The previous section described how gender and other social locations are socially constructed within four domains of power: structural power, disciplinary power, cultural or hegemonic power, and interpersonal power. This section focuses on three ways that gender can be privileged or marginalized in the interpersonal domain of power: tokenism, microaggressions, and internalized oppression. As you explore these concepts, keep in mind that each of the four domains of power work together within an interconnected matrix of domination. Look for ways that these interpersonal forms of privilege and marginalization are also reinforced by structural, disciplinary, and cultural power.

Tokenism

Have you ever felt isolated and marginalized as the only person of your race, gender, disability status, ethnicity, or lived experience in a group? Conversely, have you ever been a part of a diverse group of people and felt accepted, valued, and normal? What conditions do you think make a difference between feeling included or isolated? When social groups or organizations increase gender representation without addressing oppressive systems of power embedded in their organizational structure and culture, the people recruited to diversify those organizations can experience harmful tokenism.

Tokenism is the practice of making only a superficial or symbolic effort to diversify an organization by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups to give the appearance of equality. In other words, tokenism attempts diversity without equitable representation or full inclusion. Fiona Byarugaba (she/her) describes tokenism as liking the idea of diverse voices but not being ready to listen to diverse ideas that people bring to the table (Byarugaba 2021).

Rosabeth Kanter (she/her) defined tokenism in her study on gender in the workplace, Men and women of the corporation. As women began moving into leadership positions traditionally held by men, they experienced specific challenges in male-dominated workplaces. Because women were few, they were more visible than men, and they experienced increased performance pressure, increased attention to perceived gender differences, and an expectation to live up to gender stereotypes. Kanter found extra emotional labor (Chapter Four) was required from women and that some responded by routinely doing more than required, while others tried not to attract much attention. Both responses put women on an unequal footing with the men they worked with.

Similarly, navigating the constant attention to gender differences also led some women to lean into the stereotypes by presenting as hyper-feminized. Whether women in token positions responded to stereotyping by either correcting, quietly accepting, or trying to live up to them (self-distortion), Kanter (2010) found that a constant need to respond impacted both personal well-being and job performance (figure 5.9). The work of dealing with the pressures of tokenism robs tokenized people of energy to do their actual work.

Kanter also theorized that the pressures of tokenism are significantly reduced when a previously excluded population represents more than 15% of the workforce. In other words, when women make up more than 15% of positions previously only held by men, they are less likely to be tokenized. This research has been the basis of affirmative action policies.

Microaggressions

The pressures of tokenism that Kanter described can also show up as verbal harassment, misgendering, talking over people, or otherwise demonstrating a lack of confidence in their competency. These everyday slights, or microaggressions, at school, work, and other social settings have specific impacts on LGBTQIA+ people, who frequently find themselves to be the only LGBTQIA+ person in their social setting. An analysis of 4500 respondents who identified as LGBTQIA+ found that two-thirds reported being the only LGBTQIA+ person in their workplace. One-third of all respondents experienced microaggressions, and that number rises to 80% for respondents who identified as transgender women (Jacobson et al. 2021).

Microaggressions are statements that indirectly reference stereotypes to assert the dominance of the aggressor. Harvard University psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce (he/him) coined the term in 1970 to describe racial insults and dismissals, which he regularly witnessed people who are White direct towards people who are Black (DiAngelis 2009). Watch the video, How Microaggressions are like Mosquito Bites (figure 5.10), to learn how passing comments are a form of harassment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDd3bzA7450

Eventually, the use term microaggression expanded to include casual harassment of any socially marginalized group, including LGBTQIA+ people, people living in poverty, and disabled individuals. Psychologist Derald Wing Sue (he/him) defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership” (Sue 2021).

People making these comments may position themselves as well-intentioned and unaware of the potential impact of their words (van Dam 2021), but good intentions can be called into question by the defensive posture assumed when people are made aware of the harmful stereotype they have just referenced. A person with truly good intentions may be recognized by the humility they exhibit when their “blind spot” is pointed out.

Sue and Lisa Spanierman (she/her) developed a list of categories describing microaggressions that can help us understand how they appear in our interactions. As you read the summary below in Figure 5.11, think of other examples that may apply to each category.

The effects of microaggressions are real. They have been compared to death by a thousand cuts because these everyday slights affect the victim’s mental health and create a toxic environment at school, work, and even within our circles. If left unchecked, they can be normalized, and the types of offenses and actions can become more severe (Sue 2010).

Intersectional experiences of microaggressions in the workplace reveal a gendered and racialized “hierarchy of belonging” in the workplace (Alfrey et al. 2016). For example, sociologists France Winddance Twine (she/her) and Lauren Alfrey (she/her) interviewed tech workers with a broad range of racial and gender identities and found that women who identified as either White or Asian and who presented as genderqueer, experienced less verbal harassment, and were generally perceived as more competent than women who presented as conventionally feminine. Black women in the study who presented as gender fluid did report the same benefits of distancing themselves from traditional femininity as their more racially privileged counterparts.

Internalized Oppression

The true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations that we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within us. – Audre Lorde

Many unequal systems of power rely on strict adherence to gender norms, racial categories, and socio-economic class (Lugones 2016). Within these systems, a combination of rewards and punishments serves to maintain compliance with these social norms. Rewards for compliance include access to resources and positive social reinforcement. The combination of socially constructed rewards and punishments that reinforce control in systems of power can produce an internalized or learned sense of who is superior and who is inferior within the social hierarchy.

For example, within a sexist system of power, masculine people who experience the rewards of compliance and avoid the punishments of noncompliance with social norms learn to think of themselves as naturally superior to feminine people. This sense of superiority is also reinforced for them across the four domains of power (structural, disciplinary, cultural, and interpersonal). Conversely, feminine people within this system also internalize ideas of feminine inferiority and masculine superiority and can come to accept socially constructed masculine dominance as natural.

This learned sense of inferiority is called internalized oppression. Internalized oppression is a process of individuals within an oppressed group incorporating and accepting the prejudices of the dominant society (Pheterson 1986). The Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde (she/her) described internalized oppression as “that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within us” (Lorde 2007).

Internalized oppression also operates intersectionality. For example, a White, cisgender, femme-presenting queer woman may internalize inferiority around both her femininity and her sexual identity. This may make her feel ashamed and make it hard to assert herself in her public roles. At the same time, she may also have internalized racial and cisgender superiority. If this person set out to address her internalized oppression by consciously learning new ideas about her worth and the inherent value of all feminine-presenting queer women but did not address her internalized racial and cisgender superiority, by consciously learning new ideas about her worth and the inherent value of she is at risk of harming transgender and nonbinary people and PGM.

For people empowered or marginalized by unequal systems of power, the path to freedom from oppression requires addressing internalized oppressions across all domains of power and learning new ways to be in relationships that are more equitable and free of violence. The final section of this chapter will explore how collective efforts to shift power begin by centering the lived experience of people most impacted by oppressive systems of power. First, let’s widen our lens from individuals to global systems of power. As we work through the next section, look for the specific domains of power in which entire populations of people have been either marginalized or privileged and how some of the most marginalized people are leading efforts to subvert global systems of unequal power.

Let’s Review

Licenses and Attributions for Individuals Within Gender-based Systems of Power

Open Content, Original

“Individuals Within Gender-Based Systems of Power” by Nora Karena and Dana L. Perterman is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 5.9. “Kanter’s Impacts of Tokenism” is adapted from Men and Women of the Corporation by Kanter (2010). Modifications by Nora Karena include and are licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“Individuals within Gender-Based Systems of Power Question Set” was created by ChatGPT and is not subject to copyright. Edits for relevance, alignment, and meaningful answer feedback by Colleen Sanders are licensed under CC BY 4.0.

All Rights Reserved Content

“Internalized oppression” definition by Pheterson (1986) is included under fair use.

Figure 5.10. “How microaggressions are like mosquito bites • Same Difference” by Fusion Comedy is licensed under the Standard YouTube License.

Figure 5.11. “Examples of Microaggressions” is adapted from “Microaggressions” by Christine McWebb, Sandra López-Rocha, and Elisabeth Arévalo-Guerrero in Advancing Intercultural Competence for Global Learners, which is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. Modifications by Nora Karena include editing for a U.S. audience.