Читать книгу Microaggressions in Everyday Life - Derald Wing Sue - Страница 36

Microinvalidations are characterized by interpersonal communications (both verbal and nonverbal) that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of certain groups, such as people of color, women, and LGBTQ individuals. In many ways, microinvalidations may represent the most damaging form of the three microaggressions because they directly and insidiously deny one’s racial, gender, or sexual‐orientation reality. As we shall see in Chapter 3, the power to impose reality upon marginalized groups represents the ultimate form of oppression. Here we provide several examples of microinvalidation themes:

 Alien in one's own land. This theme involves being perceived as a perpetual foreigner in one's own country. Of all the groups toward which such microinvalidations are directed, Asian and Latinx Americans are most likely to experience them. When Asian Americans are complimented for speaking “good English” and persistently asked where they were born, the metacommunication is that “You are not American” or “You are a foreigner.” When Latinx Americans are told, “If you don't like it here, go back to Mexico,” there is an assumption that one's allegiance resides in another country. Interestingly, studies reveal that African Americans are perceived by the public as “more American” than either Asian or Latinx Americans (Devos & Banaji, 2005). Pérez Huber (2011) extended this theme to include racist nativist microaggressions (xenophobic beliefs about who belongs in the U.S.). She found that nativist microaggressions were institutionalized in K–12 education and targeted both U.S.‐born and undocumented Chicana students. Researchers in Canada uncovered a similar phenomenon among South Asian Canadian students who were perceived as “fresh off the boat” (Poolokasingham, Spanierman, Kleiman, & Houshmand, 2014).

 Color, gender, and sexual‐orientation blindness. Simply stated, being color, gender, or sexual‐orientation blind is being unwilling to acknowledge or admit to seeing race, gender, or sexual orientation and oppression based on these social group identities. Racial color‐blindness is one of the most frequently delivered microinvalidations toward people of color. Statements such as “When I look at you I don't see color,” “There is only one race, the human race,” “We are all Americans,” or “We are a melting pot” contain multiple and complex hidden messages. At one level they are messages asking the receiver not to bring the topic of race into the discussion or interaction. They are also messages that indicate people of color should assimilate and acculturate. On one hand these messages are intended as defensive maneuvers not to appear racist (Apfelbaum et al., 2008) and on the other hand they serve as a denial of the racial experiences of people of color (Bonilla‐Silva, 2006). D. W. Sue (2005) posits that denial of race is really a denial of differences. The denial of differences is really a denial of power and privilege. The denial of power and privilege is really a denial of personal benefits that accrue to certain privileged groups by virtue of inequities. The denial that we profit from racism is really a denial of responsibility for our racism. Lastly, the denial of our racism is really a denial of the necessity to take action against racism. Multiple research investigations have documented targets' experiences with racial color‐blindness (see the work of Neville et al., 2013), and several such experiences have been linked to harmful therapeutic practices (Mazzula & Nadal, 2015). Recent investigation has begun to examine “queer blindness” (see Smith & Shin, 2014). For example, Spengler, Miller, and Spengler (2016) described how therapists' avoidance of sexual‐minority issues during sessions may inadvertently invalidate clients' experiences.

 Denial of individual racism/sexism/heterosexism. Related to the previous theme is another form of denial that involves an individual denial of personal racism, sexism, or heterosexism. Statements such as “I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend,” “I have nothing against interracial marriages, but I worry about the children,” and “As an employer I treat all men and women equally” may possess the following hidden messages: “I am immune to heterosexism,” “The only reason I have hesitations about interracial relationships is concern about the offspring and it has nothing to do with personal bias,” and “I never discriminate against women.” When such statements are made to a person of color, for example, they may deny individuals' lived experiences. In an analysis of weblog data regarding the discontinuation of the racist mascot at the University of Illinois, Clark and his colleagues (2011) found evidence for denial of individual and institutional forms of racism that negated the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of Native American peoples.

 Myth of meritocracy. Linked closely to color‐blind ideology (see Neville et al., 2013), the myth of meritocracy is a theme that asserts that race, gender, and sexual orientation do not play a role in life successes. It assumes that all groups have an equal opportunity to succeed and that we operate on a level playing field. Thus, success and failure are attributed to individual characteristics like intelligence, hard work, motivation, and family values. When people do well, they are considered to have achieved their success through individual effort. The flip side of the coin is those who do not succeed are also seen as possessing individual deficiencies (lazy, low intellect, etc.) (Jones, 1997). In the case of persons of color, there is little recognition that higher unemployment rates, lower educational achievement, and poverty may be the result of systemic forces (individual, institutional, and societal racism). Blaming the victim is the outcome of the myth of meritocracy. Statements made to marginalized groups may be reflected in these comments: “Everyone has an equal chance in this society,” “The cream of the crop rises to the top,” “Everyone can succeed if they work hard enough,” and “Affirmative action is reverse racism.” These statements potentially imply that racism, sexism, and heterosexism are of little importance in a group's or individual's success.

Drawing on nearly 100 empirical studies, Houshmand, Spanierman, and DeStefano (2017) constructed three categories to organize microaggressive themes related to race and ethnicity. Specifically, they identified: (a) pathologizing differences, (b) excluding and rendering people of color invisible, and (c) perpetuating color‐blind racial attitudes. We add a fourth category: (d) using stereotypes to denigrate and pigeonhole, documented across a number of qualitative studies. Pathologizing differences and using stereotypes most closely align with microinsults, whereas the other two categories align with microinvalidations.

Microaggressions, whether they fall into the category of microassaults, microinsults, or microinvalidations, are detrimental to the well‐being and standard of living of members of marginalized groups in our society. And, as we discussed, the subtlest forms may inflict the greatest harm through their frequency and ambiguity. In Chapter 3 we turn to a discussion and analysis of the psychological dilemmas created by microaggressions and attempt to describe the psychological and internal processes of both recipients and unintentional perpetrators.