More than Just Insults: Rethinking Sociology' ...

2 downloads 0 Views 142KB Size Report
racial microaggressions erode the fabric of a just society (Dovidio and Gaertner ... Scholarship began to move beyond the black/white binary and assess the.
More than Just Insults: Rethinking Sociology’s Contribution to Scholarship on Racial Microaggressions*

David G. Embrick, University of Connecticut Silvia Domınguez and Baran Karsak, Northeastern University

Our goal with this special issue is to expand currently untapped ideas about racial microaggressions from a sociological point of view. As noted, research on this issue comes largely out of psychiatry, psychology, and education—disciplines that tend to place less emphasis on structural and institutional causes of racism. There is a need for more sociologically guided research to examine how subtle, covert, and non-apparent forms of racism affect minorities physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally—and how these micronooses can best be understood in a larger context of structural racism. Examination of racial microaggressions from a sociological point of view promises additional insight to help understand the complexities of contemporary race and racism in America and abroad.

Introduction A consensus among social scientists is that racism operates in the United States differently today compared to the pre-Civil Rights era. However, the ways researchers interpret these differences vary considerably. For some scholars, changes in our legal system and the Civil Rights Movement have produced a society in which race no longer matters (D’Souza 1995). For others, perceived racial discrepancies can be better explained by genetic differences (Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Sarich and Miele 2004), class (West 1994; Wilson 1978) or even culture (Sowell 1994). Despite positive changes in the legal system since the Civil Rights era, many critical race experts contend that racial practices and mechanisms (see Hughey, Embrick, and Doane 2015) that work to keep blacks and other minorities subordinate have become covert, subtle, and ambiguous (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Bonilla-Silva and Lewis 2000; Smith 1995). Race scholars have labeled these subtle insults (verbal, visual or nonapparent) directed toward racial/ethnic minorities as racial microaggressions (e.g., Solorzano et al. 2000; Sue et al. 2007; Sue 2010; Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007) and have begun to measure their everyday impact on people of color living in the United States.

Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 87, No. 2, April 2017, 193–206 © 2017 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society DOI: 10.1111/soin.12184

194

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

Limitations of Research on Micro-Contexts of Racism As sociologists, we understand that social inequality (Ridgeway 2014) and racial inequality (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Essed 1990, 1991) are structured, reproduced, and challenged at all levels—micro, meso, and macro—of our everyday lives. Scholars interested in understanding race and racism in major U.S. institutions point to the micro-contexts of work (Embrick 2011; Vallas 2003), schools (Blau 2004; Brantlinger 2003; Lareau 2003; Lewis and Diamond 2015), family (Dalmage 2003), or religious institutions (Emerson 2001), to name just a few examples, to investigate the interactional and contextually grounded processes of inequality, its reproduction, and mechanisms of change (Hughey, Embrick, and Doane 2015; see also Hedstr€om and Ylikoski 2010). In many of these studies, while scholars might be interested in what happens at the individual or small group level, they are also interested in understanding such phenomena as connected to larger social forces. Yet, in the arena of racial microaggressions, the research has been mostly limited, both theoretically and empirically, to an understanding of the phenomenon as individual or psychological acts of discrimination. This is understandable given that the study of microaggressions, particularly racial microaggressions, has been dominated by psychologists, psychiatrists, and educational psychologists. In those fields, one can find myriad studies ranging from how individuals interpret racial slights directed toward themselves, to coping strategies employed by racial minorities to address the stressors that result from everyday racial microaggressions. Overwhelmingly, the data demonstrate how everyday racial microaggressions have dramatic effects on physical and mental health. The cumulative effects of racial microaggressions are staggering and life altering. But we still do not know much about the structural conditions that promote racial microaggressions and foster hostility, overtly or covertly condone racial violence, or promote exclusive white spaces. Racial microaggressions and the legacy of systemic and institutional racism in the United States affect all racial and ethnic minority groups (Chestler, Lewis, and Crowfoot 2005). The multiplier effect of pro-white policies such as preferential treatment in housing (Krysan and Farley 2002), voting rights (Feagin 2012; see also Bonilla-Silva 2012), hiring (Royster 2003), and social space (Anderson 2011; Moore 2008), coupled with everyday racism (subtle and apparent), works to maintain the overrepresentation of blacks and other racial and ethnic groups in the lower economic, political, and social strata (Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2006). Despite often being non-obvious to whites, there is evidence that contemporary forms of racial discrimination produce negative social, psychological, and physiological consequences (Bennett et al. 2005; Bowen-Reid and Harrell 2002; Constantine 2007; Feagin and McKinney

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

195

2003; Sellers and Shelton 2003; Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007; Sue et al. 2007). The extant research offers a uniform and unpleasant conclusion—that racial microaggressions erode the fabric of a just society (Dovidio and Gaertner 2005) and are stressors that result in negative physical and mental health outcomes (USDHHS 2001). Our Goals for This Special Issue Our objective with this special issue is to expand currently untapped ideas about racial microaggressions from a sociological point of view. As noted, research on this issue comes largely out of psychiatry, psychology, and education—disciplines that tend to place less emphasis on structural and institutional causes of racism. There is a need for more sociologically guided research to examine how subtle, covert, and non-apparent forms of racism affect minorities physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally—and how these micronooses, to borrow the term from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (see Kabas 2015), can best be understood in a larger context of structural racism. Examination of racial microaggressions from a sociological point of view promises additional insight to help understand the complexities of contemporary race and racism in America and abroad. What Is to Come In what follows, we highlight some of the literature that has informed social science research on racial microaggressions, with particular attention to contributions from psychiatry, psychology, and education. We then move to the influence of sociology on the topic and highlight Philomena Essed’s “everyday racism,” a concept established in the early 1990s. We promote a sociological perspective to extend what we already know at the psychological level, and that contextualizes racial microaggressions to allow a deeper understanding of structural conditions that give rise to them and the racialized mechanisms within institutions that help reaffirm white supremacy. We end by outlining the contributions of this special issue, each article reflecting our unique call for sociologists to rethink how we understand and research racial microaggressions in the post-Civil Rights era. We do not presume to point to a particular sociological approach to racial microaggressions, but we do believe this special issue presents creative scholarship that is cutting-edge in how researchers think about and through these issues. What Do We Know About Racial Microaggressions? From Chester Pierce to Derald Wing Sue—Contributions from Psychiatry and Psychology The concept of microaggressions originated in psychiatric and psychological practice and represents a way to understand microaggressions at the

196

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

individual level. The leading proponents of individualized interaction-based microaggressions are Chester Pierce and Derald Sue. As practicing clinicians, both found that microaggressions impact the lives of their clients, and both also touch on the role of context—albeit with some limitations which we will discuss. Chester Pierce, one of the first practicing black psychiatrists at Harvard University Medical School, is credited with coining the term “microaggressions.” His experiences treating black patients led him to develop a theory of offensive mechanisms based on injuries his patients suffered daily and cumulatively. In 1970, he wrote a chapter in a book titled The Black Seventies, edited by Floyd B. Barbour. Pierce’s chapter, “Offensive Mechanisms,” outlined a way for psychiatrists to acknowledge racism, and that whites work in ways to devalue blacks. He referred to these offensive mechanisms as microaggressions. Pierce argued that feelings of superiority motivate one group of people to brutalize, degrade, abuse, and humiliate another group. He noted, The superiority feelings accompanying contemptuous condescension toward a target group are so rampant in our society that it is virtually impossible for any negotiation between Blacks and whites to take place without the auspices of such offensive tactics (265).

While microaggressions are often subtle, their comutative effect is of “unimaginable magnitude.” Pierce conceptualized microaggressions to occur in the interaction between blacks and whites and proposed that superiority stemming from racism could manifest as micro-offenses which “minimize the social importance of black achievement so that blacks see themselves as useless, unlovable and unable” (268). Microaggressions allow for blacks to be denied equality in education and employment while also being more overtly terrorized by police departments in black neighborhoods. Pierce implicated U.S. culture as making microaggressions automatic and even obligatory on the part of whites. Further, he argued that while these mechanisms may be seen as conscious, unconscious, or preconscious to white people, to blacks they are salient and automatic. Pierce envisioned microaggressions as a public health issue due to its magnitude and damaging effects on blacks. Three decades later, psychology found interest in the concept of microaggressions and added to its utility by making it more intersectional—that is, incorporating elements of gender and sexual orientation to racial microaggressions. Scholarship began to move beyond the black/white binary and assess the experiences of other minorities’ experiences of racial microaggressions in the United States. Renewed interest in the topic was sparked by publication of Sue et al. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice,” published in The American Psychologist (2007)—cited over 500 times in the past five years (see also Yosso et al. 2009). In this seminal article,

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

197

Sue et al. defined microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group” (Sue et al. 2007:273). Sue et al. categorized these manifestations of racism into three distinct types: microassaults (overt and conscious manifestations of racism, such as verbal and nonverbal attacks using racial epithets), microinsults (communication that conveys hidden insults to demean a person’s racial heritage or identity), and microinvalidations (communication that invalidated the reality of minority people). In his 2010 book, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, Sue elaborated on these concepts, further shaping our understanding of what constitute acts of microaggressions. Sue and others focus on the effects of racial microaggressions on individuals’ mental well-being. This interest has led researchers to experimental designs oriented toward measuring various psychological impacts of covert forms of racism, and work by psychiatrists and psychologists has focused on their deleterious psychological effects (Constantine 2007; Sue et al. 2008; Burrow and Ong 2010; Torres et al. 2010; Burrow and Hill 2012; Ong et al. 2013; Sue et al. 2009; Nadal et al. 2014a; 2014b). Sue’s research found that microaggressions limit the lifespan of blacks and constituted a public health issue and that the impact of microaggressions can be worse than that of overt racism and can have significant psychological effects. Overall, psychiatrists and psychologists who have initiated research on microaggressions have demonstrated the utility of an individual perspective, emphasized the psychological and physiological consequences for life expectancy and mental health, and characterized microaggressions as interactional in nature and individualized in motivation and consequences. Contributions from Education Scholars—Racial Battle Fatigue and Emotional Coping While psychiatrists and psychologists like Pierce and Sue opened the way for scholars to better understand microaggressions (and specifically racial microaggressions), education researchers made advancements in empirically testing how microaggressions have affected students’ performance in schools, colleges, and universities. The majority of this research on microaggressions has focused on the black experience in U.S. colleges and universities (Allen 1985, 1992; Allen, Epp, and Haniff 1991; Allen, Spencer, and OConnor 2002; Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007; Smith, Hung, and Franklin 2011). More recently, scholarship on racial microaggressions has expanded to the experiences of other minorities (Kohli 2012a, 2012b; McGee, Thakore, and LaBlance 2016) and employed more refined empirical instruments and methodologies (Nadal 2011).

198

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

New and innovative research on racial microaggressions includes work by William A. Smith et al. Smith, Allen, and Danley (2007) coined the term “racial battle fatigue” to refer to the “result of constant physiological, psychological, cultural, and emotional coping with racial microaggressions in lessthan-ideal and racially hostile or unsupportive environments” (2007:555). This racial battle fatigue affects many African Americans who deal with both the constant rigors of everyday life (i.e., the everyday stressors of being human in society), and being black or brown in America. Smith, Hung, and Franklin (2011) further argue that black males are more likely to suffer from racial battle fatigue than any other group. Since Smith and company (Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007; Smith, Hung, and Franklin 2011), other education scholars have examined research on “battle fatigue” and microaggressions to include other minority groups. For example, McGee et al. (McGee, Thakore, and LaBlance 2016) examined how Asian undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students accept, navigate, and challenge the model minority myth in their fields. The researchers contend that Asian undergraduate students utilize different coping strategies to deal with racial stressors they face in colleges and universities. McGee, Thakore, and LaBlance (2016) place emphasis on the role of undergraduate advisors and professors to be more aware of these dynamics in consideration of their Asian students. Recently, education scholars turned to the daily experiences of non-whites to better understand and analyze everyday forms of racism, and how racial microaggressions are tied to institutions and racial ideologies (see Smith, Hung, and Franklin 2011; for example). In “Racial Microaggressions as a Tool for Critical Race Research,” Lindsay Perez Huber AND Daniel G. Solorzano (2015) utilize Critical Race Theory (CRT) to better understand how racial microaggressions operate in the United States. Huber and Solorzano argue that everyday racist events are “systemically mediated by institutionalized racism (i.e., structures and processes), and guided by ideologies of white supremacy that justify the superiority of a dominant group (whites) over no n-dominant groups (People of Color)” (2014:1). A CRT approach to racial microaggressions allows for deeper consideration of the connections between discriminatory acts by an actor or actors—subtle or otherwise—and the institutional and ideological mechanisms that help maintain these discriminatory acts as normal. A CRT lens allows scholars to recognize systemic, everyday racism as instrumental for keeping minorities in their place. However, CRT has been criticized as a pseudo theory in that it offers no testable propositions, and a range of scholars challenge the legitimacy of CRT, from Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, and others who argue that lack of a testable thesis is a barrier to legitimacy. Despite

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

199

this, CRT remains relevant by offering a set of tenets that most race scholars hold to be fundamental to better understand how race and racism work structurally and systemically. These include that race is a socially constructed concept; that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time; and that laws are a mechanism designed to maintain racial status quo (see Hughey, Embrick, and Doane 2015). But even while CRT questions current law and order practices and institutions, and even social order, it misses the connections between micro-, meso-, and macrolevel understandings of how race works in society. Sociology’s Contributions and Moving Forward Recently, sociologists have become reinvested in the study of racial microaggressions, perhaps due to a general consensus that racism operates differently today as opposed to the pre-Civil Rights era. Despite positive changes in the legal system since the Civil Rights era, many race experts contend that practices and mechanisms that work to keep blacks and other minorities subordinated have become more covert, subtle and ambiguous (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Bonilla-Silva and Lewis 2000; Smith 1995). Scholars have begun to measure everyday interactional and institutional indignities and their impact on people of color living in the United States in different institutional and organizational contexts. But absent sociological theorization on racial microaggressions, many sociologists approach them through a psychological or educational lens. Some sociological thinking about racial microaggressions and their impact on people of color does exist. Before Bonilla-Silva’s (1997, see also 2001) notable piece on racialized social systems, and around the same time as Omi and Winant’s (1986) celebrated book, Racial Formations, Philomena Essed contributed to race scholarship with her groundbreaking work on everyday racism (Essed 1986, 1990, 1991). In Everyday Racism: Reports from Women of Two Cultures (1991), Essed distinguished between cultural, institutional, and individual racism. Cultural racism involved the racialized imagery and perception of blacks in society. Institutional racism had to do with the racial mechanisms (direct or indirect) in societal institutions designed to limit the rights and opportunities of certain racial and/or ethnic groups both overtly and covertly. Finally, Essed suggested that individual racism included prejudice and covert forms of discrimination. Such racism could involve “. . .ignoring a Black colleague by never inviting her for a drink after work, or by excluding her from other types of contact among colleagues. . .” (Essed 1991:24). It could also be about one’s choice of friendships, relationships, or even how one chooses the neighborhood in which to live. Beyond these distinctions, Essed coined the concept of everyday racism, “. . .the various types and expressions of racism experienced by ethnic groups in everyday contact with members of the more

200

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

powerful (white) group” (Essed 1991:31). For Essed, everyday racism is defined from the point of view of the minority groups who experience it. Essed’s contributions to the scholarship of racial microaggressions are among the earliest in this area, and Essed was among the first race scholars to distinguish between overt and covert racism, and to suggest that covert racism not only makes it hard for blacks’ claims of racial discrimination to be taken seriously, but it normalizes racist actions in ways that serve to absolve whites from any responsibility for their actions. Consider the following passage from Essed’s book (1991:34): Covert racism does not necessarily imply that the underlying racist feelings are being concealed intentionally. In a racist society, public morality and the accepted norms may actually condemn racism. But the concepts of white superiority and the rejection of blacks will already have established themselves to such an extent that instead of being exceptional, they become ‘normal.’

Minorities experience racial prejudice and discrimination in ways that have tangible mental, physiological, and health implications, and the consequences of these interactions may be exacerbated because of the denial by the perpetrator of a racial act (e.g., “I did not mean it that way,” “You’re too sensitive,” or “It was only a joke.”). Since Essed’s work on everyday racism, little sociological research has paid serious consideration, or attention, to racial microaggressions. Sociology does not ignore the issue, but contributions from sociologists have been scarce in comparison to scholars from other fields, notably psychologists and education scholars. One exception is Joe R. Feagin, who spent a significant part of his life examining contemporary forms of racial discrimination that produce negative social, psychological, and physiological consequences (see, in particular, Feagin and McKinney 2003; Feagin 2000; Feagin, Vera, and Imani 1996). These and other sociological contributions allow us to better understand racial microaggressions from a sociological point of view. But one substantial issue has been left undone—how to approach racial microaggressions with a sociological perspective of how race works in society, and how to employ a more macrolevel understanding of race and racism (Bonilla-Silva 1997; Essed 1990; Feagin 2000). Special Issue Highlights This special issue offers new research by sociologists who explore racial microaggressions beyond the individual level in collaborative and interdisciplinary inquiry. We contend that racial microaggressions are not solely acts perpetrated by individuals, but may come about as a result of racialized mechanisms within institutions that help reaffirm white supremacy. Such mechanisms

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

201

might include symbols of racial oppression such as statues and celebrated portraits of former slave owners, the U.S. confederate flag, or even the lack of racial diversity in public spaces. Each article in this special issue reflects our unique call to sociologists to rethink how we might understand and research racial microaggressions in the post-Civil Rights U.S. era. The first article by Zambrana et al. uses mixed methods to examine overt and covert forms of discrimination faced by African American, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican tenure-track faculty members working in “predominantly white” research-intensive colleges. They find that the perception of and reaction to discriminatory practices by targeted individuals (whether to report discrimination or not) vary by race, gender, and class, reasserting the crucial significance of intersectionality with gender and class in microaggressions. The authors reveal covert and outright forms of discrimination in the academic institution, so-perceived as the “liberal bastion,” and demonstrate how the discourse of “color-blindness” within this setting obscures the actual practices of discrimination. Keith et al. examine the effects of phenotype (evaluated by skin tone and body weight) and gender on the level of discriminatory treatment that African Americans receive on a daily basis. Their analysis contributes to racial microaggressions literature by exploring the racialization of a phenotypic feature other than skin color: body weight. Hypotheses that predict positive correlations between darker skin color and increased discrimination, and between body weight and increased discrimination, are confirmed. While body weight’s positive correlation with discrimination holds true for African American men, it does not for African American women. Results also reveal gender differences in the reporting of unfair treatment. Senter and Ling argue that victims’ reactions to microaggressions demonstrate how whites attempt to sustain racial dominance when threatened. Blumer’s (1958) group threat theory is applied to Native Americans and EuroAmericans relations in a Midwestern community where Native Americans have made significant economic and social gains through gaming operations. This allows a case study of racism stemming from a threat to group position. Findings indicate that social and economic gains by Native Americans did not change the attitudes of whites toward them, and old-fashioned overt racism and microassaults persisted. While this study adds to the sociological understanding of microaggressions as influenced by structural factors, it is also noteworthy in its application to a Native American population. Moore and Bracey study the Evangelical church, which claims to be “welcoming” to all, yet remains highly exclusionary and segregated. Through what the authors call “race tests,” people of color are kept out of these communities while they simultaneously produce an image of accepting diversity. Through

202

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

the invocation of stereotypes such as a simple question of “but, do you sing?” or introduction of a person of color to someone else of color for no apparent reason, white community members actively build walls that keep people of color out of their predominantly white churches. Moore and Bracey show how daily microaggressions help re-establish group boundaries and hierarchies, and safeguard existing group privileges. This study demonstrates the value of ethnographic research on microaggressions. Detailed knowledge of the repertoire of these deceptive acts is essential to understanding and tackling covert forms of racism that create and recreate group hierarchies. Hughey et al. propose a retheorization of microaggressions in sociological terms, inspired by Essed’s (1991) earlier approach. In this conceptualization, “everyday racism” refers to the accumulation of recurring practices that (re)produce racial inequalities. Focusing on three processes, “(1) the marginalization of people of color; (2) the problematization of non-white cultures and identities; and (3) symbolic or physical repression through humiliation or violence,” the authors aim to explore everyday microaggressions. Hughey et al. borrow from psychological research designs while at the same time rethinking the definition of microaggressions in sociological terms. Using a vignette method, they recruit university undergraduate students (n = 320) to read either a vignette that includes typical examples of microaggressions or the control vignette that has no microaggressive content, and then ask students to complete a survey based on the vignettes. Their findings indicate a complicated picture with effects of microaggressions varying from one individual to another based on multiple factors. “Those most likely to use microaggressions are the ones most benefiting from the current arrangement of racial and gender social order—White men.” The merits of this study lie in the use of rigorous scientific methodology from psychology to develop a sociological understanding of microaggressions, and a consideration of both micro (individual)- and macro (societal)-level factors. Guided by Goffman’s (1961) idea of “patterns of mortification” within “total institutions” like prisons where systemic, targeted, and uneven degradations are used as mechanisms of surveillance and punishment, Rengifo and Pater’s work links “microaggressions to the broader institution of policing and racial tensions with the public.” Analyzing data from in-depth interviews with young blacks and Latinos, the authors explore the range of microaggressions, their perception by targeted individuals, and the effects of race and gender in acts of microaggressions during police stops in New York City. Their findings indicate that microaggressions during police–minority encounters can be divided into two categories: those implying criminality and those implying inferiority. Through the production of these hierarchies, the authors view such police interactions as “emerging models of social control.” While racist policing tends to draw attention only at moments of overt violence, Rengifo and Pater explore

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

203

the continually racialized and gendered nature of police–minority interactions and their implications for (re)producing social hierarchies. Baker looks at a homogenous white space in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada to explore the nature of racial microaggressions as perceived by white youth among a sample of first-year undergraduate students, adding another context in which case studies of microaggressions are likely to be overlooked. Baker examines microaggressions focused on racialized minorities in an overwhelmingly white community by examining a setting with very few non-white minority members, yet a surprisingly high incidence of observed microaggressions among white students. This finding seems to refute a group threat perspective but finds a connection between microinsults and generalized frustration due to Muslims and blacks “taking jobs” away from whites. Finally, Ballinas argues for more research examining how Mexican students have been received in historically white colleges and universities and the immediate areas that surround these higher education institutions. He argues that from the patterns of racial microaggressions that dominate their lives—spatial whiteness, interpersonal subordination, and exclusion that reproduce systemic racism—Mexican students not only encounter racialization as non-white, but also come to learn of their status as second-class citizens or even outsiders. With this special issue, we initiate a conversation to promote more theory and research designed to bring microaggressions into sociological focus. We feel that sociologists must begin to establish some ownership of the study of microaggressions given obvious links to structural dynamics and the discipline’s long history of inquiry into race and racism. With this special issue, we plant a seed.

ENDNOTES *Please direct correspondence to David G. Embrick, University of Connecticut, 44 Mansfield Road, Unit 1068 Manchester Hall, Storrs, CT, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES Allen, Walter. 1985. “Black Student, White Campus: Structural, Interpersonal and Psychological Correlates of Success.” Journal of Negro Education 54(2):134–47. ———. 1992. “The Color of Success: African American College Student Outcomes at Predominantly White and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” Harvard Educational Review 62(1):26–45. Allen, Walter R., Edgar G. Epp, and Nesha Z. Haniff, eds. 1991. College in Black and White: African American Students in Predominantly White and Historically Black Public Universities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

204

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

Allen, Walter R., Margaret Beale Spencer, and Carla OConnor, eds. 2002. African American Education: Race, Community, Inequality and Achievement - A Tribute to Edgar G. Epps. London, UK: JAI Press Inc. Anderson, Elijah. 2011. The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Bennett, Gary G., Kathleen Yaus Wolin, Elwood L. Robinson, Sherrye Fowler, and Christopher L. Edwards. 2005. “Perceived Racial/Ethnic Harassment and Tobacco use Among African American Young Adults.” American Journal of Public Health 5:238–40. Blau, Judith. 2004. Race in the Schools: Perpetuating White Dominance?. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pacific Sociological Review 1(1):3–7. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation.” American Sociological Review 62(3):465–80. ———. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ———. 2012. “The Invisible Weights of Whiteness: The Racial Grammar of Everyday Life in Contemparary America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(2):173–194. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and David G. Embrick. 2006. “The (White) Color of Color Blindness in 21st Century Amerika.” Pp. 3–24 in Race, Ethnicity, and Education (Volume 4: Colorblind Racism: Racism/Anti-racist Action), edited by E. Wayne Ross, Valerie Ooka Pang. New York: Praeger. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Amanda E. Lewis. 2000. “‘This is a White Country’: The Racial Ideology of the Western Nations of the World-System.” Sociological Inquiry 70(2):188–214. Bowen-Reid, Terra L. and Jules P. Harrell. 2002. “Racist Experiences and Health Outcomes: An Examination of Spirituality as a Buffer.” Journal of Black Psychology 28:18–36. Brantlinger, Ellen. 2003. Dividing Classes: How the Middle Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School Advantage. New York: Routledge. Burrow, Anthony L. and Anthony D. Ong. 2010. “The Moderating Role of Racial Identity in Exposure and Reactivity to Daily Racial Microaggressions.” Self and Identity 9:383–402. Burrow, Anthony L. and Patrick L. Hill. 2012. “Flying the Unfriendly Skies?: The Role of Forgiveness and Race in the Experience of Racial Microaggressions..” Journal of Social Psychology 152(5):639–653. Chestler, Mark, Amanda E. Lewis, and James E. Crowfoot. 2005. Challenging Racism in Higher Education: Promoting Justice. Boulder, CO: Roman & Littlefield. Constantine, Madonna G. 2007. “Racial Microaggressions against African American Clients in Cross-Racial Counseling Relationships.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 54:1–16. Dalmage, Heather. 2003. Tripping on the Color Line: Black-White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Dovidio, Jack F. and Sam L. Gaertner. 2005. “Color Blind or Just Plain Blind.” Nonprofit (Winter). D’Souza, Dinesh. 1995. The End of Racism. New York: The Free Press. Embrick, David G. 2011. “Diversity Ideology in the Business World: A New Oppression for a New Age.” Critical Sociology 37(5):541–56. Emerson, Michael. 2001. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Essed, Philomena. 1986. “The Dutch as an Everyday Problem: Some Notes on the Nature of White Racism.” Working Paper 3. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Centre for Race and Ethnic Studies. ———. 1990. Everyday Racism: Reports from Women of Two Cultures. Claremont, CA: Hunter House Inc., Publishers. ———. 1991. Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

MORE THAN JUST INSULTS

205

Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge. ———. 2012. White Party, White Government: Race, Class, and U.S. Politics. New York: Routledge. Feagin, Joe R. and Karyn McKinney. 2003. The Many Costs of Racism. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Feagin, Joe R., Hernan Vera, and Nikki Imani. 1996. The Agony of Education: Black Students in White Colleges and Universities. New York: Routledge. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums New York: Random House. Hedstr€ om, Peter and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:49–67. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life New York: The Free Press. Hughey, Matthew W., David G. Embrick, and Ashley Woody Doane. 2015. “Paving the Way for Future Race Research: Exploring the Racial Mechanisms within a Color-Blind, Racism and the Racialized Social System.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(11):1347–57. Kabas, Marisa. 2015. “Duke Professor on Leave after Posting Comment about Black Students and Their ‘Strange’ Names.” The Daily Dot, May 17. Retrieved February 1, 2017. http://www.da ilydot.com/irl/duke-professor-new-york-times-comment/. Kohli, Rita 2012a. “Teachers, Please Learn Our Names!: Racial Microagressions and the K-12 Classroom.” Race, Ethnicity and Education 9(15):441–62. ———. 2012b. “Racial Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Critical Interracial Dialogue for Teachers of Color.” Equity & Excellence in Education 45(1):181–96. Krysan, Maria and Reynolds Farley. 2002. “The Residential Preferences of Blacks: Do They Explain Persistent Segregation?” Social Forces 80(3):937–80. Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhood: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lewis, Amanda E. and John Diamond. 2015. Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in Good Schools. New York: Oxford University Press. McGee, Ebony, Bhoomi K. Thakore, and Sandra LaBlance. 2016. “The Burden of Being Model: Racialized Experiences among Asian STEM Students.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000022. Moore, Wendy L. 2008. Reproducing Racism: White Space, Elite Law Schools, and Racial Inequality. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Nadal, Kevin L. 2011. “The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 58(4):470–80. Nadal, Kevin L., Katie E. Griffin, Yinglee Wong, Sahran Hamit and , Morgan Rasmus. 2014a. “”The Impact of Racial Microaggressions on Mental Health: Counseling Implications for Clients of Color.” Journal of Counseling & Development 92(1):57–66. Nadal, Kevin L., Yinglee Wong, Katie E. Griffin, Kristin Davidoff and , Julie Sriken. 2014b. “”The Adverse Impact of Racial Microaggressions on College Students’ Self-esteem.” Journal of college student development 55(5):461–474. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge. Ong, Anthony D., Anthony L. Burrow, Thomas E. Fuller-Rowell, Nicole M. Ja, and Derald Wing Sue. 2013. “Racial Microaggressions and Daily Well-being among Asian Americans.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 60(2):188-199. Perez Huber, Lindsay and Daniel G. Solorzano. 2015. “Racial Microaggressions as a Tool for Critical Race Research.” Race Ethnicity, and Education 18(3):297–320.

206

DAVID G. EMBRICK ET AL.

Pierce, Chester. 1970. “Offensive Mechanisms.” Pp. 265–81 in The Black Seventies, edited by Floyd B. Barbour. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publisher. Ridgeway, Cecilia. 2014. “Why Status Matters for Inequality.” American Sociological Review 79 (1):1–16. Royster, Deirdre A. 2003. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue Collar Jobs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sarich, Vincent and Frank Miele. 2004. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sellers, Robert M. and J. Nicole Shelton. 2003. “The Role of Racial Identity in Perceived Racial Discrimination.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84:1079–1092. Smith, Robert C. 1995. Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era: Now you See It, Now You Don’t. New York: State University of New York Press. Smith, William A., Walter R. Allen, and Lynette L. Danley. 2007. “‘Assume the Position. . .You Fit the Description’: Psychological Experiences and Racial Battle Fatigue among African American Male College Students.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(4):551–78. Smith, William A., Man Hung, and Jeremy D. Franklin. 2011. “Racial Battle Fatigue and the Miseducation of Black Men: Microaggressions, Societal Problems, & Environmental Stress. ”Journal of Negro Education 80(1):63–82. Solorzano, Daniel, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso. 2000. “Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African American College Students.” Journal of Negro Education 69(1/2):60–73. Sowell, Thomas. 1994. Race and Culture: A World View. New York: BasicBooks. Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. “Racial Microaggression in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist 62:271–87. Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, and Aisha M. B. Holder. 2008. “Racial Microaggressions in the Life Experiences of Black Americans.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 39(3):329–336. Sue, Derald Wing, Jennifer Bucceri, Annie I. Lin, Kevin L. Nadal and Gina C. Torino. 2009. “Racial Microaggressions and the Asian American Experience..” Asian American Journal of Psychology S(1):88–101. Torres, Lucas, Mark W. Driscoll, and Anthony L. Burrow. 2010. “Racial Microaggressions and Psychological Functioning among Highly Achieving African-Americans: A Mixed-methods Approach.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29(10):1074–1099. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity (A Supplement to Mental health: A report of the surgeon general). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. Vallas, Steven. 2003. “Why Teamwork Fails: Obstacles to Workplace Change in Four Manufacturing Plants.” American Sociological Review 68(2):223–50. West, Cornell. 1994. Race Matters. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Wilson, William J. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Yosso, Tara J., William A. Smith, Miguel Ceja, and Daniel G. Solorzano. 2009. “Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate for Latina/o Undergraduates.” Harvard Educational Review 79(4):659–90.