Have you been noticing the “sudden” prevalence of “microaggression” in our pubic discourse?
At first, I noticed it in the world of college debate, but the term has quickly mainstreamed. Thanks to the prevalence of political commentary sites and blogs, and the explosion of Communications as a college major, the buzz phrases of critical theory are part of our everyday speech. I see “microaggression” and related terms (white privilege, trigger warnings, etc.) regularly in headlines and my Facebook feed.
Admittedly, I’m uncomfortable with the term “microaggression.” Maybe it’s because I’ve seen the term used to cover all sorts of individual wrong doing and thoughtlessness making it difficult to understand and define. Maybe it’s because I hear the phrase used too often by those I disagree with.
It could be all of the above, but at rock bottom I’m uncomfortable with where the term leads. A new study out of Oberlin College suggests that microaggression signal the emergence of a “victimhood culture.” I suspect such a moral culture will lead to a level of destructive social alienation in which people don’t engage in conversation on sensitive subjects for fear of causing unknown pain.
Microaggression: A flawed response to real injustice
To be sure, the critical race theory the term “microaggression” come from raises valid points about past and present injustices in American institutions.
Functionally, however, microaggression as a concept seeks to eliminate individual pain and discomfort in social interactions by preventing the social interaction in the first place. If, as the definition of microaggression implies, it may be impossible to know if one is committing a microaggression, but you still know you could be, why put yourself in a position to be the perpetrator of oppression?
This makes sense if you’re the one accused of committing a microaggressive act.
Individuals do not wish to offend those around them, or cause the ensuing publicity their (possibly unintended) microaggression may generate, so they restrict their social interactions with others.
However, worrying about every instance of a social interaction also harms those claiming they’ve been oppressed via microaggression because it focuses their social attention and energy on the circumstance and its (possible) ongoing harm, which wraps up an individual’s identity in negativity and pain.
Is it any wonder that large groups of people are angry and other groups fearful? No one is happy and everyone knows it.
So how do we get past the pain and fear? What’s a genuinely restorative response to real injustice and a gentle check on false claims?
I think Aristotelian philosophy suggests an alternative.
Virtue as response to injustice
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle undertakes to discover the source of happiness and argues for a happiness not rooted in circumstances, but in the individual’s life of virtue.
Aristotle’s vision of happiness is rooted in a virtue that transcends circumstance and pleasure as being temporal in favor of something more permanent: The good character of the individual. The strength of such virtuous happiness is demonstrated in its ability to handle difficult and painful life circumstances:
Nevertheless, even in the midst of these, nobility shines through whenever someone bears up calmly under many misfortunes not because of any insensitivity to pain, but because he is well born and great souled.
The beauty of Aristotle’s praise of virtue lies in his recognition of misfortune and pain. He doesn’t make it the central point of focus, unlike microaggressions. Rather, it is the individual’s character (as indicated by response), which is of greater value and import to his identity.
Like Aristotle, I don’t seek to disregard past and present pains and difficult circumstances. However, I don’t think that’s all a person is or has. There is a heart and character to their response to life that is capable of transcending circumstance. Even in instances of injustice, an individual’s courageous response (Aristotle’s first virtue) in the face of that injustice ennobles the individual and condemns the unjust act. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this principle well.
Virtuous people, peaceful city
However, Aristotle is concerned about the practice of virtue and its ensuing happiness for more than just individual gain. The Ethics was written as the first part of a two volume work. The second volume is the Politics in which Aristotle undertakes to describe the ideal, just regime.
Far from being a book on individual happiness, the Ethics is a primer on citizenship. The city, or polis, of the Politics assumes citizens of Nicomachean character.
Why should this matter to a 21st century reader? Politically, such a view of virtue is essential to stability and peaceful transitions of power (major concerns in the Politics) as the source of happiness is found in the response of the individual to circumstance, as opposed to the individual’s reaction to circumstance.
Aristotle’s virtuous citizen shrugs off microaggressions because he knows they only help him (if he detects them) practice virtue in the face of offense. Far from being debilitating, the practice of virtue in the midst of oppression liberates.
Now, this is definitely not to suggest that we’re to fatalistically receive slights and injustice, but to suggest that our response to said injustices should be governed with a view towards building virtue in ourselves and in the community around us. Such an attitude would shape a more healing, reformative response to the injustices that do sadly affect our society.