may also anticipate negative reactions and therefore avoid certain situations, even when no new act of discrimination has occurred. This cost is socially produced but is experienced in the person’s everyday life.
Follow the actual stages of the stigma process
Objective: To identify which parts of a stigma process are present in a situation and where the process can be interrupted.
Choose a situation and identify the label or category being used. Write down the word or administrative category that actually appears.
Note which characteristics are associated with the label and whether a distinction between “us” and “them” is created.
Describe any loss of status or concrete disadvantage. Do not assume that all stages are present.
Specify who has the power to activate the category through decisions, resource allocation, or treatment.
Choose a stage where support, a change in procedure, a right, an ally, or a joint action could interrupt the process.
Afterward: Write down what is substantiated, what is a working hypothesis, and what additional information is needed.
Limitations and when not to use this exercise: Do not use this exercise to provoke a confrontation. If there is a risk of reprisals, threats, or violence, safety and support must take precedence over further investigation.
Limited agency is still agency
Agency refers to the ability to act in a social situation. It is not the same as complete independence, unlimited freedom of choice, or personal responsibility for all consequences. Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische describe agency as a temporally embedded process. People draw on habits and experiences from the past, imagine possible futures, and make practical judgments in the current situation.
These three temporal dimensions explain why scope for action can be both real and limited. Past experiences can provide knowledge but also foster caution following repeated setbacks. Future alternatives may exist but appear risky if finances, residency status, employment, healthcare, or a sense of belonging are at stake. In the present moment, the person must assess what can be done with the energy, information, and support that are actually available.
Limited agency therefore does not mean that the person is passive. It means that the costs of action, available resources, and possible consequences are unevenly distributed. Agency can also be distributed: a person can act through a labor union, a friend, a support person, a patient advocacy group, a lawyer, or a government agency. Collective agency arises when people coordinate knowledge, mandates, and resources so that what is difficult for a single person becomes possible when working together.
Scope for Action Across Three Time Frames
Purpose: To identify what agency exists without disregarding risk, dependence, and past experiences.
Choose a specific situation in which you would like to act differently.
Write down what past experiences have taught you about the situation’s rules, risks, and potential allies.
Write down two future outcomes that you are trying to bring about or avoid. Indicate which resources influence whether they are realistic.
Describe what can be done in the current situation: on your own, together with others, or through an institution with a mandate.
Choose the course of action that provides new information or better support with the lowest reasonable risk.
Afterward: Follow up to see if the scope for action increased, decreased, or became clearer. Even a decision to wait and see can be an active choice when it is based on a concrete risk assessment.
Limitations and when not to use this exercise: This exercise should not be used to place the blame for discrimination on the victim. In cases of immediate danger or severe control, safety planning and professional support are required.
Dominance in Interaction and Institutions
Dominance is more than just one person getting their way in a single conflict. It is a recurring asymmetrical relationship in which one party can set conditions, change the rules of the game, or impose costs, while the other party lacks a safe and effective way to object. Dependency is a key factor. Those who are dependent on a salary, housing, care, a residence permit, medical care, or group membership may need to take into account a power dynamic that is not always explicitly stated.
Randall Collins and Maren McConnell use the term “emotional dominance” to describe situations in which one participant takes control of the pace, focus, and emotional tone of the interaction. The concept should not be applied to every strong personality or intense discussion. It becomes analytically relevant when someone repeatedly interrupts, rushes, humiliates, or provokes a reactive response in others, and when this is supported by status, role, or resources.
Resistance, therefore, does not need to begin with open confrontation. In a low-risk situation, it may involve slowing down the conversation, asking that decisions be documented, deferring the issue to a meeting with more people present, or allowing a representative to take over. In a dangerous situation, such techniques are insufficient. In that case, the reasonable course of action lies in ensuring safety, providing support, and following an institutional path that does not require the vulnerable person to face the dominant actor alone.
Reducing Emotional Dominance in a Low-Risk Situation
Objective: To regain control of the pace and clarity in an interaction where someone else repeatedly dictates the pace and direction of attention.
Choose only a situation where you judge that a small attempt is safe.
Identify what is being controlled: speaking pace, interruptions, topic changes, tone of voice, time limits, or who gets to summarize.
Choose a small change: ask for a pause, ask a specific question, summarize in writing, or suggest that a decision be made when more people are present.
Implement the change once and note whether you gained more time, clarity, or support.
Decide whether the next step should be repeated, escalated to another level, or handed over to someone with greater authority.
Afterward: Don’t judge the exercise based on whether you “won” the conversation. Assess whether the conditions of the situation became clearer and whether your ability to act increased.
Limitations and when the exercise should not be done: Do not do the exercise in situations involving violence, threats, control, dependency with a high risk of reprisal, or when the other person could harm you. In such cases, seek support and plan for your safety with a relevant professional.
Action at the Right Level
A discrimination issue can have components at multiple levels. At the individual level, there are consequences that may require care, recovery, and support. At the relational or group level, witnesses, allies, and shared norms can change what can be said. At the organizational level, recruitment requirements, evaluation procedures, accessibility, and complaint procedures may need to be changed. At the societal level, there is legislation, oversight, union organization, and public awareness.
These levels should not be ranked such that the highest level is always considered best. An individual may need to seek medical care on the same day and address an institutional issue later. An organization may be able to change a procedure without a national law being amended. The question is where the effective mechanism lies and who has the mandate to influence it.
Capacity and Mandate Before Action
Purpose: To choose a next step that corresponds to both the level of the problem and the current capacity to act.
Write down the change that seems most urgent.
Specify at what level the change needs to occur and who has the formal or practical mandate.
Assess the safety, energy, time, finances, documentation, and social support required for the next step.
If resources are lacking, first seek relief, a support person, a representative, or professional help.
Decide on a specific action and a time to assess its consequences.
Afterward: Refraining from a risky action is not the same as condoning discrimination or domination. It can be a way to shift the action to a safer level.