How You May Unintentionally Discriminate with Language

It is indeed necessary to promote dialogue and communication, since human culture grows by the exchanging ideas and perceptions. At the same time, anybody who has lived abroad in places where culture was far distant from theirs, will appreciate the extraordinary amount of subtle details that politeness can have. Pragmatics has addressed for instance the difference between Anglo-Saxon and Mediterranean cultures regarding the "face", and how direct / indirect approaches can be perceived as polite or not polite depending on the point of view. This is a small example, and if you travel to other continents like Asia the differences are more noticeable.
In these contexts, things like reading the body language or anticipating a reaction prove difficult. This is why a dialogue is necessary, but it is also necessary to accept the fact that, in this interaction, some offence might occur. The possibility that somebody is trying to be genuinely approachable and does something that "is not appropiate" exists (as I said, if you travel to other countries this will happen over and over because different cultures have different perceptions of what "approachable" is), and the solution of this is communication and discussion.
Statements like "I don't see the colour" might indeed be used as a defence in some cases. However, taking into account that we live in a world where it is ever easier to travel, study and work abroad, where there are descendants of mixed couples who have kids with people from other cultures, we will end up "not seeing the colour" because distinguishing between colours will be like trying to label every variation in the whole spectrum.
At the same time, using terms like "privileged" or "oppressed" also "minimizes people's unique and individual experiences" because it means making assumptions in relation to physical characteristics.
Instead, we should just perceive each other as humans, and understand that each of us deserves the same respect. In order to achieve these universal values, let's start a dialogue that leaves room to mistakes, because they are a fundamental part of the learning process.

Or someone who regularly experiences white privilege. Or maybe a minority that's internalized racism against their own people. Psychology Today, next time you write anything about discrimination(especially racial discrimination) could you get a black/brown person to write it? I can tell the author had good intentions but there's a good bit wrong with this article. I'd tell you what it was, but white people tend not to listen and I'm 80% certain most white people who see this are going to be upset and try to argue me down even though they have no idea what they're talking about- see, this is something a black/brown person who has ever seriously tried to talk to a white person about race would understand. I wouldn't get a man to write an article about microagressions against women, so I'm not sure why you'd want a white person to write about discrimination.

Or someone who regularly experiences female privilege. Or maybe a non-traditional man that's internalized sexism against their own people. Psychology Today, next time you write anything about discrimination(especially gender discrimination) could you get a traditionally masculinist man to write it? I can tell the author had good intentions but there's a good bit wrong with this article. I'd tell you what it was, but women tend not to listen and I'm 80% certain most women and non-traditional men who see this are going to be upset and try to argue me down even though they have no idea what they're talking about- see, this is something a man who has ever seriously tried to talk to a female person about gender would understand. I wouldn't get a person of color to write an article about microagressions against whites, so I'm not sure why you'd want a woman to write about discrimination.

If you define a "microaggression" as something that exclusively impacts people belonging to truly marginalized populations, only to define the marginalization of these populations as a function of the microaggressions that they endure on a regular basis, then of course you will never cease to find exactly what you are looking for!

It's a bit like boldly asserting that no true Scotsmen are sex offenders, only to "corroborate" that hypothesis with scores and scores of sex-offenders whose offenses are evidence of them being inauthentic Scotsmen.

And thus, if the handyman asks my wife whether her husband is at home, because he wants to explain something technically complicated to someone who is more likely to understand, but then stays for dinner and compliments my wife on MY cooking—then current wisdom holds that only one of us has experienced a microaggression. After all, only one of us is marginalized, as evidenced by the fact that only one of us experiences microaggressions, as a result of the fact that only one of us is truly marginalized.
…and so on.

Hi Lauren,

I appreciate that the definition of a microaggression is that it impacts a stigmatized or culturally marginalized group. However, if what defines a microaggression is that it impacts a group that is presumed to be stigmatized, then by definition, you have a circular argument, where only the stigmatized can be impacted by microaggressions, but because only they are impacted by microaggressions, then it proves that only they are stigmatized and marginalized.

In reality, the bulk of (real or perceived) insensitive, condescending, or thoughtless remarks one hears has nothing to do with race, gender, sexual identity, or some other aspect of what makes someone "identify" differently from the norm. It most frequently seems to come as a result of constant interaction with people whom with you are familiar. I say this as a son, brother, husband, father, friend, and colleague.
Examples abound:
- An parent might allow one child the right to do something that he won't allow another.
- An adolescent child asks his friend's parent for advice that he won't ask his parents.
- A manager might trust the professional judgment of team members that he hired over team members that he inherited.
- A wife might prefer to get her friend's advice on a specific parenting issue to talking it over with her husband.
These are just examples of instances where perceived slights are not only unintentional, but often misconstrued. And I am not even talking about genuine, caustic put-downs that have become the bread and butter of most comedy.

The not true Scotsman I was referring to earlier was the formal fallacy—apologies if I wasn't clear about that.

True story:
-------------------------------------------------
My mother once sat down on a subway train. Soon, someone else sat down next to her—on top of the hem of her coat, which was spread out over the seat beside her. My mother absentmindedly pulled her coat from underneath the other passenger who was sitting on top of it.

"I got it," retorted the other passenger, "you don't want your coat to be contaminated by a black woman."

-------------------------------------------------

Yes, this really happened, and no, my mother did not even notice the racial identity of the woman who sat down next to her.

My point is that in this instance, it should seem quite clear that the other woman has a serious problem—one that would be acknowledged by any psychologist if you removed identity politics from the story. Someone who goes through life with a niggling sensation that others are out to get her because he is somehow "different"—for any reason other than the classic race, gender, sexual identity, ethnicity, etc.—is clearly projecting his own securities onto others. This is easily demonstrated: most people (though not all) don't go around, (deliberately or unconsciously) looking for ways to oppress other people (especially those whom they don't even know). This is not because they are unaware of their bigotry, but because they are largely not remotely focused on others.

Yet what are psychologists encouraging us to do? They are encouraging us to look at every single perceived slight—exclusively in the realm of marginalized identities—as a learning moment of our own prejudice, and thereby reinforce the insecurities that other people have.

So instead of remaining silent, as she did, (or worse angrily denying the accusation), my mother should have, according to current wisdom, profusely apologized to the other passenger, and thanked her for showing her how she was prejudiced.

That's not how you promote psychological resilience amongst the insecure—that's how you turn their insecurities into paranoia.

Why would anyone have a vested interest in doing that?

A person who walks around with her sensitivities locked, loaded, un-holstered, and ready to fire on any perceived slight is an entitled brat and, I might add, a parody of marginalization. If she actually fires away at total strangers on a subway train, under the grandiose assumption that passengers are as hyper-focused on her own sensitivities as she is, then I would say that she is psychologically unbalanced, and perhaps dangerously so.

Again, this is easily demonstrated, by changing the identity of the offended from a black woman to a white man.
If a white man reacted to the "gesture" in a similar manner or by suggesting that "i-am-not-a-rapist-and-did-not-attempt-hold-your-coat-down-to-trap-you," would probably not so much elicit any placation as it would a combination of pity and apprehension. If you got off at the next stop, then I'd be hardly surprised.