In a column published last month, Newby Parton ’18 described a running joke among his peers that he had considered a microaggression: the “spectacle” that peers made of his pronunciation of “wh.” He admitted to feeling ashamed of telling a friend that he thought so, but he’s technically right. That’s the problem.
“Microaggressions” as defined by Columbia professor Derald Sue are “the everyday slights or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership,” which might seem like a bit of a stretch in Parton’s case. But Sue, who helped popularize the term first used in the ’70s, suggests that the victims of microaggression should be allowed to let us know when a phrase becomes an act of aggression. Under this definition, anyone can call any situation in which he or she is singled out by his or her identity a “microaggression,” so long as something about this identity is not the norm. A single quirk of regional speech is fair game.
Parton’s point was that this scenario, while not particularly hurtful to him, made him realize how other individuals less “accustomed to microaggression” may unintentionally be hurt by comments made by others. Unsurprisingly, this nuance was completely lost by the outraged commenters and news sites that flocked to the scene of political correctness like vultures to a carcass. Before long the National Review joined the liberal-bashing fun.
Parton’s argument that he is privileged as a white, heterosexual male and is rarely offended by offhand comments is sound, but his focus on the idea of microaggression is misplaced. The article and its reception highlight the problem with the term “microaggression” as a tool against problems like racism or sexism. It’s become over-used and vague, and is inadequate to accurately describe the experience of everyday oppression. Any term that can be used to describe a joke about the pronunciation of “wh” is too weak to describe this experience. It also happens to be exactly the kind of academic buzzword that makes anti-PC zealots foam at the mouth.
There’s a simple solution: we specifically call out sexism or racism or classism, or whatever else we find truly problematic. When appropriate, why not just say something like “that’s demeaning to women” or “that’s a derogatory stereotype about Asian-Americans?” The term “microaggression” is completely unnecessary to convey that meaning.
Ultimately, an effort like Tiger Microaggressions to report any and every perceived microaggression runs the risk of becoming a slightly more academic version of the golden rule. The biggest issue with the concept of the microaggression is that it is too malleable, which gives the “reverse-discrimination” crowd an easy comeback. An African-American exhausted by racial prejudice makes a comment that could be construed as a generalization about white people? Now that’s a microaggression. A frustrated feminist denounces patriarchal attitudes and offends some men’s rights activists? Microaggression!
The focus on microaggression encourages the idea that oppression is just relative. It plays into the hands of the kind of people who think that the liberal persuasion of some universities is as oppressive as the white supremacy that throughout the nation’s history has subjugated and brutalized African-Americans. The reason, for example, that a casual remark that reflects derogatory attitudes towards blacks is different than one that reflects such attitudes towards whites is that the former is reflective of historical, societal and institutionalized prejudice rather than merely individual prejudice. The emphasis on subjective experience of microaggression allows many to overlook the objective, undeniable reality of forces like racism or sexism.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t discuss and debate what exactly constitutes societal oppression and how it may manifest itself in everyday situations. Discrimination is often ambiguous, and something like homophobia or racism is not static but fluid and constantly changing. Forms of oppression that were once entirely ignored should receive attention, such as transphobia. But it is clear oppression exists beyond the scope of individual experience and perception.
We cannot ignore the legitimate concerns of individuals who fall outside the boxes of typically marginalized groups — for example, the struggles of Christian college students to maintain their identities in largely secular environments. In some cases, a strong regional accent can in fact lead to disadvantages. However, we need to keep in perspective the difference (not necessarily better or worse) between this type of situation and the experience of historical, societal oppression. The idea of microaggression makes no such distinction. For this reason, we need to retire its use as a catch-all term to publicly denounce the forces of discrimination.
I realize that as a white, heterosexual, cisgender male I do not experience societal oppression, on a large or small scale. But when I see others go through this experience, I try as best I can to understand it for what it is, whether it be racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., rather than using the blanket label of “microaggression” and moving on. As allies, we should make a genuine effort to recognize the experience of everyday oppression not as a hot topic or social media trend but as a tangible reality for many of our friends and peers.
Max Grear is a freshman from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
