Pulse
18 September 2023
In his article published on the Channel News Asia website in June last year, Darryl Choo reported that academics and government officials here have been using the term ‘casual racism’ to describe a form of racism in Singapore.
Choo writes that ‘The Australian Human Rights Commission defines casual racism as conduct involving negative stereotypes or prejudices about people on the basis of race, colour or ethnicity. It includes jokes, off-handed comments and exclusion of people from social situations.’
A person who is guilty of casual racism often has no intention to cause hurt or harm by his words or actions, he adds.
However, some academics are of the view that ‘causal racism’ is not an entirely adequate way of describing the phenomenon. They think that ‘everyday racism’ would be more appropriate. This is because racism is more common that we think.
As Nazry Bahrawi, assistant professor of Southeast Asian Literature and Culture at the University of Washington in Seattle explains: ‘The adjective “casual” denotes that racism is accidental or unexpected. However, ethnic minorities including those in Singapore have taken to social media to highlight that racism is more common than we think.’
A term that is widely used by academics around the world to describe ‘everyday racism’ is microaggression. This term is not used exclusively for racism, but applies also to slights and discrimination because of gender, religion and other personal and social (group) characteristics.
In recent years, the ostensible prevalence of microaggression has not only attracted the attention of many scholars but has also become a concern for governments and society leaders. This is because microaggression can impact society and human relationships in negative ways, resulting in suspicion and polarisation.
In this article, we take a brief look at this phenomenon in its various aspects and examine its possible effects on society. We also discuss how some groups have politicised microaggression and use it to advance their own agendas. We conclude the article with a brief reflection on the perspective that Christians should take on this complex and multi-faceted issue.
WHAT IS MICROAGGRESSION?
According to Derald Wing Sue, a counselling psychologist and diversity specialist at Columbia University, microaggressions are
the brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial, gender, and sexual orientation, and religious slights and insults to the target person or group.
The etymology of the term can be traced to psychiatrist and Harvard University Professor Chester M. Pierce, who created the word in 1969. However, in recent times, academics and activists have revived the term in order to bring to attention to what Tanzina Vega has described as the ‘subtle ways that racial, ethnic, gender and other stereotypes can play out painfully in an increasingly diverse culture’.
The ‘micro’ in microaggression indicates the size of the infraction, which in the eyes of the aggressor may be trivial, inoffensive or even common – compared to ‘macro’ level aggressions such as hate crimes. However, as Natasha and Thaddeus Johnson clarify, ‘[i]t is in no way … “micro” in that the potentially detrimental impact it bears on the victims can be lasting and downright hurtful.’
Scholars have helpfully identified different types of microaggression which indicate the range of this phenomenon.
One form of microaggression is microinsults which Derald Sue et al define as ‘communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity.’ For example, when a white employer expresses surprise at how articulate his Vietnamese employee is, his statement could be regarded as microaggression because it contains the hidden message that Asians are not and can never be as proficient in English as white people are.
Another form of microaggression is microinvalidation. This occurs, for example, when the perspectives of people of colour regarding racist acts are dismissed as overreacting, or as being oversensitive or petty. Microinvalidation also is at work when the majority race regards racism as ‘dead’, and therefore insists that any instances of ‘minor’ discrimination should be ignored.
And finally, there is the more overt form of microaggression called microassaults which Sue et al describe as ‘explicit racial derogations characterised by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name called, avoidant behaviour, or purposeful discriminatory actions.’
The literature on microaggression has also provided many concrete examples. However, space allows us to consider only some of them.
- When a white American says to an Asian, ‘You are a credit to your race’. This may be regarded as an instance of microaggression because it implies that Asians are generally not as intelligent as whites or that it is unusual for someone of that particular ethnicity or race to exhibit such a high degree of competence.
- When a white person says to a coloured person, ‘When I look at you, I don’t see colour’. This may be regarded as an act of microaggression either because it is perceived as the white person purposely denying the coloured person’s racial and ethnic background and experiences or that the white person is expecting the coloured person to acculturate to the dominant culture.
- When a white woman clutches her handbag tightly because she notices that a black person is approaching. This may be regarded as an act of microaggression because the white woman assumes that all black people are criminals.
From these examples, what is perceived as acts of microaggression can sometimes be very subjective indeed. A genuine compliment (e.g., ‘You speak very good English’), or an innocent inquiry or attempt to start a friendly conversation (e.g., ‘Which country are you from?’) can be regarded as subtle acts of aggression.
Some scholars have also discussed environmental microaggressions. These have to do with microaggressions that take place at institutional, systemic, and environmental levels. For example, when television and movies feature white people predominantly and when there is a corresponding lack of representation of people of colour, the message is that people of colour do not belong.
POLITICISING MICRO-OFFENCES
Some authors opine that the culture of microaggression can make society more aware of subtle racist slurs and behaviours so that they can be addressed before they escalate. They are of the view that these acts which may be considered trivial or inconsequential when considered separately have a cumulative effect on individuals and groups. They may lead to feelings of frustration, alienation and exclusion and may contribute to the perpetuation of systemic discrimination and inequality.
Others argue that the culture of microaggression can result in hypersensitivity in language and behaviour that can be detrimental to human sociality. The list of speech and behaviour that are deemed as ‘aggression’ can be extended ad infinitum, and before long society will develop a chronic obsession with interpreting every minor incident as offensive.
‘How would one measure a microaggression?’ asks Mike Rosen provocatively in an article published by The Denver Post. ‘Is it one-one- thousandth of an aggression? Is there a PC meter so precise that it even can detect a nanoaggression?’
‘I’d say a so-called microaggression is little more than hypersensitive nit-picking’, he adds.
Rosen points out that those who have faced the greatest adversities such as the Great Depression or Second World War (whom historians have described as the “Greatest Generation’) taught their children that ‘sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.’ He continues:
Today, we have a delicate segment of the American population so obsessed with identity politics that it ought to be called the Wimpiest Generation. They seem embarked on a daily quest to find some trivial incident or innocuous comment about which to feign outrage.
Rosen’s point must be taken seriously. Hypersensitivity in society can lead to a breakdown in communication and engagement between individuals and groups. This could in turn result in social fragmentation, polarisation and division.
The culture of microaggression can also give rise to the culture of victimhood, a topic that has been given considerable attention by scholars and politicians.
As Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning explain, ‘When victims publicise microaggressions they call attention to what they see as the deviant behaviour of the offenders. In doing so they also call attention to their own victimization’. According to Campbell and Manning, victims of discrimination often ‘portray themselves as oppressed by the powerful – as damaged, disadvantaged, and needy’.
The culture of victimhood accords a certain moral status to both the offenders and their victims. It basically lowers the moral status of the offenders and raises that of the victims. But this not only valorises victimhood by presenting it as a virtue, it also encourages the victims of microaggression to publicise their grievances.
Campbell and Manning explain it this way:
In the settings such as those that generate microaggression catalogues, though, where offenders are oppressors and victims are the oppressed, it also raises the moral status of the victims. This only increases the incentives to publicise grievances, and it means aggrieved parties are especially likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasising their suffering and innocence.
The culture of microaggression and victimhood can fuel or exacerbate identity politics. They can lead to what Francis Fukuyama and others have called the ‘politics of resentment’ which is harmful to societal peace.
CONCLUSION
Christians who believe that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-28) and therefore must be equally valued, and who are commanded to love their neighbour (Mark 12:31), should never countenance much less be guilty of discrimination. In this regard, Christians should always examine themselves to see if they are harbouring biases and prejudices and seek to overcome them.
However, Christians should be wary of the culture of microaggression and the dangerous hypersensitivity it generates because of the harms this might cause to society. And while Christians should always play a positive role in shaping a just society that takes the interest of every member seriously, they should have no truck with that species of identity politics, which is militant and divisive, and which does not care for the common good.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.