Subtle Acts of Exclusion

How to Understand, Identify, and Stop Microaggressions

Tiffany Jana, Michael Baran

• Publisher: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781523087075
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Cultura aziendale
• Index: Business

The first practical handbook that helps individuals and organizations recognize and prevent microaggressions so that all employees can feel a sense of belonging. Our workplaces and society are growing more diverse, but are we supporting inclusive cultures? While overt racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination are relatively easy to spot, we cannot neglect the subtler everyday actions that normalize exclusion. Many have heard the term microaggression, but not everyone fully understands what they are or how to recognize them and stop them from happening. Tiffany Jana and Michael Baran offer a clearer, more accessible term, subtle acts of exclusion, or SAEs, to emphasize the purpose and effects of these actions. After all, people generally aren't trying to be aggressive--usually they're trying to say something nice, learn more about a person, be funny, or build closeness. But whether in the form of exaggerated stereotypes, backhanded compliments, unfounded assumptions, or objectification, SAE are damaging to our coworkers, friends, and acquaintances. Jana and Baran give simple and clear tools to identify and address such acts, offering scripts and action plans for everybody involved. Knowing how to have these conversations in an open-minded, honest way will help us build trust and create stronger workplaces and healthier, happier people and communities.

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 easil...