Everyday Indignities: Using the Microaggressions Framework to Understand Weight Stigma

Microaggressions: What are They?

Derald Sue, a leading scholar in the field, defines microaggressions as “commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative insults to a target person or group.” ² A distinct feature of microaggressions is that the individuals who perpetrate them are often, though not always, unaware of the fact that they are engaging in the denigration of a marginalized group or do so unintentionally. This can be because they do not realize the underlying message, or metacommunication, that is implicit in their behavior or remark, or because they believe they are communicating a different message entirely. While slights of this nature may be dismissed as having a minor impact, it is their repeated occurrence that constitutes a level of cumulative stress for those on the receiving end; Nadal and colleagues referred to them as “death by a thousand cuts.” ³

Microaggressions have been further broken down into three categories: microinsults, microinvalidations and microassaults, which are differentiated according to the conscious intent of the perpetrator, as well as the content and severity of the associated message. ⁴ Microinsults are, often unconscious, behaviors, remarks, or environmental cues that communicate insensitivity, rudeness, or are demeaning. These can include comments intended as compliments (e.g., “You don't look gay!”) or visual cues that remind marginalized individuals that they are not respected (e.g., a workplace calendar that depicts hypersexualized images of women). Microinvalidations are also often unconscious, though they serve to directly erase or dismiss the lived experience of marginalized groups (e.g., claiming that racism is a thing of the past, dismissing the need for events that celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] communities). These microaggressions have been deemed the most damaging, as they “exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the target group.” ⁵

Microassaults are akin to “old fashioned” bigotry. ⁶ They are often deliberate and reflect biased beliefs held by individuals who express them in covert or overt ways (e.g., using racist slurs, refusing to associate with LGBT people). Microassaults tend to occur only when the offender feels safe expressing prejudicial attitudes (i.e., due to anonymity or believing they are in the company of others with similar opinions) or in moments where the perpetrator loses their composure. ⁷ In their review of psychological literature on racial microaggressions, Wong and colleagues found that most studies addressed microinvalidations and microinsults; they argued that, “these two forms — not microassaults — capture the true definition of racial microaggressions.” ⁸ While microassaults have received less attention in the literature on microaggressions, I contend that their role in the framework is an important one. Identifying microassaults allows us to also document the conditions in which perpetrators feel safe to express them. In particular, when a society creates an environment that is permissive of certain kinds of bigotry, it is relatively safe for perpetrators to enact microassaults. For example, transphobia is often disguised as entertainment when trans people are used as the punchline of a joke or are referred to using derogatory terms. As attitudes change over time, or as overt discrimination towards a certain group becomes less socially acceptable, we may see a decline in the enactment of microassaults; that is to say, the way that discrimination is enacted or the context it is presented in may change but it does not mean that discrimination is no longer present.

While many microaggressions are verbal or behavioral, they can also be conveyed through environmental cues. Environmental microaggressions refer to the “numerous demeaning and threatening social, educational, political and economic cues that are communicated individually, institutionally, or societally to marginalized groups.” ⁹ Oftentimes, our physical environments or the architecture of a space can represent a microaggression (e.g., classroom desks that do not accommodate fat bodies), as can policies and practices that govern interactions in a setting (e.g. forms that only offer identity categories that fit within the gender binary). In these cases, the microaggression is not necessarily communicated through a one-on-one interpersonal interaction.

What are the Impacts?

In outlining the impacts of microaggressions, Sue described four distinct pathways that microaggressive stress manifests through: 1) biological and physical effects, 2) emotional effects, 3) cognitive effects, and 4) behavior effects. ¹⁰ In terms of biological and physical effects, Sue used the life-change model of stress to explain how the accumulation of microaggressions can lead to increased occurrences and severity of illnesses. ¹¹ Indeed, the negative impact of stress on health has been well documented in the field of health psychology, demonstrating a host of negative impacts linked to chronic stress including; lowered immune system functioning, coronary heart disease, kidney disease, and insulin tolerance. ¹²

Bringing together research in health psychology and epidemiology, Jackson, Kubzansky, and Wright outlined a “perceived unfairness model” which could also be used to explain biological and physical effects. Their model posits that perceived unfairness against a member of one's own social identity group “may be an important mechanism by which external inequities become internalized and influence health.” ¹³ Connecting this model to weight stigma, Chrisler and Barney pointed to findings by Schvey, Puhl, and Brownell which revealed that exposure to negative stereotypes of fat women in media resulted in significantly higher cortisol levels for women who viewed these clips. ¹⁴

Microaggressions are also emotionally and cognitively taxing for victims. Sue highlighted three processes for cognitive effects: 1) attributional ambiguity, which refers to the uncertainty associated with some microaggressive acts and the time spent trying to make sense of the situation (e.g., wondering about the intent behind the phrase “you don't look gay”), 2) disrupted cognitive process, which occurs when an individual is unable to focus as a result of a microaggression, and 3) the potential for stereotype threat to be activated, leading to lower performance. ¹⁵ The cognitive impacts of microaggressions are notably distinct from those of overt forms of prejudice. As Salvatore and Shelton discovered, Black participants who read vignettes with ambiguous prejudicial scenarios performed more poorly on a high-level cognitive test than those who read blatantly prejudicial scenarios. ¹⁶

Weight Stigma

Thus far, the microaggressions framework has been applied to racialized groups, individuals with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, and women, to account for the everyday kinds of discrimination that individuals from these marginalized groups experience. To say that fat people are marginalized in society should not come as a shock. Prior to providing a rationalization for the application of the microaggressions framework to this group, I offer a brief summary of the literature as it pertains to weight stigma. The stigma that fat people experience is pervasive, with sources of discrimination ranging from medical professionals to educators and family members. ¹⁷ Simply put, there are few environments and interpersonal relationships that are untouched by weight stigma. The impacts of discrimination are similarly far-reaching.

In schools, fat students experience discrimination from peers, and their teachers have lower expectations for their performance. ¹⁸ In one study that included adolescents of varying body sizes, weight-based teasing resulted in rates of suicidal ideation and attempts for adolescents that were two to three times higher than for those who were not teased. ¹⁹ Negative perceptions of fat people are also evident in the workplace, as coworkers, supervisors, and employers demonstrate anti-fat bias ²⁰ and those seeking a job come up against discrimination in the hiring process. ²¹ In seeking medical care, fat individuals contend with stigmatizing attitudes from providers and, at times, denial of services. ²² Emerging research increasingly demonstrates the negative impact of weight stigma on the health and well-being of fat people. ²³ Yet barriers to health remain staunchly in place, as providers fail to deliver evidence-based care to fat patients. ²⁴ Chrisler and Barney noted indirect and direct effects on health as a result of barriers to care, describing indirect effects as those related to discriminatory attitudes and comments on the part of health care providers and the resulting impacts on experiences of and access to care (e.g., less trust in providers, delay in seeking care) and direct effects as more tangible barriers (e.g., physical environments that are not accommodating of fat bodies, denial of services due to weight). ²⁵

Fat Microaggressions

While there is a growing body of literature on the existence and impact of fat stigma, very few academic studies have explicitly taken up the microaggressions framework. In some recent works, scholars focused on weight stigma have noted microaggressions as an orienting concept, ²⁶ though there has yet to be focused work in this area which seeks to define and categorize fat stigma in terms of microaggressions. One exception is Schafer's unpublished dissertation work on the microaggressions experienced by “obese” women in psychotherapy, which detailed the ways in which therapists perpetuate weight stigma in encounters with clients. ²⁷

Despite the dearth of scholarly research on fat microaggressions, the concept has reached a point of casual usage among some academics. In arguing for the prioritization of well-being over weight loss, Tylka and colleagues mention microaggressions in the framing of weight stigma. ²⁸ Hardy briefly noted microaggressions as a mechanism that upholds and contributes to the dehumanization of fat people. ²⁹ Recently, Chrisler and Barney highlighted microaggressions and the links between cumulative stress and health in their recent article on the direct and indirect impacts of sizeism on the health of fat individuals. ³⁰

Though they did not incorporate a microaggressions approach, Seacat and colleagues used daily diary assessments, wherein fifty women, who fell into “over-weight” or “obese” categories, kept records of every instance when they felt bullied or judged for their body size. ³¹ Their findings revealed a greater frequency of weight stigmatization than previously reported, with women noting an average of three incidents each day, and has implications for the importance of assessing the frequency of such instances.

Outside of academia, the microaggressions framework has gained traction on social media and among fat activists. In December of 2013, blogger Melissa McEwan created the #FatMicroaggressions hashtag to document the subtle, and not so subtle, derogatory comments directed at fat people on a regular basis. This sparked a series of response tweets, blogs, online magazine articles, and posts on social media wherein fat activists and bloggers began to delineate fat microaggressions. ³² Responding to the #FatMicro-aggressions hashtag, Julia Sonenshein pointed out the power of microaggressions in reinforcing inaccurate and harmful beliefs about fatness, saying: “Microaggressions are more dangerous than blatant bullying or shaming, because they're cloaked in compliments or worse, as “just the way it is.” The implicit assumption of factual accuracy makes them all the easier to internalize, and then these backwards notions get even more entrenched in society.” ³³ While Sonenshein is speaking to more subtle forms of microaggressions, it is important to note that the results threads on Twitter that used the #FatMicroaggressions hashtag also included some outright hateful comments that would constitute microassaults.

That these conversations are happening in online spaces and not academic ones may have something to do with the realm that Fat Activism operates in and the challenges that critical scholars face in relation to academic gatekeeping. Reflecting on the former, Klumbyte and Smiet described the proliferation of the Fat Acceptance movement in online spaces as reaching a peak in 2007, noting that “The use of the internet is central in the increased visibility of Fat Activism. The online presence has improved connections between local activists, and has made local actions and individual projects accessible to broader audiences.” ³⁴ They pointed to blogging as a new mode of expression and activism, so it should come as no surprise that micro-blogging (through platforms like Twitter) is also a tool being utilized by those engaged in the Fat Acceptance movement. Reflecting on the power of online organizing, Virginia Braun tweeted: “hashtags as incredibly powerful — connecting people across the globe can create schema eg. #fat microaggressions.” ³⁵ This conversation has continued over the years and is ever present in discussions among fat activists. ³⁶ When fat activists talk, when any marginalized group talks, we need to listen. While the concept of microaggressions is beginning to receive tacit acknowledgment in academic work on weight stigma, more concentrated inquiry is required.

Why Microaggressions?

Whether it is in relation to weight stigma, racism, or sexism, the concept of microaggressions is compelling and resonates with those who are marginalized. This is seen through the proliferation of magazine articles (as mentioned above), posts on social media, and in recent campaigns designed to draw attention to micro-aggressions. ³⁷ While it has yet to be examined in-depth in academic circles, I believe that there is immense potential in the application of this framework to the issue of weight stigma. The microaggressions framework offers value to research on weight stigma in the following ways: 1) it focuses on the victim's experience of discrimination, rather than quantifying stigma from a perpetrator's perspective; 2) it acknowledges the pervasive and often ambiguous nature of stigma; 3) it can be used to acknowledge the complexity of intersecting marginalized identities; 4) the process of identifying weight-based microaggressions is a crucial first step in challenging the systems of oppression that legitimize their use and perpetuates weight stigma.

Listening to Lived Experience

Approaching the topic of weight stigma using the microaggressions framework offers a methodological reframe wherein those who experience discrimination are able to define it. Research in this field centers on the experiences of marginalized individuals. Rather than surveying offenders about discriminatory attitudes, the microaggressions framework gives the marginalized the power to name their experiences and describe their impact. This is essential because perpetrators of microaggressions often deny that they have been discriminatory or justify their remarks as well-intentioned, said in jest, or morally superior (e.g., “It was just a joke,” “I didn't mean it like that,” “You're making a big deal out of nothing.”) If the perpetrators of this kind of discrimination are unable or unwilling to recognize their words or actions as being part of the problem, then it makes sense that we should not rely on them to be able to give us a complete picture of the nature of this kind of harm.

In his earlier work on racist and sexist microaggressions, Pierce highlighted the “operational prejudices” that are enshrined in the investigation of these forms of oppression. He pointed out that: (1) the oppressed group is always the target to be understood and analyzed, rather than the dominator being the subject of study by the dominated, (2) the perspective of the oppressed group is rarely sought or valued (3) the dominant group often serves as the arbiter of what is published and taught. ³⁸ In the two decades since his critique, we must ask ourselves if our approach to inquiry still upholds these patterns of dominance. Prioritizing the experiences of those who are marginalized in defining the discrimination they face challenges this pattern and troubles the notion of expert power.

Recognizing the Totality of Stigma

Another value of using the microaggressions framework is that it acknowledges the pervasive and often ambiguous nature of stigma. When we talk about the cumulative impact of microaggressions, it is important to note that it is not just a tabulation of incidents of discernable discrimination, it is also the anticipation and fear that is created as a result of these experiences. Consider health care access and encounters. This fear and anticipation is present when we delay in accessing healthcare, when we steel ourselves for the potential to be discriminated against, when we rehearse how to respond to it if it happens, how to advocate for equitable care, or to just maintain composure. It is there up until the moment we get through the encounter unscathed — or not. And with a referral to someone new or a next appointment booked, it starts all over again.

As Virgie Tovar pointed out, “One of the things people truly misunderstand about the experience of stigma is the totality of it. Most people only think of fat stigma as the explicit moments of interpersonal hostility, like being called a name or being fired because of your weight. But the reality of stigma is that it's more than just those moments — it's all the moments you're waiting for that experience of fat shaming to happen again. Because life has taught you that it will happen again almost certainly.” ³⁹ The impacts of microaggressions extend beyond individual encounters and, as Sue pointed out, can result in disparities in terms of access to education, employment and healthcare. ⁴⁰

Take for example, the case of Geoffrey Miller, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico, who posted the following message on Twitter in June of 2013: “Dear obese Ph.D. applicants: if you don't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth.” ⁴¹ If we regard what he said as the opinion of one person, we can minimize its potential impact; however, we also need to consider the institutional power this person has, as someone who makes decisions about incoming graduate students, and we must reflect on the possibility that there are others who share is ideas (and thus made him feel safe enough to post such a comment). That single comment has the power to impact decisions fat students will make about applying to grad school, how current students will feel entering his classrooms, and will serve to embolden others who share his perspective. When people perpetuate the negative messaging inherent in fat microaggressions (e.g. fat people are lazy, fat people don't have the discipline to make it through grad school) they have the potential to reproduce on a systemic level.

Acknowledging Intersectionality

While it is clear that weight stigma has a deleterious impact on fat individuals, anti-fat messaging reproduces harm in myriad ways and is not always solely about fatness. As Saguy pointed out, weight stigma is also classed and racialized. ⁴² Noting disproportionately high rates of “obesity” among people of color and those living in poverty, Saguy suggested that “in a context in which overt expressions of racism are decreasingly tolerated… condemnation of people for being fat may offer a socially acceptable way of expressing racism and classism.” ⁴³ While microaggressions have typically been delineated in relation to one point of oppression, there is precedent for this framework to be used to examine the complexity of intersecting, multiple marginalized identities. In developing ”The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale,” Balsam and colleagues recognized the “cumulative nature of minority stress” and addressed the importance of assessing the intersection of multiple oppressions — in this case, how racism is intertwined with homophobia and transphobia. ⁴⁴ Attending to the intersections of weight stigma with other forms of oppression is crucial, as “the intersection of body size with gender, race or ethnicity, class, disability, sexual orientation, and age, all of which are linked to at least occasional experiences of perceived unfairness, means that some fat people face a greater cumulative burden of discrimination, and hence higher stress levels, than others do.” ⁴⁵

Mapping the Roots of Fat Microaggressions

Microaggressions are more than individual acts of discrimination — each instance communicates a deeper message (i.e. metacommunication) that contributes to the maintenance of systems of domination. As was indicated in the previous section, sometimes the messaging is about more than just body size — racism, sexism, and classism all intersect with weight stigma. Lebesco links “fat panic” to current discourse on the “obesity epidemic” noting that we aim “a great deal of hostility in the form of moral outrage at the presumed agents of the “obesity epidemic.” For the most part, that means we point the finger at individuals who we understand to be lazy, out of control, without will, ignorant or some combination thereof.” ⁴⁶ This moral outrage is leveled at fat people in subtle and not so subtle ways — we see the intersection of sexism and weight stigma in the form of a microassault when someone writes “No Fat Chicks” on their dating profile or when a passerby shouts “Fat bitch!” at a stranger in the street. We can even see how we legitimize the use of such derogatory slights through entertainment media that relies on humiliating fat people in an attempt to be humorous.

While these more obvious microassaults may be decried as rude and unacceptable, it is only because their vitriol is so clear that we can easily name them as discrimination. What about the more subtle forms of microaggressions? Lee and Pausé contend that anti-fat bias is rooted in healthism, ⁴⁷ and I believe that if we examine the messaging inherent in many microinsults and microinvalidations, we will find a perceived justification for harmful commentary that is grounded in inaccurate assumptions about weight and health. When someone says “If I eat that, it will go straight to my hips!” what message is being communicated? For one, the food in question has been labeled bad or unhealthy, and the suggested consequence of consuming it is that the person will gain weight, which is deemed to be bad. A similar connection of messaging occurs when someone says “Are you sure you want to eat all of that?” If interrogated about the meaning behind these comments, most perpetrators will indicate that they did not mean anything by it or dig in and make their comment about nutrition and health. As a fat person listening to all of this, you might look down at what is on your plate and wonder what opinions people have of your meal; you might consider how the person making the comment does not want to be fat like you. Whether you are fat or not and are hearing these kinds of comments, you may be struggling with your relationship to food or be in recovery from an eating disorder — it is unlikely that anyone in our imagined audience is going to feel good about what was a seemingly innocuous comment.

“Concern for health” is the shield that many perpetrators of weight based microaggressions hide behind — even health professionals. Chrisler and Barney noted “similar to the general public, health care professionals strongly believe that heavy weight is a predictor of poor health, but, unlike the general public they ought to know better.” ⁴⁸ By perpetuating and reinforcing harmful weight-centric approaches that stigmatize fat people, health care professionals may actually be violating principles of beneficence and nonmaleficience. ⁴⁹ Microaggressions perpetrated by healthcare providers often lead to inadequate care and create situations where fat patients are reluctant to return. The urgency with which these misconceptions need to be addressed is evidenced by findings that reveal that it is not fatness that is linked to mortality, rather it is discrimination based on weight that is the culprit. ⁵⁰

The questions: 1) Why do we hate fat people?, 2) Why are we afraid of fat?, and 3) Why do we feel entitled to comment on other people's bodies? require much more attention than can be given in this manuscript, but they are important to keep in mind as we attempt to disentangle microaggressions from their underlying meanings. Lee and Pausé call on us to trouble the assumption that fat is unhealthy and instead suggest that the barriers to health for fat people are inextricably linked to the structural oppression they face. ⁵¹ Furthermore, they advocate for the centring of the lived experience of fat people as crucial to understanding “structural barriers and attitudes and practices that impact on fat people's health.” ⁵² Delineating fat microaggressions will contribute to these goals and will provide useful information for mapping the various interlocking structures that uphold weight-based oppression.

Fattening the Framework

There is a swiftness with which microaggressions are dismissed as inconsequential or of little merit. ⁵³ However, these instances must be considered in relation to the systems of oppression which they both uphold and are reinforced by. As Sue pointed out, “as long as microaggressions remain hidden and excused as innocent slights with minimal harm, we will continue to insult, demean, alienate and oppress marginalized groups.” ⁵⁴ While most people are willing to acknowledge the harmful impact of overt discrimination, microinsults and microinvalidations, are often dismissed as small offenses or their use is rationalized. I caution us to keep track of microassaults as well — in what conditions do perpetrators feel safe to enact them, what kind of environments are permissive of their use?

As a fat woman who has seen plenty of fat microaggressions in action and who has a history of naming and challenging the metacommunication embedded in each slight, I believe that the study of fat micro-aggressions has much to offer the microaggressions research project. Fat hate is socially sanctioned — it is perpetrated by health care professionals, health researchers, employers, insurance companies, friends, and family members; it is also internalized. While fat microaggressions will have a disproportionately negative impact on fat individuals, they also can be harmful to individuals who are not fat. Fat microaggressions serve as a mechanism of social control for those who are not fat and as a reminder to those who are that our bodies are undesirable. When we start to think about the ways that fatphobia affects all of us, we are required to expand our thinking when it comes to understanding who is affected by fat microaggressions — in this case, we are not just looking at one monolithic marginalized group.

Conclusion

Giving broader context to the implications of microaggressions, Sue asserted, “when microaggressions make their appearance in interpersonal encounters or environmental symbols they are reflections of marginality and a worldview of inclusion/exclusion, superiority/inferiority, desirability/undesirability, or normality/abnormality.” ⁵⁵ We live in a world that resists the notion of fatness as a facet of body diversity; as such, fat bodies are rarely represented in a positive light. Fatness is labelled as a disease and the “treatment” is eradication. In order to destroy these dichotomies, to turn them on their heads and inside out, we need to make visible that which is unseen. There is power in naming these experiences — in calling them what they are. We need to name fat microaggressions as a form of discrimination, to recognize them in our daily lives, to deconstruct their coded meanings and to make sense of where they connect and overlap with other forms of bigotry. Doing so will enable us to more effectively challenge the systems of oppression that legitimize their use.