Microaggression (pronounced mahy-kroh-uh-gresh-uhn)
(1)
A casual comment or action directed at a marginalized, minority or other
non-dominant group that (often) unintentionally but unconsciously reinforces a
stereotype and can be construed as offensive.
(2)
The act of discriminating against a non-dominant group by means of such
comments or actions.
1970:
A construct of micro- + aggression coined by Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016),
former Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Micro (small, microscopic; magnifying; one
millionth) is a word-forming element from the New Latin micro- (small), from the Ancient Greek μικρός (mikrós) (small). The origin
is disputed between etymologists, the traditional view being it was derived
from the primitive Indo-European (s)meyg- & (s)mēyg- (small, thin,
delicate) and was cognate with the Old English smicor (beauteous, beautiful, elegant, fair, fine, tasteful), source
also of the Modern English smicker
and related to the German mickrig. However, there’s a highly technical
discussion within the profession, hinged around the unexplained “k” in the Greek and there’s the
suggestion of a pre-Greek origin on the basis of variation between initial /m/ and /sm/, as well as the variant forms μικός (mikós) and μικκός (mikkós). Aggression, dating from 1605–1615, is from the
French aggression, from the Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio (a going to, an attack)), a
noun of action from past participle stem of aggredi
(to approach; attack) the construct being ad (to) + gradi (past participle gressus
(to step)) from gradus (a step). The Classical Latin aggressiōn (stem of aggressiō),
was equivalent to aggress(us) + iōn derived from aggrēdi (to
attack). The psychological sense of
"hostile or destructive behavior" had its origin in early psychiatry,
first noted in English in 1912 in a translation of Freud.
Microaggression is an adaptable and possibly infinitely variable concept which probably most belongs in sociology and is typically defined as any of the small-scale verbal or physical interactions between those of different races, cultures, beliefs, or genders that are presumed to have no malicious intent but which can be interpreted as revealing and underlying (and possibly unconscious) bias. The criteria can be both objective and subjective and it’s noted compliments or comments intended to be positive can be microaggressions. Probably, the only "safe" identity-based categorizations are now those purely statistical: average heights by nationality and such although such is the sensitivity, the recommendation of many is now wholly to avoid anything which could be construed as a microaggression, the only exceptions being those directed at groups defined as "privileged" (white people, Christians, heterosexual males etc. The standard psychology texts suggest the behavior manifests in three forms:
Microassault: An explicit racial derogation which can be verbal or nonverbal which can include labelling, avoidant behavior and purposeful discriminatory actions.
Microinsult: Communications that convey
rudeness or insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity;
subtle snubs which may be unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting messages
to the recipient of color.
Microinvalidation: Communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.
The concept emerged to address the underlying racism which endured even after overt, deliberate expressions of racism had become socially unacceptable. It held that microaggressions generally happened below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture and were different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm. In the abstract, this positions the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological.
Although the word’s origin is in the politics of race and ethnicity, it proved readily adaptable to other areas such as gender, sexual orientation, mental illness, disability and age. Within the discipline, there’s a (typically) highly technical debate about the nature of microaggression and the intersectionality at the cross-cutting cleavages of non-dominant groups. As regards the media, the discipline had a well-refined model to describe how microaggressions were either reinforced or encouraged by a news and entertainment media which reflected the hegemony of the dominant culture. The sudden shock of the emergence of social media has changed that in both diversity of source and content and its substantially unmediated distribution. To date, much work in exploring this area has been impressionistic and it’s not clear if the analytical metrics, where they exist, are sufficiently robust for theories in this area to be coherent. In a sense, social media and the development of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) are synergistic.
There was in 1957 nothing unusual or
offensive in Studebaker naming a car “Scotsman” and it would have been
well-understood as a reference to the car’s low purchase price and (alleged)
TCO (total cost of ownership). Scotsman
buyers could even forgo the extravagance of chrome bumpers by choosing the
delete option of painted units; Mercedes-Benz also offered that on the taxi
versions of the W115s (1968-1976). Other manufacturers used the same concept as
Studebaker: Citroën ID vs DS, Cadillac Calais vs de Ville etc, some including
fewer features and simpler trim, some also changing the mechanical
specification but the principle was always: same size, lower price. The name was picking up on the reputation of
the Scots for frugality and it would have been thought something neutral at worst
and more likely positive, thriftiness then still generally thought a virtue
among Americans. Technically, such use
would now fulfil the criteria of a “microaggression” even if deployed in a way
which makes clear it’s being intended in a way which is complimentary. Scots can of course use the trope of
themselves and even if used by others, as race-based microaggressions go, it’s
at the lower range of offences, those applied to what are considered “white
people”, rarely noticed and certainly not grounds for a cancellation. Still, by the 2020s, it’s highly unlikely a
car company would now name a car a “Scotsman” and certainly not if it was a “stripper”
(ie a low-cost model with minimal standard equipment.
Quite when the term vanished from commercial use can’t be certain but it would have occurred late in the twentieth century and certainly after 1968 when Car Life magazine, reviewing the new Plymouth Road Runner, called the stripped-down, low-priced muscle car: “a sort of Scotsman’s supercar”. As well as a relic of linguistic use, Car Life’s test was interesting because unlike many of its contemporaries which often ran their tests with vehicles massaged or tweaked for ultimate performance, they used the genuine, stock standard articles. What Car Life revealed was the Road Runner (when equipped with the standard 383 cubic inch (6.3 litre) V8)) was quicker than a typical 383 powered car using the same body (as would be expected given the lower weight and modifications to the V8 used in the Road Runner) but it was unable to match the sub-15 second quarter-mile (402 m) times reported by many. The basic Road Runner was actually representative of the performance of most of the era’s “muscle car ecosystem” while the cars which “out of the box” were consistently able run the quarter-mile in the 14 second bracket were relatively rare. Of course, to solve any perception of inadequacy, a buyer could tick the box for the optional 426 cubic inch (7.0) Street Hemi and while that was expensive, putting it in a Road Runner was the cheapest path to Hemi ownership.
Despite the perception of many (encouraged by the depictions in popular culture), tartan in the sense of specific color & pattern combinations attached to specific clans is something of recent origin. Tartan (breacan (pɾʲɛxkən) in Scots Gaelic) is a patterned cloth consisting of criss-crossed, horizontal and vertical bands in multiple colours. The word plaid is now often used interchangeably with tartan (particularly in North America and when not associated with anything Scottish (especially kilts)), but technically (and always in Scotland), a plaid is a large piece of tartan cloth, worn as a type of kilt or large shawl although it’s also used to describe a blanket. During the disputes between England and Scotland, the wearing of tartan became a political expression and the Dress Act (1746) was part of the campaign to suppress the warrior clans north of the border; it banned tartan and other aspects of Gaelic culture. The law was repealed in 1782 and tartan was soon adopted as both the symbolic national dress of Scotland and in imagery more generally.
The Royal Stewart was the personal tartan of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) and although historically associated with the royal house of Stewart (or Stuart), it has become one of the most widely used in commercial fashion and in that sense is used in parallel with the clan affiliation. Commonly worn to formal events such as weddings, ceilidhs, or Burns Night, the modern trend is to pair a kilt with a Prince Charlie or Argyll jacket, traditionalists adding a Sporran (pouch), Hose (kilt socks) & flashes, Ghillie brogues (traditional shoes) and even a Sgian dubh (a small dagger tucked in the sock) although carrying the last item may be unlawful in some jurisdictions. Lindsay Lohan in her screen test wore the dress in something of the way in the 1970s it became part of the punk sub-culture but for more conventional types there are also scarves, ties, sashes and such. Remarkably, in the age of identity politics and sensitivity to cultural appropriation, the etiquette guides note there is no objection to non-Scots folk wearing their tartan of choice except when an event is clan-specific in which case only those in the lineage should don the fabric. That said, even then, the consequence of a tartan faux pas will likely be less severe than wearing a Rangers shirt in a Glasgow pub filled with Celtic’s hoops.
No comments:
Post a Comment