By Marcus Briscoe
In our efforts to create more inclusive and equitable spaces—especially in workplaces and schools—we’ve embraced terms that help us name and confront subtle forms of bias. One of the most prominent is “microaggression,” a word that has become central to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts over the past two decades. But as our understanding deepens, it’s worth asking: Is this the right word for the work we’re trying to do?
The term “microaggression,” first coined by psychiatrist Dr. Chester Pierce in 1970, was a groundbreaking way to describe the everyday slights and indignities experienced by marginalized groups. These moments may be unintentional, but they have a cumulative effect—undermining dignity, belonging, and psychological safety.
But despite its impact, the term itself may now be a barrier to progress.
The Problem with “Aggression”
“Aggression” implies intent, hostility, or even violence. Yet many microaggressions happen unconsciously—rooted in bias people may not even be aware they hold. This mismatch between the word and the behavior can trigger defensiveness, shut down conversations, and derail opportunities for learning.
Critics have rightly pointed out that calling something “aggressive” when it was unintentional can lead people to focus more on protecting their ego than reflecting on the harm caused. That doesn’t help the person harmed, and it doesn’t encourage accountability either.
Perhaps worst of all, when a user of the term is knowingly using it to belittle or embarrass another when the harm by the other was unintentional… the term becomes an ironic “aggression” of its own.
A Better Option: “Microharms”
What if we reframed this concept not as a “microaggression,” but as a microharm?
“Microharm” better captures the impact rather than assuming intent. It names the behavior’s effect, while opening a door for empathy and dialogue rather than blame. It invites growth, not guilt.
Here’s why the term “microharms” might be more effective and inclusive:
- Focuses on impact, not emotion or motive
– “Harm” describes the result, without presuming someone meant to be hurtful. - De-escalates language to lower defensiveness
– “Aggression” can feel like an attack in itself; “harm” invites reflection. - Builds emotional safety into feedback
– It allows us to say, “Here’s how that landed,” not “You’re a bad person.” - Encourages a trauma-informed, restorative approach
– It respects both the person harmed and the potential for the other to grow.
Microharms in Action: What They Look Like
To be clear, renaming doesn’t mean minimizing. These incidents still hurt. Here are just a few examples of common microharms in the workplace:
- “You’re so articulate!”
– Sounds like a compliment, but implies surprise based on someone’s identity. - Repeatedly mispronouncing someone’s name
– Signals that their identity isn’t worth your effort to learn or respect. - Assuming a person of color or young woman is the assistant, not the leader
– Reinforces stereotypes and diminishes professional credibility. - Saying “You don’t look like an engineer”
– Suggests someone doesn’t fit the mold based on biased expectations. - Joking about someone’s food, accent, or cultural practices
– Often meant playfully, but leaves people feeling like outsiders.
So why hasn’t the shift happened? Why do we still use “aggression”?
- Institutional momentum — “microaggression” is embedded in decades of research, literature, and training materials.
- Fear of diluting the urgency or power of naming subtle bias.
- It’s often just habit — and we know from history (in the next paragraph) that habits can and should change when they harm progress.
We’ve Changed Language Before. We Can Again.
We’ve done this before. We’ve moved away from other terms because of the harm they caused in real-world conversations. That wasn’t just about being politically correct—it was about respect and humanity.
- “Mentally retarded” was once a clinical term, used in psychology and medicine.
- Over time, it became a slur and was used to mock or marginalize people with intellectual disabilities.
- Despite its institutional momentum and technical origins, the impact of its use was dehumanizing — so society moved toward more respectful terms like “intellectual disability.”
- That shift was intentional, driven by advocacy, education, and a growing understanding of how language shapes dignity.
“Microaggression” is now at a similar crossroads. We’ve arguably learned a lot since the term was first coined 55 years ago. If the word gets in the way of people hearing, understanding, and addressing bias, then it’s worth reconsidering.
Words matter. They don’t just describe the world—we use them to build it. Let’s choose terms that open hearts and minds, not close them. If we truly want more people engaged in the work of inclusion, we should speak in ways that welcome them into it, instead of scaring them away.