Micro-Aggressions vs Micro-Incivilities
By @edent
· language racism · 2 comments · 350 words · read ~743 times.
Perhaps you've heard of Micro-Aggressions. They're the steady drip-drip-drip of poison which gradually wears you down. "Where are you really from?" or "I can't pronounce your name, can I call you Jo?" or "Your lot are good at running, right?" or "You're clever, for a ...".
Individually, they are tiny pinpricks of discrimination. None of them large enough to be worth kicking up a fuss. Each one easy to dismiss as a faux-pas.
When I experience them it's a painful reminder that some people think I don't belong.
At a recent diversity workshop, I was introduced to the phrase "Micro-Incivilities".
It was new to me - and to most attendees. It covers the same behaviour, but subtly shifts the emphasis to make the transgressor feel more comfortable.
As I understand it (and I'm no expert) the theory is this. Most people using micro-aggressions are not being aggressive. They're not shouting at you, punching you, or dominating you. What they're doing is the equivalent of rolling their eyes, talking over you, or ignoring you. They're being rude.
If you criticise someone for being aggressive - so it was described - then they are likely to react negatively. Aggression is seen as a deliberate and severe way to cause harm.
But if you tell someone they were rude... Well... We've all been unintentionally rude, right? Being rude is unfortunate, but it isn't show-stopping. We understand that if our behaviour is seen as rude, it's up to us to modify it.
Hence, micro-incivilities.
You can read more about the theory.
I have mixed feelings. I'm not sure that centring the needs of the transgressor is as important as acknowledging the pain of the victim. And incivilities sounds a little minimising.
But, if people are more likely to change their behaviour if they are told they are being rude... who am I to argue?
I suspect that, whatever the merits of the argument, the original phrase is here to stay.
From the blog, a list of examples:
– Constantly interrupting minority members – Criticising minorities’ performance and yet never offering any praise – Never looking at someone in meetings – Constantly getting the minority team member’s name wrong or calling them by the name of the other minority in the team
The idea that these are NOT acts of naked aggression does not pass the smell test. Constantly interrupting and misnaming? That was always the prelude to worse.
I'm with you on this, I think. There's always a drive in this kind of work to spare the feelings of the perpetrator, rather than to address the harm done to the victim. And so the language slowly shifts until we're back in a place where the perpetrators, who are after all the people in power, feel comfortable again, and the minorities are once again being ill-treated. So, for me, the term "micro-incivility" can get in the sea, and I'm going to keep talking about micro-aggressions. Some of which aren't really all that micro, if I'm honest.