With the recent Stop Asian Hate movement and the conviction of Derek Chauvin, I think it's a good
time to talk about microaggressions. "He's making it up right..." "Wait back up, how do you know that he's gay?"
"Gay men know designers, straight men don't!" "Oh unpopular Vietnam was..." "I'm not Vietnamese, I'm American."
"Of course you are..." But the point of this video is not to decide whether focusing on microaggressions
is good or bad, because i think we're very unclear and divided on what actually counts
as a microaggression. There was a TikTok i saw the other day where a white woman was recommending
buckwheat noodles as a healthier pasta alternative, and i watched the whole video because i love food
content and i was curious about what the recipe was. After the video was done i scrolled down to
the comment section to see if anyone had tried out her recipe and i was honestly so surprised
to see a lot of people attacking her. Here, I'll play the beginning of the TikTok for you.
"I am always on the hunt for healthier pasta alternatives, and buckwheat noodles are one
of my favorite-- they look like little worms, but they taste so good you can get them 100
buckwheat, so then they're celiac friendly. Or you can get them with a bit of wheat flour in them."
So people were upset at her for promoting microaggressions by comparing the noodles
to little worms. And i understand the reasons people are giving as someone who grew up eating
asian lunches in Western school environments, I know how awkward and unsettling it can feel to be
enjoying your chive bao ze in class, and then hearing your classmates go "Ew... what is that smell?"
or being asked one too many times how dog tastes. Comparing buckwheat noodles to little worms
might further contribute to this idea that asian food is outworldly or not normal.
But then why didn't Iget triggered by this TikTok? Well because i think they look like little
worms too. When she said that phrase I interpreted it as a descriptive observation. Perhaps even
a way to reassure skeptics by validating their skepticism like, "I know it may not look the most
appetizing, but trust me you should try it." Now this example is not me trying to argue that I am right
but rather I want to show how differently people can conceptualize microaggressions. Some people
found it a microaggression others like me did not. I think what we need to do then is backtrack
and discuss what is a microaggression before we can make any value judgments on this topic.
After reading and listening to a lot of different definitions for the term
microaggression, here are the necessary conditions I picked out in order for something to be one.
One, it is discriminatory insulting or hostile on the grounds of some identity such as gender,
race, religion, sexual, orientation, disability, class, you know the list. Two, they are subtle in some way
either in its briefness or sense of commonality. Like, oh, this is something I've heard people say
a lot so i'm not gonna think twice about it. Three. their subtlety means that intent doesn't matter
and in fact, the focus usually is on the unintentional. Now someone might disagree with
the intent doesn't matter part. I mean doesn't justice rely on taking intentions into account?
Isn't that why an accidental car crash is not nearly as bad as an intentional one well?
The thinking behind microaggressions is that the subtlety makes intent ambiguous. The person
on the receiving end has to try and figure out what the microaggressor meant by their words or
actions and will often try to justify the microaggressors actions to make it okay. Maybe
thinking "Oh they probably didn't mean that" or "They were trying to say something nice so it's okay
i should let them off the hook" when really it's the microaggressor that should be apologizing
The fact that microaggressions are subtle and ambiguous means that we should always assume
potential microaggressions are microaggressions in order to avoid ever invalidating any victims.
Not saying this is the right approach but it's definitely the most popular way of thinking. Okay
so let's test a couple potential microaggressions against these conditions. Starting with: "No, but
where are you really from?" Is it discriminatory, insulting, or hostile towards some identity?
Yes, it's hinting that because you don't look like the dominant race or ethnicity
you must be an outsider. Is it subtle? Yep. "I'm just curious about your background...
The same way i'd ask anyone else where they were from." Does intent matter? No.
If you don't believe an asian person who tells you they're from Toronto, and have to
further ask no but where are you really from your biases at play whether you're aware of it or not.
Okay, so that's a microaggression. What about this one? "You look so pretty for a trans woman!"
Is it discriminatory, insulting, or hostile against some identity? Yeah, you're implying that trans
women aren't supposed to be pretty. Is it subtle? "What, I was complimenting her! I called her pretty."
Does intent matter? Well the fact that you had to add on for a trans woman means bias is at play,
whether conscious or not. So no, intent doesn't matter. Now those two are more commonly heard
phrases that most people would agree are microaggressions. But what about the following?
"Hi guys!!" Is it discriminatory, insulting, or hostile towards some identity? Well you could say it's
insinuating that males are the best gender or the only gender that actually counts as persons which
is sexist the same way defaulting to man instead of human or he instead of she or they is. So
check, I guess is it. Subtle? Yep, it's a very brief comment and one of the most commonplace phrases to
exist. If there's one phrase that's difficult to call problematic it's: "hi guys" given that it's so
common. I'm guessing people who say "hi guys" aren't secretly thinking "I hate women and trans and
non-binary people thus i will refer to everyone as guys" so it definitely can be unintentional.
But "hi guys" doesn't feel like a microaggression or as much as "No but where are you really from?" or "You
look pretty for a trans woman" but why not it seems to satisfy all three necessary conditions that we
said define microaggression? Perhaps because the term guys has become quite gender neutral so we
don't really have to wonder whether there's some subconscious malicious intent when people use it.
The phrase "hi guys" is so commonplace that everyone uses it and so no one is offended by it.
Except, there are people who are offended by it. "This is heteronormative and not inclusive at all
and be honest and to level with the viewers, being a good self-conscious modern person
demands and requires us to live up to a standard of inclusivity." Even though the term guys has
evolved beyond a male connotation and even though the people who should be offended i.e
women and non-binary people are largely not, the harmful origin as to why we default to
guys still seems to matter. I think then this will help clarify what we mean by insulting or hostile.
For microaggressions, these terms are focused on structural discrimination it's not about whether
you hurt or didn't hurt me. It's about whether you strengthen discriminatory structures and norms.
Which is why even if my grade 7 crush tells me "You're not like other girls..."
and 12 year old me is like "Oh my god!!" It's still considered a microaggression. The
victim's lack of individual hurt doesn't change the structural ideas that my crush is feeding
into. Okay then, the next question is which structures do we care about?
In 2010, two students from Columbia University started a blog called the Microaggressions Project.
And in 2014 someone accused a lesbian of committing a microaggression because she said
"I don't date bisexuals, they're never faithful" When i first read this comment my instinct
was yeah, of course. this is a microaggression. They're generalizing an entire group in a way
that contributes to the harmful stereotype of bi people being promiscuous and unloyal just because
they like two genders. But then i asked myself, do I react the same way to comments like "I don't date
straight guys all they want is sex." It's the same format of coming to a negative conclusion about an
entire group through generalizing some negative attribute. But honestly, I don't feel the same
annoyance as I did when the shaming was towards bi people. Because I don't classify straight guys
as a marginalized group, I was much more accepting of this negative generalization.
So... microaggressions only count if they're directed towards historically oppressed groups? But wait,
several readings i looked into cited helping elderly people as potential microaggressions.
For instance, you try to be kind and help an old lady cross the street when she actually didn't
need that help. Or you see a boomer struggling with the self-checkout machine and so you go over to
try and explain how to use it when in reality they were just struggling to find their credit card. The
claim is that assuming people of older age need help assumes that they are less capable and that
is a microaggression. But the elderly are not a historically oppressed group they're respected by
many cultures and there's an expectation to take special care of our grandparents. It seems they're
vulnerable in another way physically weaker and more prone to health problems. So microaggressions
only count if they're targeted towards people who are vulnerable? But everyone is vulnerable in some
way. So, where do we draw that line? I'm going to be honest, right now it seems like the line is drawn
between vulnerabilities society cares about, and vulnerabilities we don't. We care a lot about the
"No, but where are you really from but people?" But being shocked at Susan Boyle having a beautiful voice
is not seen as a problem. And this is not to say majoritarian decision making is bad. It's just
important to acknowledge that that is what we're doing. At this point, is anybody wondering what
the difference is between a microaggression and a misunderstanding misunderstanding? A failure
to understand something correctly often due to missing facts or misinformation around intentions.
Okay, so you're a white person who grew up in a predominantly white area. All the people of
color that you've met or seen on TV speak poor to no English. Suddenly you go to University and you
meet an indian student who speaks perfect english. "Wow, your english is so good!" You tell them now.
Does this situation satisfy the definition of a misunderstanding? Were you missing facts? Yes. Nearly
nothing in your life gave you empirical evidence to believe that there were lots of people of color
who speak good or perfect English. Was there a miscommunication about intentions? Again, yes. You
think you are giving a compliment when you tell the student your English is so good, and what you
failed to understand correctly was how backhanded that compliment was. This has met the conditions
of what it means to be a misunderstanding. Then what's the difference between this scenario and
someone misreading a text causing them to show up two hours late to a date? Well I think because
as awful as it is to be late to a date, I don't mistakenly read 2pm as 4pm because I unconsciously
think black people are dangerous. It's just because i'm freaking dyslexic or something.
It seems then that microaggressions are a specific type of misunderstanding and they point to a
harmful source behind these misunderstandings to justify why we should treat them differently than
say misunderstanding a question on a test. It's weird though. We've established that
microaggressions are insulting or hostile actions or words that feed into structural problems, and
the fact that so many microaggressions occur unintentionally is because of the structures
and systems that we live in and interact with. But they seem to still put the burden and blame
on individuals. Now should individuals make an effort to combat insulting unconscious biases?
Absolutely! 100%. But should our anger be directed towards individual
people? There's a difference between telling someone that they said something wrong, versus
perceiving that person as the main source of that wrong. Maybe it's because i've been listening to
too much Michelle Foucault, but Foucault talks about how the most effective prison is not
one where there is some single Totalian ruler who watches everyone-- think big brother in 1984.
Rather it is when a system makes everyone watch each other, leaving the system itself intact.
So what is a microaggression? It is a specific type of misunderstanding that is discriminatory,
insulting, or hostile on the grounds of some vulnerable identity that society largely
cares about. They are subtle in some way either in its briefness or its sense of commonality,
even if it is a phrase or act adopted by all. Such as "hi guys" and their subtlety means that intent
doesn't matter and in fact the focus usually is on the unintentional. Whether you think this should be
our definition of microaggressions is totally up for debate but I'm curious as to whether
you guys think... I literally just did it there. I'm curious as to whether everyone thinks "hi guys" or
comparing buckwheat noodles to little worms is a microaggression or not. If you think my definition needs fixing also please leave a comment and let me know I love talking and hearing your
thoughts and hopefully I'll chat with you guys all soon! Oh my god, I said it again... um...
Bye!
Captions by Julia M.