A Tale of Two Magazines: Strategies of Self-Advocacy By People Affected By Leprosy in the U.S. and China

Background and Purpose:
While stigma has been a central theme in leprosy-related research, much of the literature focuses on how stigma harms rather than how people resist it. This study compares two self-advocating magazines—The Star (founded by Stanley Stein in Carville, Louisiana in 1933, reestablished in 1941) and Morning Light (founded by Zhuang Jianxiong, who was also diagnosed with leprosy in China in 1939)—to examine how individuals and communities enacted self-advocacy in stigmatized and institutionally segregated settings. These publications served not only as communication platforms but also as strategic tools to challenge public misconceptions, build solidarity, and pursue social and policy change. While The Star has received attention from historians of medicine and public health, this study offers a new comparative analysis grounded in the lens of social work advocacy, emphasizing how marginalized communities mobilized media to drive transformative change.

Methods:
This qualitative study employs archival research and life history methodologies. Primary data sources include archived issues of both The Star and Morning Light from 1939 to 1949, and autobiographies and biographical materials about the founders. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the magazines’ advocacy strategies, community engagement approaches, and sociopolitical narratives. Attention was paid to micro (individual identity and voice), mezzo (community building), and macro (policy impact) levels of advocacy.

Results:
Despite differences in national context and cultural expression, both magazines shared three strategic pillars: (1) fostering peer support within segregated communities, (2) educating the broader public to challenge stigma, and (3) influencing policy through storytelling and coalition building. The founders—both physically impaired and socially marginalized—emerged as visionary leaders who used narrative and print media as vehicles for empowerment. The differences lie in the cultural preferences of their readers, and the specific national context in which their work occurred. Both were successful in increasing community morale and shaping public discourse, though with differing levels of state engagement and recognition.

Conclusions and Implications:
Findings suggest that self-published magazines functioned as vital tools of advocacy and resistance among people with leprosy in both the U.S. and China. Their strategic use of storytelling, peer leadership, and allyship offers enduring lessons for contemporary social work. Specifically, this historical comparison illustrates how marginalized communities can lead advocacy using grassroots media platforms, culturally resonant messaging, and coalition-building to influence social norms and policies. These insights are directly applicable to social work practice today, particularly in working with communities facing intersecting stigmas. Social workers can draw on these strategies to amplify community voices, co-create platforms for advocacy, and align practice with movements for social justice and policy reform.