Cultural Considerations: Making Something All About ME!
Today's post is brought to you - you guessed it - courtesy of social media. Oh boy. The current debate is about the use of a specific term, "microaggression."
Isn't it interesting how easy it is to pull language from one context to another and then appropriate that language for our own purposes? We are all guilty of this one time or another - it is how language develops - but there are often problems when language is used in ways that does not line up with the intents of the original users.
The folks who initiated this discussion did so through the use of a blog post written by a music educator who experiences specific attitudes from other educators for being "different." The original author (not a music therapist) termed these attitudes as "microaggressions." A quick search for this term (yep, I used Wikipedia - see the link below) reveals that the term itself was first used in 1970 and is based in interactions between people that demeaned one group of people based on membership in a minority group.
The term has been adopted by many folks since the original usage. It is becoming more and more mainstream. This is how language moves in our society.
The majority of comments that are against the use of this term seem to be from folks who feel that the term itself cannot be used by just anyone. You must be part of a specific group before this particular language can be used by you. If you are part of any other group, then this language cannot be yours. I find that interesting.
I am guilty of perpetrating microaggressions on others the same way that I am the recipient of microaggressions because of who I am and what I do and what I believe and what I want out of life. Something becomes a microaggression when it is interpreted by someone as such. There is very little way to avoid these types of interactions unless you do not offer opinions at all. (I'm not good at that on this blog, but I'm pretty good at it in other situations - just keep my mouth shut about what I am thinking about specific people or cultural situations.) It is difficult to go into the world of humans and remain completely neutral and non-offensive because you cannot control how people view you or interpret your actions (or non-actions) or behaviors.
I am not going to stop using people-first language because some persons with disabilities prefer to be labeled with diagnosis first. If a specific person requests to be identified as an ACL replacement person (my most recent diagnosis to [hopefully] avoid offense) rather than a person with an ACL replacement, then I will accommodate my language for them, but I'm not going to assume that everyone wants that type of discussion. I feel that person-first language is more respectful of all humans. That is an opinion, and a belief that I practice. A person who feels differently could find my constant and consistent use of such language to be a microaggression. It then becomes their responsibility to tell me that so I can choose whether to change or not. When I am offended by something that someone else says or does, I have a choice - to engage that person in discussion or to move on.
In this current society, it is interesting how easily people are offended. If I look at you and then look away without acknowledging you, you can easily draw a conclusion about me that is not based in me or my behavioral intention at all. But YOU are the one who is interpreting. I may not even be thinking about you as I am scanning - I may be scanning to see if I am coming up to my exit or I may need to see past you to see if gas prices are low enough for me at this station. You may interpret my lack of eye contact as refusal to acknowledge you because of a, b, or c - things I may not be aware of at all. I cannot control how you interpret my behavior or responses. That is completely based on you. As such, I can only put 50% of every interaction into the world. You have to take responsibility for your own interpretations, and it is a bit ridiculous to take offense if you have not attempted to seek understanding with the other person involved in the interaction.
Now, there are certainly people out there who do intend offense, but most of us are not interacting with others from a place of intentional harm. Most of us become overly concerned with not offending others when addressed which means that interactions become different - I am constantly trying to filter my words to remove any sort of possibility of any sort of offense - that is nearly impossible to do, by the way. I do listen to folks when they talk to me about things, and I do try to change my behavior.
Here are my final thoughts about this particular post - language is not owned by any one person or subset of people. Terms are not exclusive. People do take convenient phrases and then use them in ways not originally intended - this is human nature.
Thank you for reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression
Isn't it interesting how easy it is to pull language from one context to another and then appropriate that language for our own purposes? We are all guilty of this one time or another - it is how language develops - but there are often problems when language is used in ways that does not line up with the intents of the original users.
The folks who initiated this discussion did so through the use of a blog post written by a music educator who experiences specific attitudes from other educators for being "different." The original author (not a music therapist) termed these attitudes as "microaggressions." A quick search for this term (yep, I used Wikipedia - see the link below) reveals that the term itself was first used in 1970 and is based in interactions between people that demeaned one group of people based on membership in a minority group.
The term has been adopted by many folks since the original usage. It is becoming more and more mainstream. This is how language moves in our society.
The majority of comments that are against the use of this term seem to be from folks who feel that the term itself cannot be used by just anyone. You must be part of a specific group before this particular language can be used by you. If you are part of any other group, then this language cannot be yours. I find that interesting.
I am guilty of perpetrating microaggressions on others the same way that I am the recipient of microaggressions because of who I am and what I do and what I believe and what I want out of life. Something becomes a microaggression when it is interpreted by someone as such. There is very little way to avoid these types of interactions unless you do not offer opinions at all. (I'm not good at that on this blog, but I'm pretty good at it in other situations - just keep my mouth shut about what I am thinking about specific people or cultural situations.) It is difficult to go into the world of humans and remain completely neutral and non-offensive because you cannot control how people view you or interpret your actions (or non-actions) or behaviors.
I am not going to stop using people-first language because some persons with disabilities prefer to be labeled with diagnosis first. If a specific person requests to be identified as an ACL replacement person (my most recent diagnosis to [hopefully] avoid offense) rather than a person with an ACL replacement, then I will accommodate my language for them, but I'm not going to assume that everyone wants that type of discussion. I feel that person-first language is more respectful of all humans. That is an opinion, and a belief that I practice. A person who feels differently could find my constant and consistent use of such language to be a microaggression. It then becomes their responsibility to tell me that so I can choose whether to change or not. When I am offended by something that someone else says or does, I have a choice - to engage that person in discussion or to move on.
In this current society, it is interesting how easily people are offended. If I look at you and then look away without acknowledging you, you can easily draw a conclusion about me that is not based in me or my behavioral intention at all. But YOU are the one who is interpreting. I may not even be thinking about you as I am scanning - I may be scanning to see if I am coming up to my exit or I may need to see past you to see if gas prices are low enough for me at this station. You may interpret my lack of eye contact as refusal to acknowledge you because of a, b, or c - things I may not be aware of at all. I cannot control how you interpret my behavior or responses. That is completely based on you. As such, I can only put 50% of every interaction into the world. You have to take responsibility for your own interpretations, and it is a bit ridiculous to take offense if you have not attempted to seek understanding with the other person involved in the interaction.
Now, there are certainly people out there who do intend offense, but most of us are not interacting with others from a place of intentional harm. Most of us become overly concerned with not offending others when addressed which means that interactions become different - I am constantly trying to filter my words to remove any sort of possibility of any sort of offense - that is nearly impossible to do, by the way. I do listen to folks when they talk to me about things, and I do try to change my behavior.
Here are my final thoughts about this particular post - language is not owned by any one person or subset of people. Terms are not exclusive. People do take convenient phrases and then use them in ways not originally intended - this is human nature.
Thank you for reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression
Comments
Post a Comment