Stigma and the “Cloak of Competence”

 

 

Robert B. Edgerton's 1967 book, The Cloak of Competence, examined how people with intellectual disabilities may cope with the stigma associated with being perceived as less capable or less intelligent.

 

What the research highlights

Stigma: Being identified as having an intellectual disability can expose a person to negative stereotypes and assumptions about their abilities.

Self-esteem: Constantly being treated as incapable can affect how a person sees themselves and their own abilities.

Protecting self-worth: Some people may try to hide difficulties, avoid situations where they might be judged, or demonstrate their abilities in order to challenge other people's expectations.

The “cloak of competence”: The idea refers to the ways some people may present themselves as more capable than others expect, partly to protect themselves from stigma and social rejection.

Intelligence-based insults

 

Examples include:

 

Calling someone “slow,” “stupid,” or “retarded.”

Assuming someone cannot understand something because they have a disability.

Making fun of someone's mistakes at school or work.

Speaking to an adult in an unnecessarily childish or patronising way.

Assuming a person needs help without first asking them.

Making decisions for someone because others assume they are incapable.

Why this matters

 

The problem is not simply the word or insult itself. Repeated negative messages can communicate:

 

“You are less capable than everyone else.”

 

When a person repeatedly encounters these attitudes, it can affect their confidence, opportunities, relationships, independence, and sense of belonging.

 

This connects closely with the social model of disability: difficulties are not caused only by an individual's impairment. Negative attitudes, discrimination, inaccessible environments, and low expectations can create additional barriers.

 

Key study points:

 

Edgerton's work illustrates how people with intellectual disabilities may develop strategies to manage the stigma of being perceived as incompetent, while protecting their dignity, self-esteem, and sense of competence.

 

It is easy to look back at childhood experiences and think, “I was being punished because I got things wrong.” But when you look at the wider social context of the 1970s and 1980s, you can see that some of the attitudes toward children and young people generally could be quite harsh. Expectations around obedience, discipline, mistakes, and “fitting in” were often very different from what we would consider appropriate today.

 

At the same time, disability could add another layer. A child who processed information differently, needed more time, communicated differently, or struggled with coordination might be seen as being:

 

lazy,

naughty,

difficult,

careless,

unintelligent, or

not trying hard enough.

 

The important distinction is that making a mistake does not mean a person deserves punishment or humiliation.

 

Something particularly interesting in your reflection

 

You are also recognising that your experiences don't necessarily have to be explained by one single cause.

 

There can be several things happening at once:

 

The attitudes of the time

↓

School expectations and disciplinary practices

↓

Disability-related differences and support needs

↓

How adults interpreted mistakes

↓

How you interpreted what was happening to you

↓

How those experiences affected your confidence and self-image

 

That connects very nicely with what you were just studying about Edgerton and the “cloak of competence.”

 

A person can start thinking:

 

“If I keep getting things wrong, there must be something wrong with me.”

 

When, in reality, the problem may have been that the environment did not understand how that person learned or communicated.

 

And I think your observation that people without disabilities could also experience harsh attitudes is important. It prevents the discussion from becoming overly simplistic. Disability stigma existed within a broader culture of discipline, expectations, and attitudes toward children and young people. Disability could make those experiences more complicated, but it wasn't necessarily the only source of harsh treatment.

 

That would make a really valuable point in your project: understanding historical attitudes doesn't mean excusing harmful treatment; it helps us understand the environment in which people's experiences occurred.