Derald Wing Sue - Microaggressions in Everyday Life

Since the presidential election in 2016, implicit racist views among Americans have become more explicit. We might attribute this phenomenon to Trump's frequent and public expression of racist views (e.g., referring to Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals, and rapists). University of Chicago economist Leonardo Bursztyn (2017) and his colleagues found support for this trend via research on social norms around xenophobia. They found that those with xenophobic views were more willing to express their views publicly after Trump was elected into office. They did not find an increase in xenophobic views among participants. In other words, when a leader publicly states xenophobic views, those views are rendered more publicly acceptable to citizens who hold such views.

While hate crimes and racial, gender, and sexual‐orientation harassment continue to be committed by overt racists, sexists, and heterosexists, perhaps the greatest harm to persons of color, women, and LGBTQ individuals does not come from these conscious perpetrators. It is not the White supremacists, Klansmen, or skinheads, for example, who pose the greatest threat to people of color but rather well‐intentioned people, who are strongly motivated by egalitarian values, who believe in their own morality, and who experience themselves as fair‐minded and decent people who would never consciously discriminate (D. W. Sue, 2005). Because no one is immune from inheriting societal biases, all citizens are exposed to a social conditioning process that imbues within them prejudices, stereotypes, and beliefs that lie outside their level of awareness. On a conscious level, they may endorse egalitarian values, but on an unconscious level, they harbor either pro‐majority feelings (Dovidio et al., 2002) or anti‐minority feelings (D. W. Sue, 2003).

Although much has been written about contemporary forms of discrimination, many studies in health care, education, law, employment, mental health, and social settings (including social media) indicate the difficulty of describing and defining implicit racial, gender, and sexual‐orientation bias; such biases are difficult to identify, quantify, and rectify because of their subtle, nebulous, and unnamed nature (Johnson, 1988; Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010; Rowe, 1990; Selmi, 2017; D. W. Sue, Nadal, et al., 2008). Subtle racism, sexism, and heterosexism remain relatively invisible and potentially harmful to the well‐being, self‐esteem, and standard of living of members of many marginalized groups in society. Because these “everyday” (Essed, 1991) common experiences of marginalization, hostility, and invalidation tend to be chronic, they may have significantly more influence on anger, frustration, and self‐esteem than overt forms of racism, sexism, and heterosexism (D. W. Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). Furthermore, their invisible nature prevents perpetrators from realizing and confronting their own complicity in creating psychological dilemmas for people of color, women, and LGBTQ persons and their role in creating disparities in employment, health care, and education (Coleman, 2004; Dovidio et al., 2002; Lane, Kang, & Banaji, 2007; Rowe, 1990).

In reviewing the literature on subtle and contemporary forms of bias, the term “microaggressions” seems to best describe the phenomenon in its everyday occurrence. Simply stated, microaggressions are brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership (e.g., people of color, women, or LGBTQ persons). See Chapter 1for the origin of the term “microaggressions” and a more comprehensive definition.

In the world of business, the term “microinequities” is used to describe the pattern of being overlooked, disrespected, and devalued because of one's race or gender (Hinton, 2004). Similar to microaggressions, microinequities are often delivered unconsciously as subtle snubs or dismissive looks, gestures, and tones (Rowe, 1990). These exchanges are so pervasive and automatic in daily conversations and interactions that they are often dismissed and glossed over as being innocent and innocuous. Yet, as indicated previously, microaggressions are detrimental to persons of color and members of other marginalized groups because they impair performance in a multitude of settings by sapping the psychic and spiritual energy of recipients and by creating inequities (D. W. Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007).

The mechanisms by which microaggressions can be delivered may be verbal, nonverbal, or environmental. In contrast to microaggressions, which reside in an indivdual’s biased worldview within a macro‐context of power and oppression, macroaggressions reside in institutional or societal policies and practices. To extend our earlier thinking, we introduce the term “environmental macroaggression” to refer to the numerous demeaning and threatening social, educational, political, or economic cues that are communicated individually, institutionally, or societally to marginalized groups. Environmental macroaggressions may be delivered visually (Pierce, Carew, Pierce‐Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978) and may derive from racial color‐blindness (Purdie‐Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, & Crosby, 2008; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanches‐Burks, 2008). When people refer to the “campus climate” as hostile and invalidating, or when employees of color refer to a threatening work environment, they are probably alluding to the existence of environmental macroaggressions (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yasso, 2000). It is important to note that these cues do not necessarily involve interpersonal interactions and may be equally disturbing and more harmful than interpersonal microaggressions.

Several years ago the first author of this book was asked by an Ivy League institution to conduct diversity training related to making the university a more welcoming place for students, staff, and faculty of color. Apparently, many students of color had complained over the years that the campus climate was alienating, hostile, and invalidating. To address this observation, the university held a one‐week event with many diversity activities. Professor Sue's part was to conduct a half‐day training session with all the deans of the respective colleges.

As Professor Sue was being introduced by the coordinator, he looked around the audience and was struck by the fact that not a single dean or representative of the office was a person of color. He also noted that most were men and that women were also underrepresented. Standing before the group, he made the following observation: “As I look around the room and at the sea of faces before me, I am struck by the fact that not a single one of you seems to be a visible racial ethnic minority. Do you know the message you are sending to me and people of color on this campus?” Several participants shifted in their seats and looked at one another but remained silent.

Macroaggressions hold their power because they often send hidden, invalidating, demeaning, or insulting messages. From the perspective of students and faculty of color, the absence of administrators of color sent a series of loud and clear messages:

“You and your kind are not welcome here.”

“If you choose to come to our campus, you will not feel comfortable here.”

“If you choose to stay, there is only so far you can advance. You may not graduate (students of color) or get tenured/promoted (faculty of color).”

“You must conform and assimilate to our way of being if you want to succeed.”

When people of color and White women see an institution or organization that is primarily White or when they see that people at the upper levels of the administration or management team are primarily White and male, the message they take away is quite unmistakable and profound: The chances of doing well at this institution are stacked against them (Ahmed, 2012; Bonilla‐Silva, 2006; Inzlicht & Good, 2006). Linking microaggressions to health disparities for Black Americans, Gómez (2015) explained, “[M]icroaggressions in mental health care settings could be a form of institutional betrayal … such as an institution with no Black therapists employed … [or] lack of culturally‐responsive therapies offered” (p. 130). Similarly, gender macroaggressions can also be systemic or environmental. When women in the workplace enter a conference room where portraits of all the past male chief executives or directors are displayed, the macroaggressive message is that women are not capable of doing well in leadership positions and the “glass ceiling” is powerful. When a male colleague's office wall is filled with seductive pictures of women or when Playboy magazines are present on desks at a place of employment, women employees may feel objectified, demeaned, and unwelcomed.