In hindsight, it might have been a mistake to take a wide range of annoying interactions that are nevertheless a normal/unavoidable part of coexisting with other humans in a wildly diverse society and rebrand them as the much scarier-sounding “microaggressions”.
- Kat Rosenfield
Monday, September 20, 2021
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you interested in comments from those who respectfully disagree?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, when you ask about comments from those "who respectfully disagree" and then give a link calling me a denialist and the equivalent of an industry advocacy group hack, I think that qualifies as a microaggression.
DeleteFor example, I would categorize this tweet as a 2 of Spades.
ReplyDeletehttps://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards
At the risk of playing a 9 of clubs (or would it be a 9 of hearts), wouldn’t the above be more of an example of a 3 of hearts than a 2 of spades?
ReplyDeleteOf course, the problem with the entire deck of cards is that it is based on the premise that an actual problem always exists, when in fact there sometimes actually isn’t a problem! Or that the proposed solution might create a bigger problem. That does happen.
The fact that there might not actually be a problem means that we cannot just automatically just discard the opinion of anyone saying that there is no problem. Instead, we need to evaluate the argument to understand whether it’s accurate or disingenuous.
In this case, my evaluation would be that people are imperfect, that we often say things to other humans that are hurtful, that we often say those things not out of a desire to deliberately harm others, but because we have blind spots when it comes to how our words and actions may affect others, and because we prioritize our own well-being and ego ahead of others. Also, some people are just jerks. I think that our relationships with each other can be improved if we draw awareness to how certain statements and actions can make others’ feel. I don’t think that villainizing the actors is productive.
I completely agree with "In my case ... ahead of others.". That, plus the added notion of direction toward a socially disfavored group, is what microaggressions are. I also agree with " I think that ... is productive." That's why they are microaggressions instead of just aggressions.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, I read Kat Rosenfeld as deliberately confusing everyday annoyances that are not consistently directed toward one group with those that are. One cab passing you on the street to pick up the lighter-skinned person behind you is an minor annoyance. 6 of them doing so raises the annoyance factor considerably.
So I read the denialism piece but it is irrelevant to why I decided to post the quote and what I mean, not Kat, about it. I agree with the last paragraph of J Hench's comment. I have always tried to understand the perspective of others and to be better aware of that and I continue to do so. There are times when I've apologized for failure to do so, and times when I've advised others they should do so. There are times when I've been offended and responded and plenty of times when I thought it best to just let it roll off my back.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what we're talking about how microaggressions work in the real world. When I first heard the term several years ago I thought it odd but didn't think much else about it. Now I realize it is simply a vehicle of getting people who don't agree with your views to shut up. It's an updated version of what those who used to talk about "having a dialogue" or "conversation" really meant which was "let's have a dialogue in which I tell you what to say and think about things". It invents grievances that most people, whether "victimizer" or "victim" hadn't thought about. It's designed to bend people of goodwill to its purposes of getting us to think in an ideologically prescribed and tribal way and destructive in the long term. In the context it is being deployed it destroys the mutuality of the obligation, instead setting us against each other.
I fully agree that there are people who try to use concepts like "microaggression" as power tools. Does the ability to misuse a concept mean the fault is in the concept? After all, I've also seen terms like "merit", "inheritance", and "performance" used to tell people what they should think about the world, and try to bend people of good will into an ideological position counter to their interests. I would think an ability to separate the concept from the person using it would be important.
ReplyDeleteI'm delighted it went so well, and I hope it will continue in the future since it is so valuable and important to the community.
ReplyDelete