Toward a Harm-Based Account of Microaggressions

Abstract

In this article, we critique the dominant understanding of microaggressions introduced by Derald Wing Sue and his colleagues—what we call the act-based account of microaggressions—by identifying its theoretical and practical shortcomings. On the basis of this critique, we introduce and defend an alternative, ameliorative account of microaggressions, what we call the harm-based account of microaggressions. Instead of understanding microaggressions on the basis of the acts committed by the microaggressing agent, we call for a reorientation of the concept so that the recipients of microaggressions and the harms they experience become the focal point.

Racial Microaggressions: Critical Questions, State of the Science, and New Directions

“…Rather than defining new categories, they distill microaggressions down to four major categories: pathologizing differences, denigrating and pigeonholing, excluding or rendering invisible, and perpetuating color-blind racial attitudes. In line with Freeman and Stewart’s (2021, this issue) critique, they emphasize the targets’ perspectives. They, then, synthesize qualitative and quantitative research documenting the harmful physical and mental health sequelae of racial microaggressions.…”

“…Alternatively, philosophers Freeman and Stewart (2021; this issue) critique Sue and colleagues’ entire framework—what they call the act-based account of microaggressions—by calling out its theoretical and practical shortcomings (e.g., Sue et al, 2007; Sue & Spanierman, 2020). They rightly point out that current taxonomies focus on the actions of offenders rather than the impact on targets.…”

Microaggressions, Everyday Discrimination, Workplace Incivilities, and Other Subtle Slights at Work: A Meta-Synthesis

“…Acceptability, the degree to which an individual perceives a behaviour to be acceptable, has been suggested to predict whether that individual is likely to “send” a subtle slight (Mekawi et al, 2021; Mekawi & Todd, 2018). However, having a sense of acceptability requires an understanding of subtle slight features (Ashburn-Nardo et al, 2008), features which have been described as “imprecise” in distinguishing between subtle slight constructs and from other more overt forms of aggression (Freeman & Stewart, 2021). The ambiguity of a subtle slight is such that research found bystanders significantly benefit from displays of emotion and appeals for help from the targets when deciding whether to respond (Jensen & Raver, 2021).…”

“I wasn’t feeling like I belonged in my skin”: How self‐identified gay men in theUKexperience unhelpful incidents in talking therapy1

“…Furthermore, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest a causal link between microaggressions and negative mental health (Lilienfeld, 2017(Lilienfeld, , 2020. Freeman and Stewart (2021) argued that using the term "microaggression" can take the focus from the individual's negative and unhelpful experience to the agent's discriminatory behaviour. This can be necessary when discriminatory acts need to be named in order to remove the internalised shame of people experiencing them (Pallotta-Chiarolli et al, 2021).…”

“…This can be necessary when discriminatory acts need to be named in order to remove the internalised shame of people experiencing them (Pallotta-Chiarolli et al, 2021). It can, however, remove the focus on how the person is experiencing such unhelpful incidents (Freeman & Stewart, 2021).…”