A Look at Both Sides of Microaggressions
At Providence Day School there has been a recent focus on microaggression theory, which has left many people with reservations, unanswered questions, or feelings of doubt.
A microaggression is defined as the degradation or otherwise ambiguous behavior that an individual belonging to a socially marginalized group receives. Common examples of these are: “I don’t see color”, “where are you really from?”, or comments such as “that’s so gay”. Other frequently perpetuated examples are behaviors such as a person clutching their purse or wallet as a person of color walks by.
Instances of microaggressions have been divided into three categories. The first, ‘microassault’, entails purposeful discriminatory behavior. The second is ‘microinsult’, which is a communication that can come across as racially insensitive or rude. This category of microaggression is often delivered without the conscious knowledge of the perpetrator. The final main category is ‘microinvalidation’, an interaction that either excludes or nullifies the thoughts and feelings of the member of a marginalized group. There are also multiple subcategories of microaggressions that not only apply to race, but also to gender, sexual orientation, religion, and mental illness.
At Providence Day, this topic has been stressed by many members of the community very frequently during the past year. Student-run organizations such as the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) and the Black Student Union (BSU) have spoken to the entire high school student body, as well as to individual groups in an effort to inform and educate them. However, while many feel that this issue is prevalent, there are an equal number of students and parents who do not see microaggressions as frequent or pertinent to PDS, many of whom feel that it has been stressed too strongly recently.
A student survey from December conveys that out of the 281 students that responded, 49.8% voiced that they had been the recipient of a microaggression at PDS. This suggests that microaggressions are prevalent according to a fair amount of students in the Providence Day environment.
Although not individually harmful under most circumstances, the effects of microaggressions are cumulative. While an individual microaggression might not impact the recipient negatively, the perpetuation of this occurrence could lead to several negative health effects. For instance, researchers have found that regular recipients of microaggressions are susceptible to higher rates of anxiety and depression, although the vailidity of these results is still disputed.
There have been recent estimates that the average person of color receives an average of 291 interactions that fit under the term ‘microaggression’ in a three month period. This equates to approximately three microaggressions per day on average. This high frequency of occurrence accumulates, forcing the recipient of these interactions to constantly scrutinize and interpret the intent of those around them. This helps to explain why there are several possible negative health effects stemming from microaggressions.
Several common arguments are made by those who feel microaggression theory is an overreaction is not effective in accomplishing its goals of fostering an accepting environment for everyone. For example, a frequent point made by anti-microaggression theory advocates is that it restricts the first amendment right of freedom of speech by restricting what can be said in work and classroom environments. A supporting view to this argument concurs that the policies inspired by this theory could become an “elephant in the room”. This is a result of the encouragement to carefully scrutinize any thought one may have before they vocalize it, which makes some who are deemed ‘privileged’ feel that they are always in the wrong.
Another aspect of microaggressions that elicits criticism is the tendency of those in support of the theory to publicly shame the perpetrators of these common errors. An example of using shame as a weapon is publically accusing someone of being a racist, when it’s possible that they didn’t intend the negative connotations associated with what they said. This has negative impacts on both sides of the argument. A person committing this behavior or interaction is more likely to react with hostility or defensive nature when they are shamed rather than engaged. Consequently, those in favor of introducing a more welcoming environment would benefit from careful and meaningful engagement to reach a common ground, rather than negative shaming.
Although there are some critics who do not believe in microaggression theory as a whole, there are also many who agree with its message, but do not see the term as apt. Some critics argue that the term ‘microaggression’ isn’t suited to its intended purpose. They make this argument because the word ‘aggression’ in the term can sometimes be misinterpreted or confusing, which raises tension between both sides of the interaction, as some are often well intended and unaggressive in nature.
Supporters of microaggression theory, as well as the recipients of these interactions, make several arguments acknowledging the other viewpoint’s reservations. One source indicates that microaggressions are not the same thing as an actual aggression, and subsequently shouldn’t be treated the same. However, microaggressions are impactful as a result of the precedent set by real aggressions. Violent interactions based on race or other demographics are what give the implications of microaggressions their gravity.
A supporting viewpoint concurs, recognizing that advocates for microaggression theory are occasionally criticized for ‘overreacting’ or being ‘sensitive’. They utilize an analogy, saying that although they might occasionally ‘jump at the shadows’, it’s been their experience that shadows usually belong to something. To elucidate, while not all conversations possess malicious intent, there are others that are intended to be purposefully hurtful or discriminatory.
Both sets of viewpoints have their own arguments and opinions; however, in order to make progress towards a welcoming and comfortable environment that both sides have expressed a desire and need for, it is necessary to reach a common understanding. After all, the theory itself is rooted in empathy. Recipients of microaggressions want their voices to be heard, not to be recognized as victims.
This growing stress upon the implementation of microaggression theory and a subsequent call for greater mindfulness in society and the PD environment is ultimately about empowering the disempowered. An immediate change in the culture and environment at the school isn’t feasible; there are still many with reservations about the movement. Educating the community as a whole, however, is the means to reach a balance.
While those who strongly advocate the cause might take offense that this article does not push the issue more, it must be understood that a quick change is something very hard and unlikely to achieve. A forced and expedited movement would only make those who have doubts feel more intruded upon. Small steps are the key. Much like the effects of microaggressions are cumulative, small moments of education in mindfulness can eventually stack up to a larger change. Therefore, while a single large step is not likely, small strides will eventually reach a comfortable place for everybody.
Regular recipients of microaggressions are susceptible to higher rates of anxiety and depression.
By Adam Burke
A person committing this behavior or interaction is more likely to react with hostility or defensive nature when they are shamed rather than engaged.
The front entrance to Providence Day School.
A distressed man holds his head in his hands. Photo courtesy of russivia.
A public confrontation between people with two opposing viewpoints. Courtesy of David Shankbone.
The Charger, March 2017
Back to Table of Contents