Microaggressions: A Chapter from The Mean Girl Handbook
If relational aggression characterizes quintessential negative female behavior, microaggressions are an especially adept tool.
This is another guest post by Nina Silander (her first is here). She is a licensed health psychologist practicing in the Veteran Affairs system. The views expressed here belong to the author and not to the VA.
[Note: So much of what Nina describes here struck me as batshit crazy that I could not prevent myself from intermittent outbursts in italics like this.]
Notes from a Microaggression Training Session
Not long ago, I participated in a virtual townhall seminar geared for employees of Veteran Affairs (VA) in my region. The purpose of this event was to “raise” employee’s conscious awareness of microaggressions in everyday workplace interactions, especially amongst coworkers. Approximately 45 VA staff across multiple disciplines (primarily within mental health and social services) participated.
The event began with an introduction to the term, which is probably familiar enough to most by now: “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” (How one unintentionally targets someone sounds like an oxymoron.) Microaggressions rest on several presumptions, including the inescapability of implicit bias, which, by the way, is a disputed term involving measures that arguably possess low reliability and lack predictive validity.
Before being led in discussion, we were then invited to self-reflect, as the facilitators led us through a quiz embedded in an article, “Are you Microaggressive? Take This Quiz and See,” written by Robin Silverman. The quiz focused primarily on workplace interactions, and each microaggression is followed by Silverman’s commentary. Endorsement of any (especially many) of these items presumably suggests microaggressive tendencies, and therefore harboring prejudiced attitudes. Of course, I cannot help but share with you my own commentary in response to each of these microaggressions. Are you microaggressive? Let’s find out! (And it works best if we assume the worst of you as we go.)
[Each of these were considered microaggressions by the discussion leader. Nina is being far too forgiving. Calling these any type of “aggression” is so loony only a person with graduate degrees or a vested financial interest in believing it sensible could do so. Regardless, Nina does a nice job of patiently explaining, like to a four year old, which is apparently what is necessary, why these are not microaggressions].
1. When I go in to a meeting with my team, I always sit in the same chair.
Humans are creatures of habit, and we are biased towards what is familiar, including stimuli unrelated to other people (e.g., I always pick the same church pew, not because of who is nearby but because it’s the same pew, and it doesn’t often occur to me to sit in another one). The obvious explanation here seems to be the best one, a la Occam’s razor. Maybe you’re microaggressing the bathroom by always loading the new toilet paper role in the same direction. (And you are definitely doing so if the hanging end is facing the back, by the way!)
2. I have made assumptions about clients or colleagues that have been proven wrong.
You might make different assumptions about a colleague wearing a Gadsden flag versus a “No H8” button, and your assumptions probably won’t be far off-base (e.g., one of these is more likely to have been COVID-vaccinated than the other). But how sinister of you for doing so! Our first impressions may often be based on stereotypes, and interestingly, the research on stereotypes suggests that they are surprisingly accurate in preliminary assessment—and best updated by obtaining individuating (personalizing) information (Thank you, Lee!). And it is certainly important to seek out that information. Silverman, nonetheless, calls on people to “not assume anything,” period. And let’s not forget that while microaggressions allegedly “communicate” messages, assumptions do not necessarily communicate at all.
[It is literally impossible to “not assume anything.” Imagine “not assuming” that the person is in the room with you, or that they are alive, or that they are there for whatever the purpose of the meeting is. I mean, people may sometimes assume too much, but “don’t assume anything” is a correction-of-the-absurd].
3. Even if I don’t say anything, I sometimes judge others by how they look or what they’re wearing.
Silverman elaborates to say something about human beings “emitting vibrations.” I almost checked out then.
[When I read this, this was my reaction:]
Anyway, sometimes people’s appearances can provide some information. Especially for clinicians who are trained to observe and collect this information during evaluations. Again, a stereotype is not the end all be all, but in situations that preclude individual-specific information, we can tentatively utilize information we do have. Bear with me while I reach for my cat-of-nine-tails so I can flog myself. In all seriousness though, yellow flags based on how a healthcare provider is groomed and dressed could have consequence for patients’ healthcare, requiring some discernment and perhaps intervention (e.g., showing up very disheveled and swaying with bloodshot eyes could suggest inebriation).
4. I have flat out told people they are wrong.
There is often room for subjectivity and opinions, which can be debated and negotiated. However, some things are simply wrong. Fortunately, Silverman acknowledges this but still suggests that you should just let the person know you “want to hear more” (about what they’re wrong about). If a fellow healthcare provider does not document a visit in the electronic medical record, that would be wrong. If a provider willfully engages in sexual conduct with a client, that would be wrong too. Some situations need not be hedged with time-consuming exploratory dialogue. Also, I’m sure Silverman, among many other microaggressions proponents, would tell me I am flat out wrong about them.
[Science is, in large part, the business of telling people they are wrong. Think: old Earth, heliocentric solar system, evolution, Big Bang, and, in far smaller ways, half the stuff I post here].
5. I often look at or reply to messages on my phone when I am with others.
The use of electronics during this digital age is indeed (almost) ubiquitous, especially amongst adolescents and young adults; we agree there. Many people, regardless of sex or ethnicity/race will have some degree of difficulty totally avoiding phone or other electronics use when around others. As such, it’s unclear how this behavior serves to target only marginalized groups. Additionally, depending on one’s employment responsibilities, electronics use may be necessary; it is for my position, including while engaged in patient care and when colleagues are present.
6. I sometimes talk about people behind their backs, rather than discuss my criticisms with them directly.
Most people would agree that this behavior is immature and unfortunate, warranting correction. Ideally we address people directly with our concerns. Though, egregious problems (e.g., relentless sexual harassment in the workplace) may require consultation with one’s direct report off the bat, without being labeled as gossip (an otherwise prime example of relational aggression, TBC). But is this really microaggressive? And are alleged marginalized populations the only ones who are gossiped about? What about many peoples’ discomfort with and avoidance of confrontation and underdeveloped assertive communication skills?
[Nina is again very generous. I’d go much further. There are plenty of people who I will avoid like the bubonic plague but am quite happy to talk about with no moral qualms. Why would I want to expose myself to angry, vindictive, narcissists? And really, what is wrong with talking to other people to try to get some ideas about how best to deal with them? And its not just these extreme types. Sometimes it is just useful to get an outside perspective. Maybe you end up talking with the person, but maybe not. This is, sometimes, wise, not some sort of aggression.]
7. I tend to botch foreign names, so I just shorten them up to make things easier.
As Silverman acknowledged, ideally the shortening of names is mutually agreed upon. Certainly, I found it super cringy when a superior continuously failed to pronounce an employee’s two-syllable foreign last name correctly despite considerable coaching from multiple people. But I suspect many people with unusually long, unfamiliar, and ambiguously pronounced last names appreciate others’ efforts, even if a short-cut. Avoiding addressing someone by his or her name altogether would surely be worse. The best scenario would be asking for assistance with pronunciation.
8. I get along with everyone—after all, we’re pretty much all the same.
Once upon a time, universal, humanist, and Judeo-Christian values were responsible for tremendous societal improvements, like the eradication of slavery. There was an understanding that despite outward differences, we share the same fundamental human needs (e.g., belonging, understanding, control) and fundamental moral values. Appreciating our similarities more than our differences helps to reduce tribalism–necessary today perhaps more than ever. To overemphasize differences could lead to the point of dehumanizing others. And to emphasize our similarities is not to negate our differences. It seems exceedingly misguided to chastise those who look for commonalities with those who appear outwardly different! Some proponents of microaggressions and DEI have not yet resolved a Kafka trap—to observe differences is often condemned as “othering”, even “fetishizing,” while to overlook differences is to “whitewash” and “erase” minorities.
9. I consider myself color blind.
Color-blindness has only recently become a negative and controversial position (and it used to be controversial in the best way circa MLK Jr.’s “I have a dream…”). Concerningly, though necessarily, proponents of identity politics malign those who try not to treat others differently based on race. DEI and critical race theory do not work well without race-based identity politicking. Coleman Hughes’ recent debacle with TED exemplifies this well. Many, like Coleman, understandably believe that color blindness is surest way to convey respect to all ethnic/racial groups, versus the alternatives that can be actionable in law and public policy: benevolent racism (e.g., affirmative action) or nefarious racism (e.g., Jim Crow laws).
10. I have told colleagues born in other countries they speak English well.
My albeit American-born, native English-speaking husband would surely receive this one as a compliment, poor guy! First, English is known to be an especially difficult language to learn for many reasons, one of which is its irregularities. Second, I cannot think of many greater compliments than to be told by people that I learned their native tongue very well. How unfortunate it would be to not compliment someone and not acknowledge their efforts to communicate with you, a native English-speaker. For shame! Third, Silverman pulls a fast one on the reader by suggesting only later that one’s colleague may not in fact have been born in another country, and commenting on the colleague’s English proficiency signals the belief that English is the superior language. Do people seriously think like this? Maybe it relates to a whole other can of worms about the English language. But it sounds like a load of projection to me.
11. I have complimented a Black colleague on his/her intelligence.
I have the impression that people of non-black ethnic/racial backgrounds appreciate being told that they are smart. As a society, we happen to value intellectual prowess. Again, what a shame it would be to not extend the compliments to black individuals who possess braininess—out of fear of insulting them. Some minorities do find compliments offensive when associated with positive stereotypes, but 1) context matters (saying “You’re really smart” vs. “You’re really smart, for a black person” are two very different statements). And 2) when compliments are intended sincerely and build relationship, the task might be on the receivers of compliments to overcome insecurity and racial distrust.
Additionally, what of the iatrogenic effects when members of only one group never receive such praise? Imagine—all ethnic/racial group members give and receive compliments about intelligence except black people. Would that not reinforce the impression that black individuals are viewed as less-than, contrary to the Silverman’s position? Consider all the repercussions of this within families, education, and the workforce…
12. I have commented on someone else’s body or appearance to that person or others (including a compliment).
This is perhaps the saddest of them all, and I’m going to focus on compliment-giving. We all know what it’s like to have a new haircut or wear a new garment and then feel noticed when others complimented us for those changes. Simple compliments like these go such a long way in terms of building collegiality and a positive work environment, and it’s hard enough to connect with others in the workplace as it is. I would hate to be in a world where people just stopped saying (even trivially) nice things to each other. But according to Silverman, unsolicited compliments are universally disliked, thus they should only be given when requested. So she’s society’s representative apparently and saying we must now fish for compliments? When I put make-up on, I must now ask people to tell me I resemble young Meryl Streep? (I wish!) Speak for yourself, Silverman!
Maybe people who did not endorse many of these items simply had the privilege of being brought up with manners (e.g., really good at staying off one’s phone, asking for help with name pronunciation). But you might have also earned points (at least one for #12) because you have manners too. This list of ‘microaggressions’ does an especially poor job of illustrating the behaviors and statements that are actually offensive, hostile, or prejudiced. But that’s the point of microaggressions, isn’t it?
You might say that the descriptions beneath each ‘microaggression’ in the article help to contextualize them. It’s not about sitting in the same chair in the meeting room each day, it’s that one sits in the same power-denoting chair. Except, the microaggression statement itself does not specify this. Instead, it leaves room for ambiguity and overgeneralization—to plant the seed of self-doubt and to cause inference malicious intentions or moral degeneracy in others. People would likely not have perceived these occurrences negatively—until DEI trainers and researchers frame them as “microaggressions,” which, they are told, cause undeniable emotional harm and occur prevalently.
One example of a microaggression used in other educational materials is being asked countless times where one is from. As bothersome as this could be, one could easily view the question as reflecting a curious and interpersonally oriented, dare I say friendly, culture. Having spent time living in Scandinavia, I am also familiar with the opposite of this, passers-by avoiding eye contact, let alone verbalizing basic greetings (ahem, even to one’s neighbor!). Culture is also context.
Microaggressions, Women, and Relational Aggression
Okay, so what does this have to do with negative feminine traits? At the group level, men and women are represented in overlapping bell curves across many characteristics, from height to verbal and visuospatial abilities to career interests to personality traits. Men and women’s interpersonal dynamics, including displays of aggression, also differ.
Women are more likely to engage in ‘relational aggression,’ which includes gossiping, reputation destruction, and social exclusion and ostracization. Of note, this does vary cross-culturally, and women are more physically aggressive than initially thought and under certain conditions. Nonetheless, women are especially attuned to subtleties in communication—I’d argue, more likely to perceive hidden messages in everyday conversations, (over-)analyze nonverbal communication, and, for these reasons, infer the motives of others.
An evolutionary explanation suggests women do so because they are more threat sensitive and geared towards harm reduction. As such, more women than men favor censorship, and they are motivated to put others “in their place” and think others deserve what’s coming for them. This may contribute to women feeling victimized by circumstances or others’ behaviors. Interestingly, those who tend to adopt a victim mindset are likely to demonstrate the following: a need for recognition, moral elitism, lack of empathy, and rumination, the last of which coincides with neuroticism, for which women are especially predisposed.
With increasingly more women than men in academia and education, it’s unsurprising that harm reduction efforts and relational aggression are prevalent. As it is, a gender gap also exists in attitudes related to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
Microaggression education and implicit bias training serve the function of destabilizing a sense of self-agency and interpersonal effectiveness. Consequently, people feel self-doubtful and become fearful of saying and doing the wrong thing. I say this having witnessed it directly during this VA townhall. Meanwhile, proponents receive recognition for their educator roles, experience moral superiority, and feel righteous when targeting oppressive microaggressors in their midst. Those identified as requiring remedial education and training are pulled aside and made identifiable with a, dare I say, proverbial letter “B” (for bigot).
So how did that townhall on microaggressions go? At risk of the “B,” I raised a series of questions to the facilitators and other participants. No one was able to distinguish ambiguous statements from obvious insults, or explicitly acknowledge that the absence of distinction is a concern. No one responded when I asked how microaggressions differed from cognitive distortions (e.g., mind-reading, jumping to conclusions, emotional reasoning), a concept applied frequently in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). When I challenged the notion that complimenting others’ appearance is a microaggression, a facilitator shifted the goal posts, lamenting the offensiveness of having one’s hair touched (not the microaggressions in question, or in the list). The facilitators evaded any explanation about how to reconcile my cultural context commentary with microaggressions in general.
Near the end of the townhall, the facilitators asked participants about how they would respond if told that they had committed a microaggression. My initial reaction was that I would request more information from the complainant, with the goal of mutual respect and understanding. But this is a damnable response because intentions and context don’t really matter, only the alleged impact. The others’ responses, which included, “I’d say thank you!” “I’d apologize!” and “I agree, that was a good complaint,” seem coerced and exceedingly psychologically abusive. Why isn’t the accusation itself a microaggression? It’s not to say one cannot or should not apologize for a genuine wrong. But microaggressions are so frequently ambiguous, negating critical context and intent, both of which are recognized under the law (think manslaughter vs. murder). Furthermore, conflict resolution is an interpersonal negotiation!
In conclusion, the current research on microaggressions is controversial and unresolved at best. Many have challenged the construct, while proponents continue to advance its use far and wide, despite that DEI-type trainings’ outcomes do not reflect their reputational success. Ongoing psychological research helpa to disentangle prejudice and bias from benign behaviors, while considering the symbolic and contextual aspects of language.
Silverman’s article posits, “in a time of talent shortage, workplaces are diversifying more quickly than ever, and those who cannot adapt to a more cooperative, inclusive mindset could be left behind.”
[This is a douzy. Its worth pausing here just to notice. This is peak relational aggression. It says, in essence, “my way, or the rest of us good, decent folk {or is it “folx”?} will see to it that you’ll never work in this town again” under some pretty thickly self-serving aggrandizement camouflaged as benevolence. I read this and I wanted to puke because of the grotesque hypocrisy. It is "inclusion” by exclusion.]
It does leave one wondering what kind of mindset is cultivated by policing people’s behaviors and nurturing people’s sensitivity to offense. Inculcation of the victimhood mentality is certainly not healthy, even dangerous.
Of course, some comments are offensive insults, and some are insensitive and tiresome. Some reflect sincere curiosity, or discomfort with awkward silences, and others, kindness. Preserving relationships is preferrable than destroying them amid ambiguous circumstances, and some patience and benefit of the doubt go a long way—they might just be a couple of the keys to a more cooperative and hospitable future.
Thanks for this rare reasonable and thoughtful analysis.
You don’t have to participate in the fantasies of others