Interview Transcript

​

MP: How did you feel after reading the post?

BM: I felt really horrible. I felt very guilty about the lack of action and awareness that I’ve demonstrated in my life. It makes me want to do more, but I also felt really hopeless. And I started to question the way I conducted myself. 

 

MP: What do you mean by “the way you conduct yourself”? Why did you question it? What aspect of it did you question?

BM: I just never really thought that some of my comments or behaviors could come off as racist. The more I read about posts like this, the more hopeless I feel. I never meant for anything that I did or said to offend anyone. The thought that someone might think of me as racist too is depressing. I want to say that we did not mean to be racist in any way when we said or did the things that I now know are perceived just as racist, but now I know these little things could  really hurt people. Now I am more aware of the way that I think about race and treat people of different races. And I think I will do my best to avoid being micro aggressive. 

​

Interpretation of Interview

Is one commentator’s slur another’s gaffe? What defines micro aggression and racism?

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

BM was very adamant that she was not racist even though she might have committed acts of micro aggression towards others. She did not say things knowing that they could be derogatory slurs; to her they were just gaffes. "The actual linguistic content of slurs and gaffes can be identical; one commentator’s slur is another’s gaffe" (The Everyday Language of White Racism). This discussion of intentional racists acts, such as uttering derogatory slurs to hurt others on purpose versus an innocent gaffe, triggered me to think about what defines racism. What differentiates a slur from a gaffe boils down to how different people might defines racism. Bailey’s response as well as the quotation above made me think about the moral standards involved in the examination of racism. Do people’s intentions or consequences define racism? What would be the moral and social implications of executing different moral standards in defining racism? 

 

I’ll attempt to venture into these questions here. Normally, people think of racism as the belief in the superiority of one race over another; some might think of racism as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people of other races, all of which clearly define racism in relation to intention. Along this logic, while the actual linguistic content of slurs and gaffes is identical, someone’s slurs are racist, while others’ gaffes are not. People might thus overlook the receiving end of ill intention in our definition of racism, like BM has. Simply put, racism is obnoxious because it harms people, or in other words, people feel the harm of racism. To the person who is the target of slurs or gaffes, the feeling of alienation and deprecation is the same no matter what the commentator’s intentions are. One commentator’s slur is another’s gaffe; one commentator’s gaffe is another’s slur; and they are both the victim’s nightmare. 

​

So can an act of microaggression be racist act even though the person initiating it has no racist intent? On one hand, one could argue that if someone does not mean to be racist, then his action is not racist because it is intention that defines an action. On the other hand, one could argue that regardless what the person’s intention is, the fact that his action harms the targeted person, both psychologically and socially, makes the act racist enough. I don’t think we can have any conclusive discussion on this question if we fixate on the general debate between intent and consequence. I think the question becomes whose perspective we should value more. Whose perspective is more morally and socially salient in the discussion of racism? Like BM said, she still does not think she is a racist, but she’s willing to acknowledge her racist gaffes. This then helps the people who would otherwise be on the receiving end of microaggression.

 

 

When consequences, especially harmful consequences, are given more weight in assessing oppression and discrimination, we could better address and manage the harm inflicted upon and felt by people at the receiving end of racism.

 

On another note, BM’s response revealed the experience of moral panic when someone associated with her identity made gaffes and micro aggression visible. She experienced episodes of moral panic because a subconscious moral illusion that she has been good, mindful, and moral dissipated, or at least she noticed its falsity. As BM said, she never thought she was a racist, but now she thinks she might have been. Now she feels hopeless and horrible. When someone utters a gaffe and the public notices it, the disruption of moral illusion subsequently leads to discomfort and realization. One starts to realize a gap between his imagined morally righteous self and his real image as how it might have been perceived by others. When the public starts to scrutinize symbols of racial inequality, that people used to pass as innocent gaffes,  individuals who believe that they have been on the moral high ground might experience doubt, frustration, disappointment, fear, and uncertainty, which eventually culminate in episodes of moral panic.

​

Reflections on My Interpretations

Initially I wrote my initial interpretation of moral panic and gaffe largely in passive voice. As I read through my interpretation, I started to question why I, almost subconsciously and automatically, resorted to passive voice. Here is a snippet of the initial reflection I wrote:

​

"...BM’s response revealed the moral panic when a gaffe is made visible. Episodes of moral panic probably occur because of the burst of moral illusion...When a gaffe is said and becomes publicly noticed, the illusion that one is moral and civic-minded is disrupted. Disruption leads to discomfort and realization...When symbols of racial inequality, that people often pass as innocent gaffes, are swept into the eye of public scrutiny, people who believed that they have been on the moral high ground might experience doubt, frustration, disappointment, fear, and uncertainty, which eventually culminate in episodes of moral panic."

​

By using moral panic and gaffe as the subjects, my passive voice inevitably obfuscated the subject that made gaffes and micro aggression visible as well as the person who experiences moral panic. I decided to rewrite it because my intention was to shed light on the experience of moral panic, and obfuscating the person that this embodied  experience belongs to seems counter-productive. 

​

My initial usage of passive voice further reveals a logical or argumentative weakness in my thinking and writing. I realized that sometimes in order to conform to the perceivably desirable standard of objectivity, I tend to use passive voice to deemphasize the subjective aspect of a concept , such as a specific person, event, or individual experience, to create an illusion of objectivity and generalization. Here, through the reflection on my positionally, hopefully I've taken the first step in realizing and countering my intellectual and logical limitation. Rather than purposefully engineer objectivity, I should start paying more attention to the power of subjectivity, what it reveals about the nuances of an individual's embodied experience, and come up with a richer and more complex narrative of my discussion.

 

​

​

​