Page 98 - Microaggressions in Everyday Live Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation

72 the microaggression process model

We have already described how symbols and mascots may convey insulting
and demeaning messages. Educational curriculum that comes only from a
White, European American, and male perspective represents invalidating micro-
aggressions. Others are more commonly observed in everyday interactions. For
example, a Black participant reports a frequent workplace experience, “ And
you notice that, all right, yeah . . . there ’ s a lot of minorities. But what positions are

they in? Entry - level. Maybe middle management. And then they thin out, you know,
if you ’ re talking about execs and you know, managing directors ” (Sue, Capodilupo, &
Holder, 2008).
Hidden Messages : “ People of color do not belong in the higher echelons of the

work force. They are not leadership material. ”

Phase Two — Perception and Questioning of the Incident

This phase pertains to the recipient ’ s attempt to determine whether an event
was racially motivated or not. Was the incident racist, sexist, or heterosexist?
Perception refers to the participants ’ belief about whether an incident was
bias - motivated. It is a more complex and dynamic phenomenon than simply
ascertaining whether the target arrives at a “ yes, bias motivated ” or a “ no,
not bias motivated ” conclusion. There is an internal struggle that is often-
times energy depleting. In our studies (Sue, Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008; Sue,
Nadal, et al., 2008), one of the important core ideas of the perception phase is
the process of “ Questioning. ”
As mentioned in other chapters, microaggressions are often ambiguous,

filled with double messages, and subtle in their manifestations. The overt
message is often at odds with the hidden one. Questioning refers to participants
who question whether or not an incident was racially motivated. Many factors
often go into the assessment process: relationship to the perpetrator (relative,
friend, coworker, or stranger), the racial/cultural identity development of the
recipient, the thematic content of the microaggression, and personal experiences
of the target. All are factors in construing meaning to the event. For example,
a Black participant may wrestle with an incident in which a White instructor

told her an answer was “ very smart: ” “ Like it feels like a compliment but not

really. It leaves you feeling like, did you just compliment me or what? ” Another

participant has a similar struggle when a White woman changed seats on the
subway train from sitting next to her: “ Maybe it just so happened that the person
that she decided to sit next to wasn ’ t Black, and she wasn ’ t Black. I can ’ t say that ’ s
why she moved, but maybe she wanted to be close to the window. I don ’ t know ” (Sue,
Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008).

1/19/10 6:09:08 PM
c04.indd 72 1/19/10 6:09:08 PM
c04.indd 72