Microaggression,Women,and Social Work

The behaviors described as microaggression, and the responses of people who are the target of microaggressions, underlie many of the challenges social workers strive to help clients overcome. In addition, many female social workers and academicians are targets of microaggression. This can be the case when dealing with institutions on clients’ behalf, or when managing relations and careers within their own institutions. There are three main aims of this editorial: (1) to clearly define and explain the concept of microaggression, (2) to call attention to the effects of microaggression on female academicians and on clients, and (3) to provide perspectives on how social workers can prevent and intervene when microaggressions occur.

Definition

The term microaggression was coined by Chester M Pierce, who defined it as: “. . . subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put-downs’ of blacks by offenders” (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzales, & Willis, 1978, p. 66). These offensive behaviors, targeted at African American youth in the school system and first described by Pierce, may seem innocuous to the perpetrator of aggression. Sue et al. (2007) define microaggressions as “verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of other races.” In recent years, behavioral and social scientists reporting on microaggression have broadened the term to include insults based on not only the target’s race but also gender, ethnicity, ability status, sexual orientation, or other identities that the perpetrators ascribe to the target persons.

Suggested Working Definition for Social Work

Academic behavioral and social scientists will continue to improve the understanding of microaggression, as a social phenomenon and as a cause of attitudes and behaviors. Some academicians and social work professionals may prefer to keep the definition of the term relatively narrow. That is, some may prefer to use the term only in describing race relations, or some may be careful to delineate between microaggressions (e.g., interpersonal put-downs) from more gross aggressions (e.g., pervasive or institutionalized bullying).

Sue et al. (2007) described three forms of racial microaggression that seem readily adaptable for understanding microaggression based on several aspects of the target persons’ identities. The three forms are (1) Microassaults, “explicit racial derogation characterized primarily by verbal, nonverbal or environmental attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions” (p. 29); (2) Microinsults characterized by communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity; and (3) Microinvalidations which are characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person.

For social work, we suggest that the term can be broadly defined. Time invested in discussions of whether a particular behavior is microaggression or not might be better used in developing ways to prevent the behavior or mitigate its effects. We offer the following as a simple working definition of microaggression for use in social work. It draws heavily on the work of psychologist Sue (2010) whose book on microaggressions in everyday life, we commend to the attention of social work professionals. We hope that this working definition may feed some discussion among social work practitioners and academicians—perhaps of how the definition should be made yet broader.

Microaggressions are communications perpetrated by individuals or organizations that convey disrespect to the target individuals or groups. They may be overt or subtle. The conveyed hostility and the hurtful effect may be intentional or unintentional. They may be one-off or part of a pattern. Their effect is often to marginally reduce the confidence, self-esteem, or effectiveness of the target persons.

Microaggression and Academia

Women of color are targets of microaggression in institutions of higher learning. Quantitative data indicate the prevalence and problems of microaggression in academia. Women of color are concentrated in community colleges and less prestigious academic institutions and “presumed to be incompetent” with implications for their ability rather than the conditions under which they work and their experiences of microaggression. Their numbers and percentage decline with academic rank. They comprised 3.4% of full professors, 6.6% associate professors, 9.9% assistant professors, and 10.4% of instructors and lecturers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Statistics tell part of the story.

In their book entitled Presumed incompetent: The Intersection of Race and Class for Women in Academia, Muhs, Niemann, Gonzalez, and Harris (2012), present the narratives and qualitative information from over 40 women of color who present their experiences of microaggression and daunting challenges they face in navigating the system of higher education. These women face covert and unconscious biases, throughout the process during hiring, promotion, and tenure, including struggles with students, colleagues, and administrators who do not understand or appreciate their challenges, in our multiethnic, multicultural, and racially stratified society.

As feminists in the academy, we should be concerned not only about issues arising from experiences of microaggressions toward women, specifically women of color in academia, but also our responsibility to educate social workers who are sensitive and prepared to work with clients who experience microaggressions in their everyday lives. Another important consideration is the role of protective factors in dealing with migration. Critical race theory and intersectionality are two theories we can use in examining privilege and oppression in our society.

Microaggression and Social Work Perspectives

Social workers seeking to prevent or mitigate microaggression should consider at least three perspectives on the behavior. It may be helpful to examine and discuss these perspectives in terms of our teaching and work with the client.

Of primary importance to the social worker is the target person’s perspective. She is offended or at least annoyed and stressed. If she recognizes that microaggression is occurring, and if she believes that the cause of the offense is the attitude of the perpetrator rather than her own “fault,” then she may escape any lasting damage. However, if she does not recognize the microaggression for what it is, then she will feel responsible for her experiences which can erode her long-term well-being and effectiveness.

The perpetrator’s perspective may or may not be motivated by hostility. Many of the too-common incidents of microaggression based on race, gender, class, or sexual orientation may be a reflection of the perpetrator’s meanness. Or, incidents and even patterns, of microaggression may only reflect the perpetrator’s insensitivity, misunderstanding, or simply ignorance. Regardless of whether the intention of the offensive communication (verbal or nonverbal, explicit or subtle) is not meant to be insulting or demeaning, the damage still needs to be mitigated and continuing microaggression needs to be stopped and prevented.

The third perspective is that of the social worker. To help the client to mitigate and cope with the damage, and especially to help prevent continuing microaggression, the social worker needs to understand the causes and effects of the behavior. For some, this will be developed through carefully structured analyses. For others, the understanding may develop from empathetic consideration of the target persons’ perspectives and of the perpetrators’ perspectives.

Reducing Damage Done to Clients by Microaggression

Social workers can be empowered to help persons who are targets of microaggression by developing their own understanding of the microaggression idea and by developing their personal abilities to (a) recognize microaggression that is debilitating for the client, (b) understand causes and effects of the behavior, (c) communicate this understanding to the client, (d) help the clients to develop and implement strategies for preventing the microaggression, for mitigating its debilitating effects, and if necessary taking action to resist and take action to combat microaggression, and (e) examining their own behaviors for microaggressions.

In some cases, the client may be able to prevent continued microaggression, especially if the perpetrators are within her family or are somehow dependent on her performance. In other cases, she will not be able to have much effect on the predispositions of the persons whose microaggression she incurs, but she may mitigate the damage by combating similar microaggression in more general ways. For example, she may join or even found an organization that combats workplace discrimination against women or minorities. She can definitely protect herself by examining the problems she experiences with family members, friends, and supportive colleagues who understand challenges of microaggression in the workplace.

In other cases, where it is difficult to change the behaviors and attitudes of the perpetrators, the client’s strategy may focus on mitigation. She may be able to get another position, away from the organization that condones or ignores microaggression against her. Sometimes recognizing that the microaggression is caused by and the fault of the perpetrators may suffice for her to avoid being debilitated by it. The social worker should not assume that this last resolution is possible. Microaggressions can be too onerous for such a simple solution.

There is a significant role for the social work profession to research and disseminate findings in order to raise social and political consciousness of microaggression. Evidence of the existence of microaggression would contribute to the education of practitioners, policy makers, and society, as well as develop concentrated efforts to advocate for those negatively affected by this experience. They could challenge the perpetrators and draw attention to the behaviors and make it unacceptable.