Skip to main content

The Ethics and Politics of Microaffirmations

Abstract

The role of microaggressions has gained increasing philosophical attention in recent years. However, microaggressions only tell part of the story. An often-overlooked component of inequality is the uneven and unjust distribution of microaffirmations. In this paper, I give a new definition of microaffirmations as signals that a recipient belongs to some valued or high-status class. Microaffirmations can—but need not—lead individuals to gain a sense of confidence, belonging, and merit. I then explain the harms of microaffirmations, arguing that when microaffirmations are distributed inequitably, they can have larger ramifications for injustice, harming some vulnerable groups more than others. In addition, microaffirmations can lead individual actors to make choices based on who gives them microaffirmations and where they receive them, and thus can have outsized influence over the direction of an individual’s life because individuals tend to migrate to where they feel valued, appreciated, and included. I then turn to solutions to the problems I raise. I argue we should attend to and attempt to rectify inequalities in microaffirmations because doing so can help ensure not just the absence of negative attention, but also that the presence of positive attention is flowing in a just and equitable way.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    (Rowe 2008; Brennan 2013; Flanders 2015; Anzani et al. 2019; Ellis et al. 2019; Estrada et al. 2019; McClure and Rini 2020). Some literature calls the phenomenon “micro-affirmations.” I drop the hyphen here to follow the literature on “microaggressions” sans hyphen.

  2. 2.

    Some take issue with the term “microaggression” and its surrounding literature (Campbell and Manning 2014; Lilienfeld 2017; Kendi 2019). For example, Kendi argues that the term “microaggressions” is a euphemism for racist abuse that both minimizes and detracts from the underlying problem (Kendi 2019, 47). Kendi’s criticism may also apply to other microinequities if they are a euphemism for racism and other injustices. However, microaffirmations cannot be categorized as racist abuse, and Lilienfeld’s criticism attributes some assumptions to the microaggression literature which do not apply to microaffirmations, such as that they are interpreted negatively by their recipients and require subjective reporting.

  3. 3.

    Note also (Wendt 1999, 147; Young 2005, 20). Because Sue’s definition focuses on the recipient and not the perpetrator, he leaves the door open for members of the same marginalized group to commit microaggressions against each other as well as members of one marginalized group to commit microaggressions against members of other marginalized groups. This possibility fits with an intersectional definition of oppression, in which, as Patricia Hill Collins argues, “Depending on the context, individuals and groups may be alternately oppressors in some settings, oppressed in others, or simultaneously oppressing and oppressed in still others” (Collins 2008, 20).

  4. 4.

    For example, Lauren Obermark discusses “material rhetoric” including color palette, lighting, noise, and objects as relevant to the rhetoric of museum design (Obermark 2019, 103).

  5. 5.

    Mark R. Leary and Cody B. Cox discuss “belongingness motivation” (Leary and Cox 2007) and the culturally specific ways praise and criticism may be interpreted (Morling and Kitayama 2007, 423–424). Diana Whitney and Amanda Trosten-Bloom discuss appreciation as including recognition, valuation, and gratitude (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2010, 2). Lisa Laskow Lahey and Robert Kegan discuss “ongoing regard” rather than praise and underline the importance of direct, specific, and nonattributive as successful features of it (Kegan and Lahey 2002, 102). However, their focus is primarily in verbal communication.

  6. 6.

    For a discussion of how privilege influences blame and praise, note (Ciurria 2020).

  7. 7.

    Each grouping applies to the wrongs of microaggressions as well. Acts of microaggression are wrong; omissions of microaggressions can influence our moral evaluation insofar as some people can navigate the world without contending with them; microaggressions have cumulative effects (Pierce 1970; Brennan 2013, 188; Evans and Mallon 2020); and the distribution of microaggressions matter morally insofar as they have differential impacts on communities.

  8. 8.

    In the next section, I argue that some microaffirmations rely on an unjust hierarchy. The lack of such microaffirmations would not similarly constitute a loss.

  9. 9.

    This feature of human behavior is, of course, not unique to microaffirmations. For reasons discussed below, however, microaffirmations and the social goods they convey are not distributed equally, are not random, are based on membership in social classes, and are based on membership in social classes that themselves constitute an unjust hierarchy.

  10. 10.

    Insofar as the distribution of microaffirmations is unequal, this feature of microaffirmations can have differential impacts on populations. I discuss this point below.

  11. 11.

    For example, Freeman and Stewart argue that there are at least three types of microaggressions: epistemic, emotional, and self-identity microaggressions each with an attendant harm (Freeman and Stewart 2018, 415). Each of these microaggression can have a converse microaffirmation: epistemic microaffirmations, in which expertise is respected or claims are given uptake; emotional microaffirmations, in which reactions are validated or mirrored; and self-identity microaffirmations, in which existential consequences of an individual’s sense of self is appreciated or esteemed (Schroer 2015, 104; Freeman and Stewart 2018, 427). In each case, the microaffirmation can and often does lead to positive affect for the recipient, or feelings of relief, comfort, connection, or understanding. As a result, systems that denied these microaffirmations to individuals would be a net loss.

  12. 12.

    Michelle Obama describes the “small but life-changing move” of being moved from a chaotic, disruptive classroom with an ineffective teacher to an orderly one with an effective teacher (Obama 2018, 22). She credited this seemingly small affirmation with a large impact on her life and education.

  13. 13.

    This point opens up the possibility that some absences of microaffirmations are justified, morally neutral, or are harms without being wrongs.

  14. 14.

    Still, some professors and institutions explicitly and energetically work to oppose this status differential in the classroom (Schwarz 2011).

  15. 15.

    For a related discussion, note (Mallon 2016, 80).

  16. 16.

    For discussions of positive cumulative effects, note (Dweck 2002; Moe and Pazzaglia 2006; Fine 2010, 28; Hirnstein et al. 2012; Deci et al. 2017).

  17. 17.

    Misusing morally neutral hierarchies by aligning them with unjust hierarchies is a wrong that, while common, need not be an ineliminable feature of human nature. However, if it is, the goal here can be to reduce if not eradicate the relevant injustices.

  18. 18.

    The same concern attends universities and other places of education.

  19. 19.

    More empirical research is also warranted on microaggressions (Lilienfeld 2017; Sue 2017; Al-Gharbi 2018).

References

  1. Al-Gharbi, Musa. 2018. The Jury’s still out on what constitutes a microaggression. In Microaggressions, Trigger Warnings & Safe Spaces, ed. Gary Weiner, 106–113. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anzani, Annalisa, Ezra R. Morris, and M. Paz Galupo. 2019. From Absence of Microaggressions to Seeing Authentic Gender: Transgender Clients’ Experiences with Microaffirmations in Therapy. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 13. Routledge: 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2019.1662359.

  3. Balmer, Dorene F., David A. Hirsh, Daphne Monie, Henry Weil, and Boyd F. Richards. 2016. Caring to care: Applying Noddings’ philosophy to medical education. Academic Medicine 91: 1618–1621. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2013. Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. 1 edition. Delacorte Press.

  5. Brennan, Samantha. 2013. Rethinking the moral significance of micro-inequities: The case of women in philosophy. In Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, ed. Katrina Hutchison and Fiona Jenkins. Oxford University Press.

  6. Brennan, Samantha. 2016. The moral status of micro-inequities: In favor of institutional solutions. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, Volume 2: Moral Responsibility, Structural Injustice, and Ethics, ed. Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul. Oxford University Press.

  7. Brogaard, Berit. 2013. Micro-inequities: 40 years later. Psychology Today. April 20.

  8. Brogaard, Berit. 2018. Bias-driven attention, cognitive penetration and epistemic downgrade. In Philosophy of Perception, ed. Christoph Limbeck and Friedrich Stadler. Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society. De Gruyter.

  9. Campbell, Bradley, and Jason Manning. 2014. Microaggression and moral cultures. Comparative Sociology 13. Brill: 692–726. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341332.

  10. Cassad, Bettina J., Abdiel J. Flores, Andrew S. Cheli, and Drake A. Anderson. 2018. How sexism undermines the advancement of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In Sexism: past, present and future perspectives, ed. Gemma Sáez and Inmaculada valor Segura. Social issues, justice and status. Hauppauge, New York: Nova science publishers, Inc.

  11. Chesley, Camille, and Tarida Anantachai. 2018. The burden of care: Cultural taxation of women of color librarians on the tenure-track. In Pushing the margins: Women of color and Intersectionality inLIS, ed. R. Chou and A. Pho. Sacramento: Library Juice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ciurria, Michelle. 2020. The mysterious case of the missing perpetrators: how the privileged escape blame and accountability. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2020.2.7322.

  13. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2008. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.

  14. de Cremer, David, and Tom R. Tyler. 2005. Am I respected or not?: Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research 18: 121–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-7366-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cuádraz, Gloria Holguín. 1999. Stories of access and “luck”: Chicana/os, higher education, and the politics of incorporation. Latino Studies Journal 10: 110–123.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deci, Edward L., Anja H. Olafsen, and Richard M. Ryan. 2017. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Devine, Patricia G., and Margo J. Monteith. 1993. The role of discrepancy-associated affect in prejudice reduction. In Affect, cognition and stereotyping, ed. Diane M. Mackie and David L. Hamilton, 317–344. San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-088579-7.50018-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Devine, Patricia G., E. Ashby Plant, David M. Amodio, Eddie Harmon-Jones, and Stephanie L. Vance. 2002. The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dweck, C. S. 2002. Messages that motivate: How praise molds students’ beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education: 37–60.

  20. Ellis, James M., Candice S. Powell, Cynthia P. Demetriou, Carmen Huerta-Bapat, and A.T. Panter. 2019. Examining first-generation college student lived experiences with microaggressions and microaffirmations at a predominately white public research university. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 25: 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Estrada, Mica, Gerald R. Young, Jill Nagy, Emily J. Goldstein, Avi Ben-Zeev, Leticia Márquez-Magaña, and Alegra Eroy-Reveles. 2019. The influence of microaffirmations on undergraduate persistence in science career pathways. CBE—Life Sciences Education 18. American Society for Cell Biology (lse): ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-01-0012.

  22. Evans, Cameron, and Ronald Mallon. 2020. Microaggressions, mechanisms, and harm. In Microaggressions and Philosophy, ed. Lauren Freeman and Jeanine Weekes Schroer, 1 edition. Routledge.

  23. Fine, Cordelia. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and Neurosexism create difference. 1st ed. W. W. Norton & Company.

  24. Flanders, Corey E. 2015. Bisexual Health: A Daily Diary Analysis of Stress and Anxiety. Basic & Applied Social Psychology 37. Taylor & Francis Ltd: 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1079202.

  25. Freeman, Lauren, and Jeanine Weekes Schroer, ed. 2020. Microaggressions and philosophy. 1 edition. Routledge.

  26. Freeman, Lauren, and Heather Stewart. 2018. Microaggressions in clinical medicine. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 28: 411–449. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gardner, Howard. 2009. Five minds for the future. 34447th ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goldin, Claudia, and Cecilia Rouse. 2000. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review 90: 715–741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Grover, Steven L. 2014. Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations 67: 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713484944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hewett, Rebecca, and Hannes Leroy. 2019. Well it’s only fair: How perceptions of manager discretion in bonus allocation affect intrinsic motivation. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12445.

  31. Hewett, Rebecca, Andreas Liefooghe, Gintare Visockaite, and Siriyupa Roongrerngsuke. 2018. Bullying at work: Cognitive appraisal of negative acts, coping, wellbeing, and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23: 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hirnstein, Marco, Nadja Freund, and Markus Hausmann. 2012. Gender stereotyping enhances verbal fluency performance in men (and women). Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220: 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ittner, Christopher D., David F. Larcker, and Marshall W. Meyer. 2003. Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review 78: 725–758. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71: 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Laskow Lahey. 2002. How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kendi, Ibram X. 2019. How to Be an Antiracist. First. Edition ed. New York: One World.

  37. Kuh, George D, Jillian Kinzie, and John H Schuh. 2005. Lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: 9.

  38. Leary, Mark R., and Cody B. Cox. 2007. Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action. In Handbook of Motivation Science, ed. James Y. Shah and Wendi L. Gardner, 1 edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

  39. Lilienfeld, Scott O. 2017. Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12: 138–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lombrozo, Tania. 2017. How small inequities Lead to big inequalities. NPR.org, July 24.

  41. Madera, Juan M., Michelle R. Hebl, Heather Dial, Randi Martin, and Virgina Valian. 2019. Raising doubt in letters of recommendation for academia: Gender differences and their impact. Journal of Business and Psychology 34: 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9541-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Madera, Juan M., Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin. 2009. Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 1591–1599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mallon, Ron. 2016. The construction of human kinds. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  44. Mallon, Ron. 2018. Constructing race: Racialization, causal effects, or both? Philosophical Studies 175: 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1069-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Martell, Richard F., David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich. 1996. Male-Female Differences: A Computer Simulation: 2.

  46. McClure, Emma, and Regina Rini. 2020. Microaggression: Conceptual and scientific issues. Philosophy Compass 15: e12659. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McKinnon, Rachel, and Adam Sennet. 2017. Survey article: On the nature of the political concept of privilege. Journal of Political Philosophy 25: 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mill, John Stuart. 1870. The subjection of women. D. Appleton.

  49. Moe, Angelica, and Francesca Pazzaglia. 2006. Following the instructions! Effects of gender beliefs in mental rotation. Learning and Individual Differences 16: 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Morling, Beth, and Shinobu Kitayama. 2007. Culture and motivation. In Handbook of Motivation Science, ed. James Y. Shah and Wendi L. Gardner, 1 edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

  51. Moss-Racusin, C.A., J.F. Dovidio, V.L. Brescoll, M.J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Obama, Michelle. 2018. Becoming. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Obermark, Lauren. 2019. “Assurance that the world holds far more good than bad”:The pedagogy of memory at the Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum. Rhetoric Review 38: 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1549410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ong, Anthony, Anthony Burrow, Thomas Fuller-Rowell, Nicole Ja, and Derald Sue. 2013. Racial microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031736.

  55. Pierce, Chester. 1970. Offensive Mechanisms. In The Black Seventies: Leading Black Authors Look at the Present and Reach Into the Future, ed. Floyd B. Barbour. P. Sargent.

  56. Powell, Candice, Cynthia Demetriou, and Annice Fisher. 2013. Micro-affirmations in academic advising: Small acts, big impact. The Mentor: Innovative Scholarship on Academic Advising 15. https://doi.org/10.26209/mj1561286.

  57. Rabinowitz, Vita C., and Virginia Valian. 2007. Beyond mentoring: A sponsorship program to improve women’s success. In Transforming science and engineering: Advancing academic women, ed. A. Stewart, J. Malley, and D. LaVaque-Manty, 96–115. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rowe, Mary. 2008. Micro-affirmations & Micro-inequities. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 1.

  60. Rowe, Mary, and Maureen Scully. 2009. Bystander training within organizations. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Saul, Jennifer. 2018. Beyond just silencing: A call for complexity in discussions of academic free speech. In Academic freedom, ed. Jennifer Lackey, 119–134. Oxford University Press.

  62. Saul, Jennifer M. 2017. Racial Figleaves, the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Philosophical Topics 45. University of Arkansas Press: 97–116. JSTOR.

  63. Schroer, Jeanine Weekes. 2015. Giving them something they can feel: On the strategy of Scientizing the phenomenology of race and racism. Knowledge Cultures 3: 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Schwarz, Alan. 2011. St. John’s college puts emphasis on what teachers Don’t know. The New York Times, October 16, sec. Education.

  65. Sekerka, Leslie, and Marianne Marar Yacobian. 2019. Respect as a moral response to workplace incivility. Philosophy of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00113-0.

  66. Serano, Julia. 2007. Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Emeryville: Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical ethics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sue, Derald Wing. 2017. Microaggressions and “evidence”. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 12: 170–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616664437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M.B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist 62: 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Swim, Janet K., and Laurie L. Cohen. 1997. Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21: 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Thai, Xuan, and Ted Barrett. 2007. Biden’s description of Obama draws scrutiny. CNN, February 9, sec. Politics.

  72. Trix, Frances, and Carolyn Psenka. 2003. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society 14: 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Vass, Greg, Jacinta Maxwell, Sophie Rudolph, and Kalervo N. Gulson. 2017. The Relationality of race in education research. Routledge.

  74. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

  75. Whitney, Diana, and Amanda Trosten-Bloom. 2010. The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change. Second ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  76. Young, Iris Marion. 2005. On female body experience: “Throwing like a girl” and other essays. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

  77. Zack, Naomi. 2018. Philosophy of race: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you especially to Jason Gardner for a great many excellent contributions to this article, in particular for his definition and metaphysics of microaggressions, which I applied to microaffirmations. Thank you also to Ramona Ilea, Krista Thomason, Lavender McKittrick-Sweitzer, Ron Mallon, Lauren Freeman, Jeanine Weekes Schroer, Wim Vandekerckhove, and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. B. Delston.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delston, J.B. The Ethics and Politics of Microaffirmations. Philosophy of Management (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00169-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microaggression
  • Microinequity
  • Acts and omissions
  • Cumulative effects
  • Distributive justice
  • Mentoring