In their study on territorial stigmatization Bürk et al. (2012) divide possible coping strategies into (1) those confirming the norm by internalizing negative socio-spatial images or relying on them when trying to prove the opposite or generate pity, and (2) those rejecting and actively resisting it.
The internalization of territorial stigmatization is what Bürk (2013) and Lang (2013) call peripheralization in mind or mental lock-ins. It goes back to the notion of self-stigmatization, hence the (re-)production of one’s own image as marginal and peripheral. Also when trying to reverse the image, actors essentially rely on the socio-spatial hierarchy behind these negative ascriptions. A common reversal strategy is the attachment of positive images to stigmatized places via counter-discourses in order to externally engage in place-marketing or internally strengthen social capital and place attachment (Bürk et al. 2012, Jasso 2005, Semian & Chromý 2014). Another is to utilize negative ascriptions to generate pity or employ strategic essentialism by drawing on existing images of otherness in order to achieve one’s own objectives (Bürk et al. 2012, Jacobs 1997). When contesting and rejecting the framework, which produces such socio-spatial at the first place, actors pursue active resistance as coping strategy. This break with dominant structures and discourses is what Soja (1999) has described as “thirdspace”.