Microaggressions and What Can Be Done About Them (At Ithaca College)

Amadan said:

Medi, your definition seems to conflict with the one several other people have used, in which they argue that microaggressions are generally unintentional things brought about by obliviousness.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my understanding of microaggressions (based on how the word is usually used) is that they're generally unintentional, or that intent has nothing to do with it. There is nothing "micro" about an individual deliberately causing discomfort or hurt to someone they perceive as an inferior; that's plain old bigotry.

The classic example of a microaggression, on the other hand, is the tendency of white people to use "articulate" as a compliment for black people. It's generally meant in a positive way, and there may be no prejudice involved, even subconsciously. But taken as an overall pattern it carries the subtle, condescending implication that there's something unusual about an articulate black person.

Microaggressions promote prejudice and stereotypes. Regardless of the motivation behind them.

kuwisdelu said:

Microaggressions promote prejudice and stereotypes. Regardless of the motivation behind them.

Click to expand...

Microaggression of course includes the word "aggression."

Which is a loaded word and when used to describe actions that are unintentional without malice, certainly strikes many people the wrong way.

There's no doubt but that microaggression exists. Sometimes we used to call it a backhanded compliment -- a way of insulting or demeaning another person under the guise of praising them. Nobody denies that this sort of behavior exists; nobody denies that people who indulge in this suck. And micro laggression is a perfectly good word to describe this.

The problem for many of us comes when this term is expanded to include anything, no matter how well-intentioned and banal a person may say. before we say to a coworker, "nice outfit" or "hey, spiffy hat" must we now stop to carefully consider the implications first?

If it's a woman, will "nice outfit" from a male be viewed as sexual harassment? From another woman (or man) might it be considered a subtle put down attacking a perceived class division? If one uses the word "spiffy" to describe the sartorial elegance of a black person, is one making assumptions about their culture and being microaggressive toward them?

Most of the examples of micro aggressions I've seen from posters involve people being unpleasant or nasty in a deliberate manner while leaving themselves the cover of feigning ignorance. We've all seen it; we all recognize it. If one wishes to coin a term to describe this behavior, fine. But let's not pretend that every human interaction involving language has to be fraught with pitfalls and unconscious racism, homophobia, and sexism welling up from the subconscious.

Amadan said:

Medi, your definition seems to conflict with the one several other people have used, in which they argue that microaggressions are generally unintentional things brought about by obliviousness.

Someone deliberately being an ass should properly be slapped down, whether the offense is micro or macro.

Click to expand...

There's a thing that happens when term of art/jargon enters the public sphere where it can evolve in meaning. This is the nature of language.

I would also argue that quite often people say that they didn't intend something when the fact that they did it/said it suggests otherwise. They may, for instance not intend to be racist/sexist/etnocentric etc. but they intended something, even if was the satisfaction of vulgar curiousity (my grandmother's turn of phrase).

In some instances, the intent is a social putdown, of the "and your mom dresses you funny" kind of thing gone wrong or taken to excess or engaged in by someone who has absolutely no social acument and is generally horrible to everyone, without even meaning to be aggressive.

In the cases of the two examples I discussed, the intent was to validate the two aggressors' personal senses of superiority by invalidating someone else. People do that all the time. We are not all that different from chickens, and we too have pecking orders.

When someone does something that they know is not acceptable in terms of basic courtesy and they do it anyway, they are deciding they have priority over the other person. Sometimes there's a reason for that other than aggression. A lot of times, there isn't.

And like so much of language and human behavior, context is all.

Some recent, more academic but still sensible discussions:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-life/201011/microaggressions-more-just-race

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression.aspx

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370078/microaggression-alec-torres

Keep in mind my personal bias. I think Sapir-Whorf were on to something, and that language does shape thought.

There's a point where people take this stuff to absurd lengths, but if you look at the middle range of the spectrum, there's a lot we can do better about how we interact with others.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Perhaps some relevance may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Face-threatening_acts

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that article. It takes me back to the dark ages, and my college days, when I took one class in sociology and vowed to never take another.

The ability to take simple ideas and couch them in academic jargon and confusing sentence structure, so that they seem to be deep and weighty philosophical matters is impressive.

Also, to me, unintentionally hilarious.

Negative face was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction--i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition". . .

. . . At the same time, she characterized negative face by the desire not to be imposed upon, noting that negative face could be impinged upon by imposing on someone.

Click to expand...

World-class stuff.

rugcat said:

Thanks for posting that article. It takes me back to the dark ages, and my college days, when I took one class in sociology and vowed to never take another.

The ability to take simple ideas and couch them in academic jargon and confusing sentence structure, so that they seem to be deep and weighty philosophical matters is impressive.

Also, to me, unintentionally hilarious.

World-class stuff.

Click to expand...

I have to give them credit for trying not to coin classical portmanteaus for every concept they think they have created.

Face-threatening is better than Prosopapeily.

AW Admin said:

There's a thing that happens when term of art/jargon enters the public sphere where it can evolve in meaning. This is the nature of language.

Click to expand...

Okay, but that's why I'm trying to disentangle these meanings, because an example of clearly intentional and malicious rudeness is different from an example of thoughtlessness with no ill intent, or worse, an innocent comment that is given a dubiously offensive interpretation.

Any situation in which someone is offended, you're entitled to say so and engage the offender in a good-faith effort to prevent future offenses, but the situations you're talking about are ones where the offender clearly meant to offend; the situations I'm talking about are ones where the offender didn't, and in some cases, it's reasonable to doubt the reasonableness of the offended party.

I also fail to see how using the label "microaggression" is helpful in either case, particularly if it doesn't even distinguish between them.

Amadan said:

Okay, but that's why I'm trying to disentangle these meanings, because an example of clearly intentional and malicious rudeness is different from an example of thoughtlessness with no ill intent, or worse, an innocent comment that is given a dubiously offensive interpretation.

Click to expand...

Well part of the problem is one person's innocence is another person's thoughtlessness.

That's the part where privilege comes in.

If you've always been in the majority when it comes to cultural expectations and social norms, then considering other people's perspectives rather than relying on stereotypes suddenly seems like an unfair burden. To such a person, relying on the stereotypes and prejudices is "innocent".

Liosse de Velishaf said:

However you may feel about the jargon involved, I think it does do a good job of explaining the issue at hand.

Click to expand...

It very well might. I'm afraid I can't judge whether it does or not because I can't follow it.

kuwisdelu said:

Well part of the problem is one person's innocence is another person's thoughtlessness.

That's the part where privilege comes in.

If you've always been in the majority when it comes to cultural expectations and social norms, then considering other people's perspectives rather than relying on stereotypes suddenly seems like an unfair burden. To such a person, relying on the stereotypes and prejudices is "innocent".

Click to expand...

Without having a specific instance to discuss, I agree that sometimes that is the case. However, I'd also argue that the mere fact that a less privileged person perceives offense is not de facto proof that privilege was exercised and offense was given. But that runs against SJ orthodoxy and the theory of microaggressions.

Amadan said:

However, I'd also argue that the mere fact that a less privileged person perceives offense is not de facto proof that privilege was exercised and offense was given.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd agree.

But that runs against SJ orthodoxy and the theory of microaggressions.

Click to expand...

I don't think it does.

The Otter said:

Yeah, my understanding of microaggressions (based on how the word is usually used) is that they're generally unintentional, or that intent has nothing to do with it. There is nothing "micro" about an individual deliberately causing discomfort or hurt to someone they perceive as an inferior; that's plain old bigotry.

The classic example of a microaggression, on the other hand, is the tendency of white people to use "articulate" as a compliment for black people. It's generally meant in a positive way, and there may be no prejudice involved, even subconsciously. But taken as an overall pattern it carries the subtle, condescending implication that there's something unusual about an articulate black person.

Click to expand...

This was my understanding as well. I'm wondering if I have it wrong. Your example of microagression is exactly how I see it. The intentional jerk-behavior is bigotry.

Here's another example of what I see as a microaggression: Black women with less-than-"authentic" black hair get compliments on how pretty their hair is. (Nevermind that people seem to want to touch it.) The implication is that it's pretty "for a black woman," i.e., "Oh my gosh, it's not an afro!" But no, they're only saying it's PRETTY. It's a compliment. They don't intend to say that they think it's pretty because it doesn't look like, yanno, "black-people's hair." There is no ill-intent. But the reason it draws their attention is because it doesn't look like "black people's hair."

It's micro. No one is taunting or ridiculing or being a bigot. But for the people going through it, it's an aggression.

Amadan said:

But that runs against SJ orthodoxy and the theory of microaggressions.

Click to expand...

Social justice may have co-opted the term, but many self-described social justice adherents are misusing the term, as they do so many others.

Chrissy said:

But for the people going through it, it's an aggression.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the context part.

Part of context is who the participants in the conversation are, and how intimate/not intimate/hostile they are, and the possible perceptions around class and hierarchy in a socio-political context.

Note that "you have pretty hair" is actually a very different thing from "I love your hair!" said with a smile and in passing while in motion.

I have noticed I get a happy smile if I mention to a woman as I pass on the sidewalk or in a hallway "I love your hair," or "your sweater."

It is a different thing for a man to do this, because of the social and hierarchy implications.

Chrissy said:

But the reason it draws their attention is because it doesn't look like "black people's hair."

It's micro. No one is taunting or ridiculing or being a bigot. But for the people going through it, it's an aggression.

Click to expand...

And I would tie in here that people are curious creatures and when something breaks the norms we have established in our minds we ask questions. How those questions are asked (or whether they should at all) is where issues can arise.

I taught in a rural area for a few years and it's cultural differences that brought up many of these (seemingly) unintentional offensive remarks. The best way to combat them for me was to point out that any particular thing they did or didn't like was not their problem and wasn't affecting them in the slightest...and if it happened again mom/dad's getting a call home (which sometimes just made things worse because they would be even more offensive, but you do what you can).

AW Admin said:

Note that "you have pretty hair" is actually a very different thing from "I love your hair!" said with a smile and in passing while in motion.

I have noticed I get a happy smile if I mention to a woman as I pass on the sidewalk or in a hallway "I love your hair," or "your sweater."

It is a different thing for a man to do this, because of the social and hierarchy implications.

Click to expand...

I've noticed it also doesn't go over well when directed at bald men. They (We) assume sarcasm.

especially when you also get "i love your sweater" when you're shirtless at the beach, am i right?

William Haskins said:

especially when you also get "i love your sweater" when you're shirtless at the beach, am i right?

Click to expand...

Gets right up there with asking a woman when is the baby due, when she's not pregnant.

caw

blacbird said:

Gets right up there with asking a woman when is the baby due, when she's not pregnant.

caw

Click to expand...

My wife is pregnant and she hates that. This actually fits well because even though she is pregnant and other people are curious it, you don't have to ask because it's not your freaking kid.

What my wife hates the most is that when some people ask (particularly older women) they also try to touch her belly. She gets so pissed that people are touching her and I agree it's an unwanted action that people have no dire reason to do. Actually they don't have a reason at all, they just want to touch and it's one of those, "what makes you think you can touch me?" areas.

William Haskins said:

especially when you also get "i love your sweater" when you're shirtless at the beach, am i right?

Click to expand...

I hate when that happens to me!

blacbird said:

Gets right up there with asking a woman when is the baby due, when she's not pregnant.

caw

Click to expand...

I hate when that happens to me!