LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

and beliefs about members of marginalized groups (e.g., People of Color, women, LQBTQ populations) is unavoidable and inevitable due to the socialization process in the United States (Sue, Calle, Mendez, Alsaidi, & Glaeser, 2021), where biased attitudes and stereotypes reinforce group hierarchy (Dovidio et al., 2017). Much like aversive racism, subtle sexism devalues women, dismisses their accomplishments, and limits their effectiveness in a variety of social and professional settings (Calogero & Tylka, 2014). Researchers have begun to underscore the importance of these daily experiences of subtle sexism, arguing that they are in fact harmful and need to be recognized as such (Becker & Swim, 2012; Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, 2014).

Researchers have used the templates of modern forms of racism and sexism to better understand the various forms of modern heterosexism (Smith & Shin, 2014; Walls, 2008) and modern homonegativity (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). Heterosexism and antigay harassment have a long history and are currently prevalent in the United States. Studies find the following for LGBTQ persons in the workplace: (a) between 15% and 43% experience discrimination or harassment; (b) 7–41% report verbal or physical abuse or have had their workplace vandalized; and (c) 10–28% have not been promoted because they are gay or transgender (Burns & Krehely, 2011). Antigay harassment can be defined as “verbal or physical behavior that injures, interferes with, or intimidates lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual individuals” (Burn, Kadlec, & Rexler, 2005, p. 24). While antigay harassment includes comments and jokes that convey that LGBTQ individuals are pathological, abnormal, or unwelcome, it can also take more subtle forms (Burn et al., 2005). For example, blatant heterosexism would be calling a lesbian a dyke, whereas subtle heterosexism would be referring to something as gay to convey that it is stupid. For sexual minorities, hearing this remark may result in a vicarious experience of insult and invalidation (Burn et al., 2005; Marzullo & Libman, 2009). It may also encourage individuals to remain closeted, as the environment can be perceived as hostile.

The discriminatory experiences of transgender people have been very rarely studied in psychology (Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010), yet there is evidence to suggest that the pervasive daily discrimination faced by this population is associated with an elevated risk for suicide (Marzullo & Libman, 2009). One term used to define prejudice against transgender individuals is transphobia, “an emotional disgust toward individuals who do not conform to society's gender expectations” (Hill & Willoughby, 2005, p. 533). There is recent evidence to suggest that the microaggressions experienced by transgender individuals are distinct from those experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (Nadal, Skolnik, & Wong, 2012; Nadal, Griffin, Wong, Davidoff, & Davis, 2017).

      What makes the phenomenon of racial, gender and LGBTQ microaggressions particularly complex is that ambiguity and alternative explanations obscure the true meaning of the behavior not only for the person who engages in it, but also for the person on the receiving end.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE “ISMS”: MICROAGGRESSIONS

      Microaggressions are “brief and commonplace daily verbal or behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults that potentially have a harmful or unpleasant psychological impact on the target person or group” (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). They can also be delivered environmentally, as in the case of Melanie, through the physical surroundings of target groups, where they are made to feel unwelcome, isolated, unsafe, and alienated.

      The term “macroaggression” (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Sue, Calle, Mendez, Alsaidi, & Glaeser, 2021) refers to systemic and institutional forms of discrimination that impact an entire class of individuals. They are said to reside in the policies, programs, practices, and structures of institutions that disadvantage or oppress socially devalued groups, while benefiting others. Some of them are codified into law such as the former travel ban on Muslim‐majority countries, the former Family Separation Policy, and new voter suppression laws. As explained by Sue et al. (2021), racial macroaggressions represent an overarching umbrella that validates, supports, and enforces the manifestation of individual acts of racial microaggressions.

      Based on the literature on subtle forms of oppression, one might conclude the following about microaggressions: they (a) tend to be subtle, unintentional, and indirect; (b) often occur in situations where there are alternative explanations; (c) represent unconscious and ingrained biased beliefs and attitudes; and (d) are more likely to occur when people pretend not to notice differences, thereby denying that race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ability had anything to do with their actions (Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). Three types of microaggression have been identified: microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation.

      MICROASSAULT

The term “microassault” refers to a blatant verbal, nonverbal, or environmental attack intended to convey discriminatory and biased sentiments. This notion is related to overt racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and religious discrimination, in which individuals deliberately convey derogatory messages to target groups. Using epithets like “spic,” “faggot,” or “kyke”; requesting not to sit next to a Muslim on an airplane; and deliberately serving disabled patrons last are examples. Unless we are talking about White supremacists, most perpetrators with conscious biases will engage in overt discrimination only under three conditions: (a) when some degree of anonymity can be insured; (b) when they are in the presence of others who share or tolerate their biased beliefs and actions; or (c) when they lose control of their feelings and actions.

      MICROINSULT

Microinsults are unintentional behaviors or verbal comments that convey rudeness or insensitivity or demean a person's racial heritage/identity, gender identity, religion, ability, or sexual orientation identity. Despite being outside the level of conscious awareness, these subtle snubs are characterized by an insulting hidden message. For example, when a person frantically rushes to help a person with a disability on to public transportation, the underlying message is that disabled people are in constant need of help and dependent on others. When an African American man walks into the elevator occupied by a single White female rider, she becomes fearful. Her entire body tenses up, she moves to the other end of the car, and clutches her purse tightly. In other words, her entire demeanor conveys fear that she will be assaulted or robbed.

      MICROINVALIDATION

Microinvalidations are verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or dismiss the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a target group. Like microinsults, they are unintentional and usually outside the perpetrator's awareness. A frequent refrain to the “Black Lives Matter” slogan is that “all lives matter.” These statements negate the sociohistorical and political lived experience of Black people. In other words, the comeback denies the racialized experiences of African Americans, implies that being Black is no different than being white, and by extension suggests all lives are equally valued in our society. Such statements have been coined by researchers as “color‐blind” attitudes, and research shows that among White adults in a workplace setting, higher color‐blind attitudes are associated with lower likelihoods of perceiving microaggressions (Offermann et al., 2014). This last point is extremely important for counselor/therapists who may approach clients of color with a color‐blind attitude.

      BY THE NUMBERS

      African Americans experience frequent microaggressions in their daily lives:

       32%

Скачать книгу