A lot of people call them subtleties? Or “indirect” but they’re actually microagresions. They are words or actions that have an aggressive component, but in one way or another hide or distort the violent content they convey.
The most typical example is that of the person who does not respond to the receptionist or secretary because it seems like a waste of time.
- In most Western countries discrimination on the basis of sex.
- Race.
- Class or creed is legally prohibited; however.
- Many have not yet understood the meaning of this prohibition.
- So they continue to discriminate or reject those who dictate their prejudices.
To make sure this doesn’t create difficulties, they use microagresions.
“I dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. “- Martin Luther King-
Sometimes these microagresions reproduce unconsciously. These are common places, gestures, or phrases that, however, have a violent component aimed at a person or group.
For example, when someone interrupts another person while talking and doesn’t let them finish their idea, this is not done with power figures, usually done with someone whom the other considers inferior.
Some believe that what others call microagresions are nothing more than harmless expressions of little importance, questioning the hypersensitivity of those who take certain comments seriously, which they consider casual.
After all, in social relations, especially in the field of jokes, there is always something irreverent.
This may be true in some cases. Not all seemingly sexist, classist, or racist comments have hateful content, it can also be a cathartic way to recognize a certain tension or ridicule certain positions.
The problem with microagresion is its systematic and intentionality, if these comments, jokes and sarcasm are constant, they are more likely to affect the other person.
A joke may not hurt, but hundreds of jokes can end up affecting the self-esteem and sense of dignity of others.
Microagresions are not always composed of words; signs of prejudice and discrimination also appear through nonverbal language. Princeton University conducted an experiment in the early 1970s, led by sociologist Carl Word.
The experiment consisted of bringing together a group of black and whites, supposedly to select a candidate for a vacancy. Recruiters’ attitude towards both groups was carefully examined and clear differences were observed, particularly in the nonverbal area.
It was clear that the selectors treated black and white differently, although their task was to select the best candidates for the position.
They used to sit further away from blacks and more often avoid eye contact, were less friendly and spent less time with them, this is a clear example of microgreagresion.
The same Princeton University experiment had a second phase. He created an inventory of nonverbal signs of rejection and discrimination used by researchers. A new group of suspicious candidates was then formed and evaluated.
This time, however, the researchers were trained to use the verbal language of rejection, both with some black candidates and with other white ones.
The result is that microagresions affect performance: candidates hesitate to speak, stutter, leave incomplete phrases, and show signs of fear towards the interviewer.
Experience allows us to see that when a person is subjected to micro-aggression, he will tend to diminish his good performance and is more likely to lose opportunities of all kinds, which puts him at a disadvantage simply by the prejudices of others.
As already mentioned, microagresions often occur and transmitted unconsciously, almost always target vulnerable groups or minorities, it is not easy to defend against them, because sometimes they go unnoticed or too subtle to sustain a protest.
Without opposing micro-aggression, it is essential to address the root of the problem: prejudice.