Microaggressions in Everyday Life. Derald Wing SueЧитать онлайн книгу.
to rise to positions of authority and responsibility.
Wondering if the White woman who quickly exited the elevator when I got on was really at her destination.
Being told I do not sound Black.
Being told by White people that they “don't see color” when they interact with me.
The deadening silence that occurs when the conversation turns to race. Having to explain why I wish to be called “African American.” Wondering if things will get better.
Wondering if the taxi driver really did not see me trying to hail a ride.
Being told that I should not criticize racially segregated country clubs because I wouldn't enjoy associating with people who belong to them anyway.
Being followed in department stores by the security force and pestered by sales clerks who refuse to allow me to browse because they suspect I am a shoplifter.
Never being able to let my racial guard down.
Listening to reports about people of color who failed as justification for the absence of other people of color in positions of authority.
Being told that “we are just not ready for a Black person in that position.”
Having to explain that my sexual fantasies do not center on White women.
Feeling racially threatened when approached by a White law enforcement officer.
Explaining that not all African Americans are employed to meet some quota.
Being told that I need to openly distance myself from another African American whose words have offended someone.
Having people tell me that I have it made and then telling me that I have “sold out” in order to have what I have.
Explaining why I am tired.
Being tired.
(Adapted from Locke, 1994, p. 30)
It is important to note that microaggressions are not only confined to their individual psychological effects. They affect the quality of life and standard of living for marginalized group members in our society. Microaggressions have the secondary but devastating effect of denying equal access and opportunity in education, employment, and health care. Although seemingly minimal in nature, the harm they produce operates on a systemic and macro level.
If we return to our earlier case vignettes, we can conclude that the students of color in Professor Richardson's class are being subjected to a hostile and invalidating educational climate. They expend energy in defending an assault on their racial/cultural identity and integrity (Solórzano et al., 2000; D. W. Sue, Lin, Torino, et al., 2009). They are placed in a situation of learning material from an ethnocentric perspective when they know a different history. They must comply and accept what they perceive as partial truths (and oftentimes mistruths) or fight to see themselves and their groups represented realistically in the curriculum. If they fight, they are likely to be labeled troublemakers and assigned lower grades. Even if they are exposed to relevant materials, they may lack the energy to be fully engaged in the learning process (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007; Steele, 1997). If, however, they decide to accept the reality espoused by the professor, they may feel that they have “sold out.” Regardless of the actions they take, the students of color will be placed at an educational disadvantage that often is reflected in lower grades, lowered chances to be admitted to institutions of higher education, less education, and ultimately lower levels of employment.
Even when educational achievements are outstanding, as in the case of Kathleen, gender microaggressions may severely limit a person's ability to be hired, retained, or promoted in the company (Hinton, 2004; Pierce, 1988). While the brokerage firm interviewer might on a conscious level believe that the company would offer the job to the most qualified applicant, his microaggressive behaviors reflect unconscious gender biases. Thus, he can in good conscience offer the position to a man and at the same time maintain his innocence or the belief that he chose a candidate without bias. Few employers realize that the high unemployment rates and the “glass ceiling” encountered by women and employees of color are reflected in the many microaggressions delivered by well‐intentioned coworkers and upper managers (D. W. Sue, Lin, & Rivera, 2009). The inequities in employment and education are not so much the result of overt racism, sexism, or bigotry but the unintentional, subtle, and invisible microaggressions that place members of marginalized groups at a disadvantage. Ironically, hate crimes are illegal, but microaggressions are not (D. W. Sue, 2008).
The Way Forward
Making the “Invisible” Visible
Since the publication of the first edition of this book, there have been numerous publicized examples of White people calling 911 on Black people doing ordinary activities. From the example of actor Ving Rhames entering his Santa Monica home to Oregon State representative Janelle Bynam canvassing constituents in a suburban neighborhood, to a Yale University student sleeping in a university dorm common room, to women playing a round of golf at the Grandview Golf Club in York, Pennsylvania, to the example of two young men waiting for friends at a Starbucks in Philadelphia, these incidents exemplify the focus of this book—everyday slights and indignities embedded in a macrocontext of societal oppression, which render them invisible to the perpetrator.
In the not‐too‐distant past, these kinds of daily occurrences were less publicized. Among the earlier well‐publicized examples, one involved a renowned African American scholar and professor at Harvard University. Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested on July 16, 2009, for disorderly conduct by a White Boston police officer, Sergeant James M. Crowley, because Gates “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior.” What was said between the two is in dispute, but what we do know are the following facts. Gates had just returned from China, where he was filming a PBS documentary, Faces of America, and was driven back to his Cambridge home. For some reason the door to his home was jammed, and he asked the driver, a dark‐skinned Moroccan man, to help force it open. A 911 caller reported two men forcing open the door to a house. Sergeant Crowley was the first to arrive and saw Gates in the foyer of his home. He asked Gates for identification; that is when the encounter seems to have escalated. Both men offer different versions of the event. Gates reports that he asked Crowley several times for his name and badge number, and Crowley reports that it took some time before Gates complied with his request to show identification. Within a short period of time, the street was clogged by six other officers who arrived at the scene. When Gates was asked to step out of the house, he reportedly did not initially comply. When he finally did, Gates was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail. The charges, however, subsequently were dropped.
The incident made national headlines as an example of police profiling Black men, and news programs and talk shows debated whether race had anything to do with the outcome. During a news conference held by President Obama, he described the arrest of Gates as “stupid,” and his remark brought on a huge outcry from primarily White citizens who came to the defense of the police. The outcry resulted in the president expressing regret at not “calibrating” his words more carefully. President Obama subsequently invited both Gates and Crowley to the White House to bridge misunderstandings over a beer.
The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident is a prime example of the central thesis of this book, microaggressions (racial, in this case).
1 Reports that Sergeant Crowley was a sensitive White officer, level‐headed, a role model to younger officers, and a man who devoted time to training others on diversity and how not to racially profile are documented by fellow officers. Gates is well known at Harvard and nationally as someone who has worked for improved race relations, is good at putting people at ease, is cool and calm under fire, and is devoted to social justice. In other words, both men could be described as good, moral, and decent human beings who believe in equality between the races. Yet as our later chapters indicate, no one is immune from inheriting the racial biases of their forebears. While we cannot definitively conclude that Crowley engaged in a series