How deeply does difference shape our interactions? Though most of us try

How deeply does difference shape our interactions? Though most of us try not to discriminate and do not think of ourselves as prejudiced against others, are we fully aware of the extent to which differences along categories of identity impact how we encounter others? Understanding Microaggressions Derald Wing Sue (2010) uses the term microaggresions to describe how difference can manifest itself in interactions to hurt or marginalize people on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, and so forth. In his own words, Wing Sue describes an instance in which he, as an Asian American, was the target of a microaggresion: “Not too long ago, I (Asian American) boarded a small plane with an African American colleague in the early hours of the morning. As there were few passengers, the flight attendant told us to sit anywhere, so we choose seats near the front of the plane and across the aisle from one another. At the last minute, three White men entered the plane and took seats in front of us. Just before takeoff, the flight attendant, who is White, asked if we would mind moving to the back of the aircraft to better balance the plane’s weight. We grudgingly complied but felt singled out as passengers of color in being told to “move to the back of the bus.” When we expressed these feelings to the attendant, she indignantly denied the charge, became defensive, stated that her intent was to ensure the flight’s safety, and wanted to give us some privacy. Since we had entered the plane first, I asked why she did not ask the White men to move instead of us. She became indignant, stated that we had misunderstood her intentions, claimed she did not see “color,” suggested that we were being “oversensitive,” and refused to talk about the matter any further.” The argument Wing Sue makes here is that being white privileges one with the ability to not have to reckon with the significance of the symbolism of being moved ‘to the back of the bus.’ Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Post 9/11 Amir Marvasti, an American Sociologist of Middle-Eastern descent, has also sought to understand how social circumstances shapes peoples’ perceptions of one and another, and how we see that in interactions. Marvasti explores how national/international politics and economics shapes the ethnic and religious identities that we embody in our daily lives. Marvasti uses Erving Goffman’s term ‘Spoiled identity,’ which he says refers to stigmatized identities of Middle-Eastern Americans post-911. He says post-911 MEA’s have to come up with ‘stigma management strategies’ in order to deal with the overt or covert racism they encounter routinely. 2 A Newsweek poll conducted shortly after the terrorist attacks, on September 14–15, 2001, indicated that “32% of Americans think Arabs living in this country should be put under special surveillance as Japanese Americans were” (Jones 2001:3–4). Similarly, in June 2002 a Gallup survey of 1,360 American adults showed that “of the five immigrant groups tested [Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and Europeans], the public is least accepting of Arab immigrants, as 54% say there are too many entering the United States” (Jones 2002:3). Because stigma has the effect of flattening the complex identities of individuals into a single, spoiled category, those who are categorized as spoiled are often harassed and even subject to violence. An example of this could be seen in the tragic mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Milwaukee in 2012. The Stigma of Charity at the Intersection of Race, Class and Gender Beyond microaggressions in one-on-one interaction, being connected to a stigmatized identity on the basis of race, ethnicity, class, gender and so forth can jeopardize one’s standing in their local community, even when that connection comes from circumstances beyond our control. One particularly interesting study was conducted by Sociologist Aliece Fothergill (2003). Fothergill examined the experiences of individuals affected by the Grand Forks flood in North Dakota in 1997. These individuals were predominantly middle class, white and women. When the flood hit, it destroyed the community and many of its members were forced to rely upon government aid as their personal wealth dwindled. The women reported feeling stigmatized, even though the disaster was an act of nature. Fothergill’s research tells us how the political and economic context of the nation, and the social construction of the poor and charity recipients impacted these women’s experiences. Fothergill says: “According to Georg Simmel (1965), the poor are not united by the interaction of its members but by the collective attitude that society as a whole adopts toward them. The collective attitude, research has shown, is overwhelmingly negative, particularly if the poor receive any public assistance. Politicians and social pundits often maintain that welfare recipients are lazy and unwilling to work and that women on welfare are promiscuous and have more children in order to receive more benefits.” ‘Welfare recipient’ is seen as as a spoiled identity, largely because of its racial and gendered connotations, and being associated with it can put people in the crosshairs for rejection, microaggressions, and so forth. As Fothergill claims: “As a result of these stereotypes and rhetoric, individuals who receive public assistance experience shame, embarrassment, and humiliation (Wyers 1977; Rank 1994). Overall, the stigma of welfare prevents many individuals who need help the most from receiving it (Loewenberg 1981) and ultimately serves to punish poor people for being poor (Sidel 1986). Most social scientists posit that the majority of individuals receiving some form of public assistance do so not because of a flaw in their character or behavior.”