Scott Lilienfeld's (2017) theories about microaggressions were highly influential, as can be seen by the fact that his paper on the topic was cited over 744 times, according to Google Scholar, as well as the quick uptake of his beliefs at the time. It is important to understand, however, that his work employs a cultural deficit-model, which blames the racialized victim for their difficulties. A cultural deficit-model means the researcher is looking for the source of the problem in people of color without a genuine consideration of alternative explanations.
Here we summarize some of his theories, explaining how they promoted racism and why they were wrong. All items in quotes are from Lilienfeld (2017) unless otherwise indicated.
| Racist Theory |
Experiencing microaggressions is not harmful. |
| His Own Words |
“Microaggressions exert an adverse impact on the mental health of recipients: There is minimal research evidence for this assertion.” |
| How This Is Racist |
This assumption ignores the lived-experience of those who navigate microaggressions, centering White assumptions over the knowledge and experience of people of color. |
| Debunking Research |
Correlational and prospective studies show microaggressions are linked to a host of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse, loneliness, maladjustment, and suicidality (Williams, 2020). |
| Resulting Harms |
People of color may feel gaslit when their experiences are not properly validated or met with empathy. Therapists may fail to properly connect client symptoms to microaggressions, leading to ineffective treatment. |
| Racist Theory |
Students should not be educated about microaggressions, as it will only make people of color perceive slights where there are none, making them more "emotionally fragile." |
| His Own Words |
"I call for a moratorium on microaggression training programmes and publicly distributed microaggression lists now widespread in the college and business worlds" |
| How This Is Racist |
One way oppressor groups control marginalized groups is by denying them education. Keeping them ignorant, makes them easier to control. |
| Debunking Research |
Research shows that educating students about racial microaggressions reduces racism and improves ethnic identity, which makes students of color stronger not weaker, and students (both Black and White) positively rate the training experience (Williams et al., 2020). |
| Resulting Harms |
Many universities stopped providing information about microaggressions, fostering ignorance. This also stymies educational efforts to reduce microaggressions. |
| Racist Theory |
Student clinicians should not be educated about microaggressions. |
| His Own Words |
“I call for a moratorium on microaggression training programs” |
| How This Is Racist |
One way oppressor groups control marginalized groups is by denying them proper medical care. Failing to properly train mental health providers about all forms of racism promotes unwellness in people of color. |
| Debunking Research |
Research shows that educating medical students about racial microaggressions improves clinical care and the working alliance (Kanter et al., 2020). |
| Resulting Harms |
Many clinical training programs stopped teaching therapists about microaggressions and racism, increasing racial health care disparities. |
| Racist Theory |
People of color complain about microaggressions because they are neurotic (high in “negative emotionality.”) |
| His Own Words |
Microaggressions research “has all but ignored the potentially crucial role of negative emotionality.” |
| How This Is Racist |
People who are neurotic tend to be more anxious, overly sensitive, and more likely to complain of victimization, which reflects racist stereotypes. |
| Debunking Research |
Studies demonstrate a robust link between microaggressions and psychological harm even after controlling for traits like negative emotionality (Ong et al., 2013). And interestingly, on average White people are more neurotic than Black people (Williams et al., 2018). |
| Resulting Harms |
Therapists who believe this myth are likely to be dismissive and invalidating of their clients’ distress about microaggressions, worsening symptoms. |
| Racist Theory |
Microaggressions are not aggressive. |
| His Own Words |
“There is no research evidence that microaggressions correlate with indices of either aggression or prejudice in deliverers.” |
| How This Is Racist |
This notion ignores the lived-experience of those who experience microaggressions, centering White conceptualizations of aggression over those of people of color. |
| Debunking Research |
Research finds people who commit more microaggressions are significantly more aggressive, passive-aggressive, and have more hostile/suspicious thinking (Williams, 2021). |
| Resulting Harms |
Microaggressions are assumed to be unintentional, but this is not always true and should not be assumed. Victims may fail to consider dangerous tendencies in offenders. |
| Racist Theory |
The name for microaggression should be changed because it mischaracterizes offenders. |
| His Own Words |
“I propose that ‘microaggression’ be replaced by a term that is free of its problematic conceptual and empirical baggage, especially its unsubstantiated presumption of hostile content.” |
| How This Is Racist |
Centers White preferences for the name of the construct over the Black psychiatrist scholar who invented it and the expert psychologists of color who studied and popularized it (e.g., Chester Pierce, Derald Wing Sue, Daniel Solórzano, etc.) |
| Debunking Research |
Research finds people who are more prone to commit microaggressions are significantly more aggressive, and more prone to bullying and violence (Botor & Antover, in press). |
| Resulting Harms |
Undermines the intellectual authority of scholars of color, and urges marginalized people to be naively trusting of people who are potentially hostile. |
| Racist Theory |
Microaggressions are not an indication of racism or any other form of prejudice. |
| His Own Words |
“There is no research evidence that microaggressions correlate with indices of … prejudice in deliverers.” |
| How This Is Racist |
Although many scholars of color have detailed how racial microaggressions align with racial stereotypes and exemplify unfair treatment, a non-expert White scholar feels justified to postulate otherwise without evidence. |
| Debunking Research |
Microaggressions are correlated to many indicators of racism, including symbolic racism, colorblind racial attitudes, modern racism, and negative feelings toward people of color (Kanter et al., 2017). |
| Resulting Harms |
Excuses racial microaggressions by saying they are not racist, creating a lack of accountability. |
| Racist Theory |
The construct of microaggressions is not a scientifically valid, important, or useful. |
| His Own Words |
“It is far too underdeveloped on the conceptual and methodological fronts to warrant real-world application.” |
| How This Is Racist |
Lilienfeld drew this conclusion with a poor understanding of the literature and no collaboration from racism experts or scholars of color. He deemed his unqualified opinion superior and devalued lived experience. |
| Debunking Research |
A qualified scholar of color addressed all the arguments against the validity of the construct, which is unopposed (Williams, 2020). There is a robust body of scientific literature on “everyday racism” and “microaggressions” (over 15,000 scholarly publications). |
| Resulting Harms |
People of color might be wrongly told that microaggressions are not real or they are unscientific, invalidating their experience. |
A Racist Approach
Some might argue that every good scientist should advance theories, and shouldn't we test them to find out if they are true? Couldn't we argue that Lilienfeld was just advancing sound theories to strengthen the field? The answer is no, because all of his theories pathologized victims or color or denigrated the knowlege of scholars of color. If we looked at only one of his ideas in isolation, or if even a few of his ideas were non-pathologizing, one might argue that his was not a racist agenda. However, we can see a clear and consistent pattern of racism in his whole approach to the issue. Not one of his theories fell on the side of honoring the lived-experience or science of people of color. As such, we can safely conclude this was a racist research agenda.
That being said, in some ways his work did strengthen the field. Because psychology was eager to embrace his theories without proof, many angry researchers of color were forced to do more research to prove him wrong. As such, we can put his notions to bed more soundly than ever before.
