1
There’s Nothing Micro about It

THE TERM “MICROAGGRESSION” originated in the early 1970s with the work of Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce.¹ First applied to describe insults against Black Americans and later against women, it has now become largely accepted as a way for people to talk about a wide range of issues related to discrimination, offense, and exclusion against any marginalized group. The term itself is well known in certain circles but largely unknown to most people. It’s most used in the context of higher education, linked to a growing consciousness of students who speak up for injustices they see, including subtle verbal injustices in the classroom and on campus.

The Reaction against the Concept of Microaggressions and Our Response

In recent years, there have been varied strong negative reactions against the term microaggression and a related term, “trigger warning.”² Here we describe four common arguments.

First, people sometimes think that this is political correctness run amok. They may think that people are being policed for the small things they say, and therefore it is impossible to speak about any challenging issues. You can see this kind of reaction very strongly among conservatives, but even among many liberals and progressives, who think that sensitivity to the subtleties of language really is taking the concept of microaggression and injustice too far. One popular New York Magazine article by Jonathan Chait from a few years ago, for example, claimed that microaggressions were part of a larger politically correct stance “that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses.”³

The key idea here is that these critics are taking the “micro” part of “microaggressions” to heart, arguing that they are not a big deal compared to the more serious kinds of racism and other -isms that we recognize as problems. Explicit segregation and inequality were a big deal and are worth fighting against. But we’ve come a long way and made progress on those sorts of things. Paying attention to these seemingly little and subtle slights is just distracting and almost insulting to the real racism that existed. At least that’s how the story goes.

Second, people may argue that even if the microaggression causes harm, it is everyone’s right under free speech to say it anyway. They imagine that people fighting for social justice are literally telling people that they cannot say certain things, which they consider an assault on free speech. Groups such as Speech First have even legally challenged policies, such as the University of Michigan’s policy that convenes a group of staff to focus on “addressing incidents that may reflect bias against members of the University community based on their identity.”⁴ This challenge to the policy was supported by the Department of Justice, which released a statement saying the University of Michigan’s policy was unconstitutional.

Third, some people argue that seeing microaggressions everywhere and feeling that words can do violence actually feeds “victim culture” and makes people (especially young people) more fragile. This argument is captured in Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s controversial book, The Coddling of the American Mind.⁵ They argue that young people have been coddled—given trophies for “participation” by helicopter parents who don’t think their children can handle disappointment.

After years of that shielding, those children now have an inability to cope with negative emotions generated from disappointment or even from ideas that they don’t like. Lukianoff and Haidt further argue that young people see any ideas contrary to their own beliefs as a form of violence that needs to be limited or avoided. While the scientific argument about young people, and especially young women, having more anxiety and depression than before in recent history may be sound (and alarming), we take issue with the idea that sensitivity to subtle injustices is causing this problem and creating fragile young people.

There is empirical evidence that experiencing microaggressions takes a toll on people’s emotional well-being and physical health.⁶ However, there is no empirical evidence that we could find demonstrating that if people were ignorant of the microaggressions around them, they would be happier. And we’re not quite sure what the practical advice that would stem from that finding would even look like. “Hey kids, bury your head in the sand to the injustice around you and you’ll be happier”? We’d rather work toward trying to stop the microaggressions from happening in the first place.

And finally, others would argue that there is little scientific rigor or evidence to prove microaggressions exist and what harm they cause in the world. People would see this lack of evidence and quantitative rigor as reason to give less importance to the concept. If we can’t measure it and prove it, it can’t form the basis for policy. Scott Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Emory University, writes, for example, that the concept of microaggressions cannot be adequately defined and measured or shown to have an adverse effect on health. As such, he calls for abandoning the term “microaggression” and for “a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed microaggression lists pending research to address the [microaggression research program’s] scientific limitations.”⁷

The authors of this book both agree and disagree with some of these arguments. We do find the current climate in which it is hard to talk about sensitive issues problematic. We do want to find a way to create a culture where people can openly discuss sensitive topics, thinking more about the underlying concepts and feelings and less about the specific words that people use. However, we also agree that the subtle ways that verbal and nonverbal acts serve to exclude people have real and serious consequences, both in the moment and cumulatively.

We don’t think that the fact that we can’t boil all the subtle acts of exclusion down into one scientifically tight concept called “microaggressions” is a limitation that should stop us from addressing the range of SAE in practice. Our goal in this book is to offer a model of understanding and intervening on microaggressions that bridges the divide across polarized opinions about the concept of microaggressions itself. We think SAE can be talked about in a more open, civil way that brings people together rather than tearing people apart.

We believe that subtle acts of exclusion are a big problem and a big reason why we have not seen more progress in creating a more just and equitable society. The reason lies partly in that idea of “exclusion,” and its opposite, “inclusion.” Inclusion happens when people feel valued, respected, and part of a group. It’s used regularly in the corporate world as a key concept. When employees feel included in the organization, not only are they happier and more satisfied (which is good in itself), but they also are more productive and efficient at their jobs, are better collaborators, and stay at the company longer. This has clear implications for an organization’s bottom line, and research shows that more inclusive companies are also more profitable than their less inclusive counterparts.⁸ For all these reasons, SAE are a big deal.

When people feel excluded, the opposite is true. People may “phone it in” at their jobs, and they may even look for a different job. One of the most critical aspects of inclusion is that it must happen actively. When we just passively think of ourselves as good people but don’t do anything to actively include others, that creates passive exclusion. There are specific inclusive behaviors that everyone at an organization can learn and practice that work to create a more inclusive environment and culture at the company.

Inclusion and exclusion can happen not just in organizations, but in specific social settings or even in cultures at large. To take the example from the book’s introduction, if an African American man finds that people are consistently surprised that he can say something smart, over time, he may feel less as if people value and respect him and may feel excluded from mainstream culture. Or to take another example, if children of any demographic feel less included in schools, they are less engaged and have worse outcomes than those who feel enveloped in an atmosphere that cares for them and values them.

Subtle acts of exclusion, because they serve to diminish people, are critical to understand, identify, and address. We think there is a growing consciousness among many people, including many young people, about these subtle issues, and that, overall, is a good thing. But we need to be intentional about the way that those issues are discussed if we are to make real progress.

While having our eyes open to these subtle exclusions may not be as good for our happiness as being blissfully unaware of them, we think that’s an OK trade-off. We find plenty of social science evidence for the existence of these subtle exclusions and the consequences and repercussions of them in big and small ways. As such, rather than abandoning the concept of microaggressions, we chose to improve it, and in this book we do that by reimagining the concept, adding clarity, and proposing systems for addressing the microaggressions using a practical and concrete approach.

Why Reframe the Term “Microaggression”?

The rest of the book will be dedicated to building an understanding around the subtle acts of exclusion that people have often called microaggressions, but we first want to explain why we hope to phase out that term eventually. We find that there are two main drawbacks to this term. First, as mentioned previously, there is a lack of clarity about what microaggressions are and why they are a problem. While the term itself is becoming better known, the majority of people have not heard the term. Even those who have heard the term still do not understand the concept well. If the only problem, however, was that people just hadn’t heard the term “microaggression” or hadn’t heard what it meant, that wouldn’t be such a big deal. We’d just say, “Hey, let’s get the word out about microaggressions!” But there is a more serious problem with this term itself.

The way the term frames the issue is not helpful at all for bringing people together and helping them work on solutions. What does it mean to say the way it “frames the issue”? Terms like “microaggressions” communicate implicit, unspoken messages that are often beyond our control. We may be trying to communicate about the importance of microaggressions, but the term itself is communicating implicitly that it’s not really a big deal (just micro).

From a framing perspective, the term microaggressions is problematic in three ways. First, imagine that you have just unintentionally said something that offended someone because of their sexuality, and they say, “Can I talk to you about that microaggression?” The term itself provokes defensiveness. “I was not trying to be aggressive at all!” is most people’s first reaction. When we examine how these interactions can be handled well, defensiveness is the enemy. It stops any progress before the interaction even gets started. And the term puts people on guard by focusing on the intent as aggressive. During the course of our diversity and inclusion workshops and keynotes, we have seen that defensive reaction again and again as we tried to talk about this concept.

Second, if I was the person who was offended, the term alienates me too—by communicating that this is only a small (micro) problem. What’s the big deal, if it’s just a microaggression? The term itself excludes people, making their concerns feel small and unimportant when what we want is the exact opposite of that.

Finally, by communicating that the whole issue is “micro,” it lets everyone know that this is not something very important. Sure, we can talk about it, but it’s less important than the other topics we will address. Our previous discussion on exclusion and the following discussion on SAE specifically make clear that these issues are not micro, but extremely important—to individuals who experience them and to all of us who hope for more equitable, inclusive spaces to live, work, and play in. The issues here deserve a new term—one that clarifies rather than confuses and brings people into a civil discussion rather than alienating them.

SAE Defined: Anatomy of an SAE

We propose a new term, subtle acts of exclusion (SAE). Though perhaps not as catchy as “microaggressions,” we believe the term is much more useful because it clearly names and describes the phenomenon we are talking about. Here’s how:

1.   They are subtle. There is a wide range of acts that can insult, exclude, and harm. Many of these are obvious, and not covered in detail in this book, but many are in fact quite subtle. By calling them subtle we hope to shed light on the fact that they can be confusing, hard to identify, and challenging to speak about. We also recognize that while some of these exclusions may feel subtle to some, they may feel obvious to others, especially those who experience them again and again.

It’s important to recognize that we’re not just talking about one thing, but a whole range of interactions that can vary in seriousness and in obviousness. The subtlety of some of them can also feed into “attributional ambiguity”—the sense of anxiety created when someone with a marginalized identity is unable to discern whether something happened because of said identity or some other random factors. In this book, we will discuss the wide variety of SAE. Examples we describe will range from short, quick interactions to more substantive stories with more context and exploration.

2.   They are acts. They are things that people say and do. We don’t know what someone’s intention was in the moment, and so the term does not make assumptions about that or focus attention on that. As such, it doesn’t provoke defensiveness the way microaggressions does. By focusing on SAE as acts, the term also attempts to avoid people feeling as if their character is being judged when they initiate an SAE. Because we’re just talking about things people say and do, we can talk about why those particular things might have been a problem. And we can get better at not doing those things.

3.   They serve to exclude. Finally, the term itself names the problem—that the subtle acts create exclusion rather than inclusion. This is a problem for that individual person who is being excluded in the moment. It is also a problem for the larger culture where the repetition of these SAE reinforces and maintains systems of power, inequality, bias, and what is considered normal.

Although we focus on SAE in this book, there are certainly other forms of exclusion and discrimination in the world. Other types of exclusion may include explicit, intentional acts of exclusion and structural exclusion/inequality. Explicit acts of exclusion would be things that people do purposely to exclude, including acts that can be objectively labeled as racist, sexist, hate crimes, intimidation, etc.

Structural exclusion is also more challenging to see because it is encoded into laws and policies. A classic example is how the minimum sentence for crack cocaine has been much greater than for powdered cocaine, though they are the same substance. Because crack cocaine was more of a problem in historically African American areas of cities, the difference in minimum sentencing created a disparity in prison time and a legal way that inequalities between racial groups were maintained.

With the obvious harm being done by explicit and structural exclusion, one might wonder why we have decided to focus on subtle acts of exclusion. We have chosen to focus on SAE for several reasons. First, because in the workplace, SAE are extremely common but can be difficult to recognize, especially for those who do not consistently experience them. Explicit acts of exclusion are easily identified and addressed, but SAE are still often a mystery to those who hope to improve workplace culture and foster more inclusion. Because SAE are often hard to recognize, they are also challenging to speak up about, and people often do not respond to them.

Additionally, we believe that SAE can often be addressed productively by those people directly involved in the moment. As such, we find that a book that can serve as a guide to help navigate the complexity of those interactions can be extremely useful. Finally, we find SAE to be particularly devious because of the way people can easily deny harm and because of the way they are often framed as just an individual insulting or offending another individual. Subtle acts of exclusion serve insidiously to reinforce bias (including unconscious bias) and subtle systems of power and hegemony (fancy word that means dominance and control but by cultural ideas rather than by direct violence). Subtle acts of exclusion need deep understanding, and we aim to bring it.

In this book, we focus much attention on workplaces. Inclusion and belonging are critical elements of effective workplaces, and organizations are beginning to understand that more and more. Organizations have a unique potential to make change by requiring or recommending wholesale adoption of the awareness and guidelines described in this book in an intentional way. However, this book can be used by anyone to improve inclusion in any context—in schools, in medical facilities, on sports teams, and with friends and family in everyday life.

As a key component to building deep understanding around SAE, we set out to develop a framework, or taxonomy, for identifying what each SAE was implicitly communicating. For example, when someone asks a Filipino man, “So, like—what are you?” on the surface they are just being curious and asking a question. However, implicitly, under the surface, they are communicating, “You are not normal,” or “You are a curiosity.”

We systematically thought about all the examples of SAE that we had heard about during interviews, experienced ourselves, observed, read about, and studied. We looked across them all and came up with a concise framework for SAE that covers the wide range that exists. Subtle acts of exclusion communicate these implicit messages to the recipient and to everyone around. Identifying the type of SAE and how it is serving to exclude can be helpful for being able to speak up about it.

The framework provides us with a language for describing why a particular SAE is a problem. You said one thing, but what you were implicitly communicating to me was something quite different. Many SAE can be communicating multiple types of exclusion at the same time. Yet we feel that this list accounts for the wide range of SAE that we examined across many different dimensions of diversity (gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, age, disability, and religion).

FRAMEWORK OF SAE TYPES:

▶   You are invisible.

▶   You (or people like you) are inadequate.

▶   You are not an individual.

▶   You don’t belong.

▶   You are not normal.

▶   You are a curiosity.

▶   You are a threat.

▶   You are a burden.

As mentioned, SAE often happen when people are trying to be good people. They slip out when people have good intentions, trying to

▶   compliment: “You’re so professional,”

▶   be curious: “Where are you really from?”

▶   show comfort: “You’re from Jamaica? I love Bob Marley!” and

▶   be funny: “Can we get el mucho discounto?”

One of the reasons it’s so easy for SAE to slip out when people have good or benign intentions is that we all have unconscious (or implicit) biases. These are associations, assumptions, and expectations that we hold about certain groups of people without even necessarily being aware of it. Most people explicitly would say that boys and girls have equal potential to excel in science and math. And yet, researchers can demonstrate that the brain is subconsciously thinking something different from that. That unconscious bias can lead to all sorts of problematic decisions, behaviors, and subtle acts of exclusion.

Much has been written about the science of unconscious biases⁹ as well as their implications for work and everyday life.¹⁰ In this book, we focus on the resulting SAE and what to do about it, with the aspiration that addressing the SAE will not only impact observable behaviors but also the underlying bias itself.

Our recommendations for improving how we discuss SAE and for reducing their occurrence in the long run are based on deep understanding and simple guidelines rather than memorizing a list or surface-level scripts. The main idea is that we want people to be comfortable discussing SAE in a productive way when they happen. We encourage people to practice doing that, and in this book we give examples throughout of how to put these principles into action.

To describe the recommendations, we need a common language for talking about the actors in each scenario where SAE are happening.

▶   Let’s call the person or group that is excluded by the SAE the subject. The subject can be present when the SAE happens, or might not be.

▶   Let’s call the person who says or who nonverbally does the SAE the initiator.

▶   Anyone who overhears or sees the SAE will be called an observer. An observer has a very important role and is highly encouraged to speak up. In fact, an observer can shift from an observer to an ally by addressing the SAE through the process described in the following chapters.

▶   Once an observer speaks up, they become an ally.

▶   An observer who chooses not to speak up is a bystander.

This observer role is especially important, as it can take some of the burden off the SAE subjects, who may face significant repercussions for speaking up about SAE when they happen. African American women, for example, risk being stereotyped as “the angry Black woman” when they speak up about SAE that happen. Having an ally speak up can at least spread some of that burden around. That being said, observers may feel that it is not their place to speak up if they weren’t the subject of the subtle act of exclusion. And sometimes, that may be true. Each situation is extremely complex, with many factors to consider. There is not one right way to handle every situation. But in general, this book aims to contribute to the discussion of what it means to be an ally. An ally is not someone you can be by just supporting people in your head. It requires a certain kind of everyday activism that includes speaking up when you observe SAE. If we all take responsibility, we can make much more progress together than if we wait for offenses to happen only to us before speaking up.

In the following three chapters, we describe in more detail what to do to reduce SAE and to speak up about them when they happen. We describe what individuals can do and also what people in organizations can do to support these efforts. Then, in chapters 5 through 9, we delve deeper into some (not all) of the dimensions along which SAE commonly occur. We give real life examples from scenes we have witnessed or stories that people have told us. We acknowledge that these issues are incredibly complicated, that each SAE situation is unique. Nonetheless, we invite you to lean into the complexity and explore with us.