EmbodiedExperienceofMicroaggressions2018

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326150162 The Embodied Experience of Microaggressions: Implications for Clinical Practice Article  in  Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development · July 2018 DOI: 10.1002/jmcd.12099 CITATION 1 READS 513 3 authors, including: Rae Johnson Pacifica Graduate Institute Christine Caldwell Naropa University 6PUBLICATIONS   7CITATIONS    20PUBLICATIONS   122CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Contacting GenderView project All content following this page was uploaded by Christine Caldwell on 30 November 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. Received 05/30/16 Revised 06/30/17 Accepted 10/16/17 DOI: 10.1002/jmcd.12099 articles The Embodied Experience of Microaggressions: Implications for Clinical Practice Rae Johnson, Lucia Leighton, and Christine Caldwell Ongoing scholarship in multicultural counseling practice has established the significance of microaggressions in the lived experience of clients and in the client–counselor dyad. Grounded in new research into the embodied experience of oppression, this article reviews key concepts in nonverbal communication and traumatology to illustrate how the body is implicated in the transmission of microaggressions and how counselors can become more attentive, informed, and responsive to how social power differences manifest in the body. Keywords: microaggressions, nonverbal communication, embodiment, oppression, multicultural counseling Las investigaciones actuales sobre la práctica de la consejería multicultural han establecido la importancia de las microagresiones en la experiencia vital de los clientes y en la díada cliente–consejero. Fundamentado en nuevas investigaciones sobre la experiencia corporal de la opresión, este artículo revisa conceptos clave de la comunicación no verbal y la traumatología para ilustrar cómo el cuerpo está involucrado en la transmisión de microagresiones y cómo los consejeros pueden tornarse más atentos, informados y sensibles a cómo las diferencias de poder social se manifiestan en el cuerpo. M 2007). These seemingly insignificant relational wounds (e.g., slights, mischar- acterizations, assumptions, oversights) are regularly suffered by members of socially subordinated groups and have been shown to have significant and enduring impact on their health and well-being (Brandolo, Rieppi, Kelly, & Gerin, 2003; Sue, 2010; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001; Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008). Being able to identify and respond to the microaggressions that clients report during the counseling session is an es- sential clinical skill, as is the equally important ability to recognize and repair Palabras clave: microagresiones, comunicación no verbal, corporalización, opresión, consejería multicultural ulticultural counseling theory and practice have long recognized the impact of microaggressions in the everyday experience of counsel- ing clients and in the client–counselor dyad (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., Rae Johnson, Depth Psychology Program, Pacifica Graduate Institute; Lucia Leighton and Christine Caldwell, Clinical Mental Health Counseling Department, Naropa University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rae Johnson, Depth Psychology Program, Somatic Studies Specialization, Pacifica Graduate Institute, 249 Lambert Road, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (email: rjohnson@pacifica.edu). © 2018 American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. 156 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

3. the relational wounds of microaggressions that occur within the context of therapy itself. Although the definition of microaggressions has always included a nonverbal component (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzales, & Wills, 1978) and arguments have been made for attending to its embodied dimensions (Herring, 1990), clinical attention has, with few exceptions, tended to focus on microaggres- sions’ verbal content (what was said and tone of voice) and situational context. However, many decades of research into nonverbal communication have established that the embodied dimension of interpersonal communication (e.g., posture, facial expression, eye contact) conveys most of a message’s meaning (particularly its emotional meaning) and is consistently experienced as more truthful than the actual words spoken (Aviezer, Trope, & Todorov, 2012; Hickson, Stacks, & Moore, 2004). To navigate the complex and subtle territory of microaggressions, counselors must become skilled in identifying, validating, and helping to shift the damaging nonverbal patterns that occupy this silent yet meaning-laden substrate of interpersonal relations. In addition to becoming more attuned to the body-to-body transmission of microaggressions, counselors should consider the embodied impact of these everyday experiences. Emerging research in traumatology (van der Kolk, 2014) suggests that the body bears a significant burden in coping with trauma, and that oppression is a form of chronic trauma whose effects align with many of the criteria of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Kira, Alawneh, Aboumediene, Lewandowski, & Laddis, 2014; Kira et al., 2013; Kira, Ashby, Lewandowski, Smith, & Odenat, 2012; Scott & Stradling, 1994). Clinicians working with members of oppressed groups need to be able to recognize the physiological indicators of trauma and to use the embodied relational field to help clients feel safe and grounded as a first step toward addressing the bodily hypervigilance, dissociation, and constriction that can result from repeated microaggressions. review of the literature EMBODIED MICROAGGRESSIONS The term microaggressions was coined by Chester Pierce as a way to name “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges, which are ‘put downs,’” (Pierce et al., 1978, p. 66) in describing the daily experiences of African Americans. The term has since proved so profoundly descriptive of stigmatized people’s experiences that it has become centralized in social justice discourse, largely through the contributions of Derald Wing Sue and his colleagues (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007; Sue, Jackson, Rasheed, & Rasheed, 2016). Sue (2010) extended both the definition and the circumstances of microaggressions. Noting that microaggressions may have more negative ef- fects than more traditional and overt forms of marginalization, he defined them as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain 157 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

4. individuals because of their group membership” (Sue, 2010, p. xvi). Although Sue and his colleagues provided examples of nonverbal microaggressions, they did not write extensively on the nuances and intersections of body-to-body communications that harm the recipient (Sue et al., 2016). Sue (2010) argued that microaggressions possess a power to wound because the perpetrator most often transmits them unconsciously, and because they frequently remain vague and difficult to articulate. This nebulous quality makes it difficult for the victim to “call them out” to the perpetrator in an attempt to address the situation. The unconscious nature of many microaggressions is likely related to the minimally conscious quality of bodily communication. As Ekman and Friesen (1969) noted, [Most people] do not know what they are doing with their bodies when they are talking, and no one tells them. People learn to disregard internal cues that are informative about their stream of body movements and facial expressions. Most interactive nonverbal be- havior seems to be enacted with little conscious choice or registration; efforts to inhibit what is shown fail because the information about what is occurring is not customarily within awareness. (p. 53) As a result, nonverbal enactments of bias can have a profound impact on the recipient. Not only are the oppressed dealing with an offender who is oblivious to their aggression, in some cases, the receiver may not be con- sciously tracking bodily signals either, leaving them with a vague sense of being mistreated without an ability to name or describe what happened. In other instances, the receiver can feel confused and perturbed when a verbal message that is technically free of bias is delivered in a nonverbally hostile or dismissive manner, leaving the recipient of the microaggression questioning their perceptions. DECONSTRUCTING OPPRESSIVE NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Research findings from the field of nonverbal communication can help clini- cians unpack these mixed messages and unconscious assaults and bring the damage they do into conscious awareness for both the counselor and client. Nonverbal communication can be broadly defined as all of the messages (other than words) that people exchange in the course of their interactions with one another (Ellyson & Dovidio, 2012). At times, nonverbal cues are used to modify or underscore a verbal message; on other occasions, they replace or contradict verbal communication (Westland, 2015). Although these nonverbal dimensions of communication are rarely an explicit focus when communica- tions are reviewed or analyzed, their significance to the overall message is considerable. Anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell (1970) claimed that about two thirds of a message’s meaning is communicated through these nonverbal clues, whereas Mehrabian (1971) and Fromkin and Rodman (1983) asserted that up to 90% of the emotional meaning of a message is transmitted nonverbally. The importance of nonverbal communication is further demonstrated by 158 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

5. Argyle’s (2013) finding that nonverbal cues have over four times the impact of verbal ones when verbal and nonverbal cues are used together. Nonverbal communication experts assert that this silent dimension affects our relation- ships and interpersonal environments in intricate and complex ways, providing clues into psychological states and influencing perceptions of competence, sincerity, authority, and vulnerability. Given the acknowledged significance of the nonverbal aspect of interpersonal communication, the degree to which power dynamics are communicated through this medium is not surprising. Indeed, feminist researchers Nancy Henley and Jo Freeman (1995) argued that the nonverbal component of everyday social interactions (rather than institutional structure) is the most ubiquitous means of social control. According to Henley and Freeman, mem- bers of socially stigmatized groups are constantly reminded of their inferior social status through the nonverbal messages they receive from others. They are also required to affirm that status in their response to those messages (e.g., smile or look away in response to a nonverbal microaggression), as well as in the messages they themselves transmit (e.g., use indirect gestures and take up little space). Henley and Freeman asserted that the repetitive and insidious nature of these subtle exercises in dominance and submission slip below the level of awareness (if, in fact, they were ever conscious), effectively internalizing social conventions to the point where these dynamics may no longer feel oppressive; they simply feel normal. TRAUMA, OPPRESSION, AND THE BODY There is a growing body of literature linking oppression and trauma, and researchers have begun to recognize microaggressions against marginalized people as a form of trauma. In a departure from the conventional understand- ing of trauma as a single life-threatening incident, Mol et al. (2005) compared PTSD scores from more than 400 participants who experienced single trau- matic events with an equal number of those who experienced prolonged life stressors. These researchers found that individuals with prolonged stressors reported more PTSD symptoms (e.g., hypervigilance, arousal, avoidance) than did those who experienced acute traumas. Similarly, Scott and Stradling (1994) provided numerous examples of PTSD in members of oppressed groups who showed full symptomatology in the absence of a single acute trauma. Increasingly, oppression is being understood as a prolonged life stressor. Kira et al. (2013) defined oppression as a collective trauma perpetrated between groups, existing on a continuum from microaggressions to mac- roaggressions. In a sample of Palestinian youth, these researchers found that such oppression directly predicted collective group identity salience and was significantly associated with increased PTSD symptoms, suicidality, depression, and anxiety. Bryant-Davis and Ocampo (2005) found similar trauma symptoms between survivors of racist incidents and survivors of sexual and domestic violence, and Walters and Simoni (2002) contended 159 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

6. that discrimination against Native American women partially accounts for their high rates of PTSD and trauma-related symptoms. Likewise, Kira et al. (2012) found that gender discrimination significantly accounted for the variance in type and severity of trauma symptoms between male and female survivors of torture. In this sample, sexist microaggressions against women significantly increased the severity of PTSD symptoms and their overall susceptibility to subsequent trauma. Many traumatologists now recognize trauma as a neurophysiological (as well as a psychosocial) experience (Ogden, Minton, & Pain, 2006; Rothschild, 2000; van der Kolk, 2014) and agree that “traumatic events exact a toll on the body as well as the mind” (Rothschild, 2000, p. 5). Within the field of trauma research, the somatic effects of trauma have now been well docu- mented, including neurobiological changes (e.g., alterations in brain wave activity, size of brain structures, functioning of processes such as memory and fear response) and psychophysiological changes (e.g., hyperarousal of the sympathetic nervous system, increased startle response, sleep disturbances, increased neurohormonal changes that result in heightened stress, increased depression; van der Kolk, 2014). research question Because of our shared background in somatic counseling with clients, includ- ing both survivors of trauma and members of marginalized and oppressed social groups, we became curious about how oppression is experienced in the body and in nonverbal relationship. Our research questions were (a) What is the embodied experience of oppression? and (b) How do oppressed people bring their bodies to the navigation of power differentials in relationship with others? Although our study generated multiple findings across a range of issues and concerns, in this article, we focus solely on the findings related to microaggressions and traumatic stress. method Conducted over a 10-year period in multiple locations, our qualitative study drew on narrative inquiry as a form of qualitative research to identify the somatic impact of oppression and to elaborate the embodied dimensions of microaggressions. RESEARCH PARADIGM This study is based in the qualitative research tradition because we defined human experience as situated in social, cultural, and physical contexts and recognized that these intersecting settings influence behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). These understandings are critical to a study of the embodied dimensions of oppression, which necessarily involves 160 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

7. investigation of the relationships, connections, interactions, and transactions that occur within these contexts. Caine et al. (2017) argued that narrative offers a way to study social phenom- ena as a natural point of convergence for individual, collective, and cultural stories. Because narrative structures are informed by cultural systems, they also shape group and individual identities. Narrative inquiry takes advantage of implicit, tacit knowing and provides a vehicle for communication that research participants could experience as natural and comfortable to them. Stories function to strategically communicate socially constructed knowledge, and as somatic and embodied learning has emerged as a source for interdisciplinary dialogue, embodied narrative provides a structure for shaping and relating the body’s ways of knowing. PARTICIPANTS The study involved in-depth, semistructured interviews with 20 individuals who had personal experience with oppression as well as professional expertise in diversity and equity issues (e.g., community activists, antioppression educa- tors, multicultural counselors). We intentionally included individuals from a variety of social categories of difference (e.g., race, class, ability, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation) with an identified capacity to articulate their somatic experience. By choosing participants from a range of social identifications, we hoped to illustrate both the breadth and the depth of embodied experiences of oppression and selected a narrative methodol- ogy in part because it provided a built-in strategy for explicating the similar and differing ways that microaggressions were perpetrated and experienced according to various social identifications. Of the 20 participants interviewed for the study, three identified as gen- derqueer, three identified as transgender, and the rest identified as female. Three identified as Black, one as Middle Eastern, two as Indigenous, one as Pacific Islander, three as Hispanic or Latinx (a gender-inclusive term for those from Latin American cultural backgrounds), and the rest as White. Twelve participants identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or pansexual, with the remain- ing eight identifying as straight or heterosexual. Three identified as having a disability. In terms of socioeconomic status, nine participants identified as working class and 11 as middle class. Participants ranged in age from 26 to 60 years and were drawn from urban and rural locations in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. We selected participants based on the following criteria: (a) They expressed an interest and willingness to explore—both verbally and nonverbally—their somatic experience of oppression; (b) they claimed to have sufficient per- spective on their experience (either psychological and/or chronological) that an exploration of it would not likely be detrimental to them; and (c) they reasonably expected that participation in the study would afford them increased personal insight into their experience. 161 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

8. ETHICAL ISSUES We obtained institutional review board approval from the home institutions of the principal investigators (the first and third authors) prior to beginning the study. We obtained written and/or oral consent outlining voluntary participa- tion and confidentiality from participants for the study. Licensed professional counselors conducted all interviews, and we ensured that participants had access to supportive resources following the interview. DATA COLLECTION AND MEASURES We collected data for the research through audiotaped interviews with participants ranging from 60 to 90 minutes in length. The interviews used open-ended questions that focused on participants’ personal experiences of oppression and how these experiences have affected (a) their relation- ship to their own body and the bodies of others and (b) their nonverbal communication patterns. A draft of the narrative constructed from the transcribed interview data was available to participants for their review and feedback. DATA ANALYSIS After constructing narratives for each study participant, we reviewed the in- terview transcripts and notes from the experiential components to identify the key points in each individual text. We then identified experiences that repeated across interviews as indicators of themes. results Interviews with study participants revealed that a majority of the experiences of oppression they encountered could be classified under the category of microaggressions. Although some participants reported overt assaults, all par- ticipants described ongoing demeaning encounters with others that affected their sense of embodiment (i.e., their feelings of connection to their own body; their body image; their capacity to feel, move, and express themselves in and through their body). Although researchers have classified nonverbal communication into a number of categories, our study found four components to be particularly relevant to understanding embodied microaggressions: (a) the use of gesture, posture, and facial expression; (b) the use of space; (c) the use of touch; and (d) the use of eye movement. For each category, we provide examples from our data, with particular attention to the way in which these nonverbal microaggressions constitute what Henley and Freeman (1995) and Goffman (1963) described as asymmetrical interactions, a key feature of the nonverbal communication patterns between individuals with differing social status in which the socially dominant individual is afforded nonverbal rights and privileges not afforded to members of oppressed groups. 162 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

9. GESTURE, POSTURE, AND FACIAL EXPRESSION The sociocultural differences in nonverbal communication are remarkable; there is no international language of body movement. Instead, cultures have developed systems of unique gestures, postures, and facial expressions, so that it is almost never possible to understand intuitively the kinesic communication from another culture (Archer, 1997). These cultural differences are further complicated when one social group holds significantly more power and the members of that group assume that their body language is the norm. In our study, several examples of microaggressions through posture, gesture, and facial expression occurred. Participants noted being highly sensitized to movements in others that signaled disapproval, dismissal, or contempt, including crossed arms, frowns, shrugs, and “cold shoulders.” In addition to learning how to scan the environment for nonverbal indicators of threat, participants spoke about how their bodies responded and adapted to these hostile social worlds. One participant noted how her body movements un- consciously changed depending on her social environment: So I think it depends on what culture I’m navigating through. It doesn’t happen consciously where I realize I’m tightening up or straightening up around people that I perceive as more powerful or possibly hurtful. It’s only when I leave them and I feel myself unwind that I can notice, “Oh well, that was interesting. I can breathe more deeply now.” Defi- nitely my movement repertoire changes around the way of the culture I’m around and the context of power I’m around and it’s not conscious at all. Sometimes as a woman I’ll change the way I walk in order to feel like I’m being taken more seriously, you know. This example speaks both to the somatic impact of living in a social world where microaggressions are common and the adaptive nonverbal strategies needed to navigate these challenging environments. USE OF SPACE Like the other types of nonverbal communication, the use of space varies across culture, gender, age, and other social factors. Early studies in non- verbal communication (Sommer, 1969) showed that high-status individuals are afforded greater personal space and those with lower status are expected to yield space to those with higher status. Several participants noted the impact of space on their experience of oppressive interactions with others. A common theme for many participants was not feeling allowed to take up space, resulting in an overall constriction of body movement: hunched posture, limbs held close to the body, and small gestures. One female participant recalled numerous occasions riding the bus or subway when men sat with their legs spread so wide that they took up room on the seats on either side. On a recent occasion, she constricted herself so tightly to make room for the man sitting next to her that her leg muscles began to go into spasm. Although this interviewee was fully aware how this embodied microaggresssion invaded her personal space and hurt her body, she also acknowledged that she does not yet feel comfortable pushing back. 163 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

10. TOUCH Microaggressions enacted through touch figured strongly in several of our participants’ narratives and provide a good illustration of asymmetrical nonverbal interactions. In this case, individuals holding more social power are often accorded touch privileges that are not mutual. One interviewee related an experience in which a fellow student she didn’t know well came up behind her in a school computer lab and began massaging her shoulders. The participant was taken aback and told the young man that she didn’t ap- preciate being touched in that way. The man reacted by telling her to “chill out.” Immediately, the young woman felt that she was wrong for having set a boundary. In retrospect, the participant was able to identify the young man’s outrage as rooted in a sense of entitlement that he should be able to touch whomever he wanted as long as his intentions were benign. Several participants described feeling a complete lack of choice in whether someone touches them or not. Rather than saying no, they experience an automatic muscular contraction or “armoring” that shields them against unwanted touch. One participant also observed that the chronic tightness required to tolerate unwanted touch means that even positive touch is not accepted. USE OF EYE CONTACT AND EYE MOVEMENT As is true for the other types of nonverbal communication we have discussed, the ways in which eye contact and eye movement are used to convey particu- lar messages vary considerably across cultures. For example, Ling (1997) pointed out that people from some cultures lower their gaze to convey respect, whereas this may be understood as evasive or insulting in other cultures. Eye contact is also used dissimilarly along lines of power difference. Researchers have found that both men and women will look more at those they regard as sources of social approval, and that women (as might be expected, given their subordinated social status) look more at another person in a dyad than men do (Ellyson & Dovidio, 2012; Hall & Halberstadt, 1986). The eyes are subtle but powerful tools of communication, and many of our participants spoke about how strongly they were affected by microaggres- sions involving eye contact or gaze. In the words of one participant, “I felt unwelcome in certain contexts not by what anybody said specifically but by how they looked at me. . . . Just their unspoken hostility that I wasn’t sup- posed to be there or I didn’t belong or I didn’t match.” Another participant described the sexist microaggresssions that resulted in the development of a finely attuned sensitivity to the gaze of others: I would be very surprised that any female walking down the street wouldn’t be conscious of people watching you, of men watching you in particular, and how you have to be a little bit more conscious of that . . . conscious of what you’re wearing, conscious of space, those sorts of things. It’s something that has oppressed me throughout my life—the frustration of just walking down the street and being aware of men looking at you in a way that doesn’t feel comfortable. 164 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

11. Another participant spoke about how she avoids eye contact not to avoid seeing others, but to avoid feeling seen by others. For her, it was as if by not looking she could also be invisible. In a world where the gaze of oth- ers was so often experienced as a microaggression—as dismissive, critical, and judging—she coped by restricting her own gaze, thereby limiting not only the harm but also the beauty and affirmation that might pour in. As this discussion of nonverbal microaggressions illustrates, our bodies are intimately connected to the transmission and reception of messages that speak volumes about the power dynamics embedded in the relationships between members of different sociocultural groups. Because bodies are the medium through which these dynamics play out, bodies also hold the memory, impact, and imprint of these exchanges. Although the inclusion criteria for our study did not require participants to meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, many of our participants’ experiences mapped onto the descriptions of those diagnostic criteria discussed in the literature. Given the increasingly well-established empirical link between op- pression and trauma discussed previously, it seems reasonable to assert that understanding and working with the traumatic impact of embodied micro- aggressions requires an appreciation and recognition of the body-centered symptoms of trauma. For our research participants, these somatic effects included intrusive “body memories” (i.e., memories of the interoceptive sensations or bodily aspects of the traumatic encounter) and physiological reactivity on exposure to cues that resembled an aspect of their oppression (Rothschild, 2000). Nearly all of our research participants spoke about how highly sensitized and attuned they felt to the nonverbal reactions and responses of others, and it was clear that their relational sensitivity was rooted in a history of marginalizing and repressive experiences with others. One participant described a type of so- matic vigilance with respect to White people and spoke about needing to be able to read their nonverbal communication, especially when in close physical proximity. Another acknowledged that she becomes increasingly self-conscious of her bodily appearance and movements when members of a dominant social group do not respond to her nonverbal cues with some degree of kinesthetic empathy. Finally, in describing the somatic impact of oppression, most of the partici- pants spoke about the profound disconnection from the felt experience of their bodies. In many cases, this disconnection was something that partici- pants realized only recently through the process of addressing the impact of oppression. At the same time, participants also described this withdrawal from the felt experience of the body as initially functional—something that allowed them to survive the painful feelings generated by their experiences of oppression. On a somatic level, the dissociative mechanism that serves to protect the individual from distressing material may also serve to disconnect them from a general sense of kinesthetic awareness (van der Hart, van Dijke, van Son, & Steele, 2001; Waller et al., 2001). This altered state of conscious- 165 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

12. ness provoked by traumatic stress is one in which the traumatized individual does not experience bodily sensations fully or accurately, and this lack of fundamental connection to the physical self may produce a range of second- ary effects, including distorted body image, distorted awareness of physical space boundaries, and poor movement coordination (Blume, 1990). Given the increasingly elucidated link between trauma, oppression, and the body, it is vital that counselors recognize the pervasive effects of oppression on clients with marginalized sociocultural identities and the impact these experiences have on their embodied selves. The specific inclusion of the lived experience of the body in clinical assessment and treatment frameworks also has the potential to enrich the work of feminist and critical race theorists (Burstow, 2003; Carter, 2007) who argue for an understanding of traumatic stress as a nonpathological injury that must be understood in the sociocultural and historical contexts in which it occurs. discussion STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS The notion of trustworthiness developed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) pro- vided one of the most commonly referenced frameworks for assessing rigor in qualitative research. The notion of trustworthiness has four elements: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The credibility of this study is supported by our prolonged and varied field experience (despite the time-limited nature of the data collection itself), member checking by participants, and the use of two interviews rather than one. The transferability of this research is supported by dense descriptions of participants’ experi- ences. In this study, dependability is achieved through a dense description of the research methods. We did not conduct a dependability audit or a code– recode process in analyzing the data, which may be considered a limitation in assessing dependability. Confirmability is supported, in part, through the reflexivity used by participants and researchers in developing the data; the participants reviewed each narrative several times over the course of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Understanding the significance of nonverbal communication provides a basis for appreciating the role of the body in reproducing social patterns of inequity and injustice and suggests particular directions for how the body can be a locus for social and personal change. With this in mind, the counseling relationship can be both a venue for the unconscious reenactment of micro- aggressions and a platform for liberation from it. In particular, a conscious understanding of the nature of nonverbal communication and its involvement in the establishment and maintenance of privilege, bias, status, and domina- tion can assist both the counselor and client in dismantling oppression and in understanding trauma symptoms as potentially arising from the chronic 166 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

13. trauma of oppression. By making the nonverbal components of the counseling relationship more conscious and available for direct observation and com- ment, the counselor and the client can use their nonverbal interactions as a method of inquiry, a vehicle for repair, and a rehearsal for how to deal with future incidents both inside and outside of the counseling room. In order to grasp this idea more fully, the body itself needs to be added to the discourse. Increasingly, counselors understand the therapeutic encounter as a body- to-body relationship (Teyber, 2000; Wallin, 2007). Because so much com- munication is nonverbal, and because most affect-laden experience is com- municated through posture, gesture, and facial expression, counselors need to consciously read both their own and their clients’ bodies to competently navigate the clients’ explicit (more verbal) and implicit (more nonverbal) material, as well as their own responses to it. This can require a counselor to practice both outside and inside the therapeutic relationship to become comfortable with three skill sets: 1. Reading one’s own internal bodily sensations, seeing them as impor- tant communications about one’s more implicit reactions and emo- tions, and getting curious about how they can inform one’s explicit interactions with clients. 2. Learning to observe nonverbal cues from clients, including voice tone, posture, gesture, eye contact, use of space, and “micro-movements” (Caldwell, 2015) that may signal implicit processing that can be made explicit by careful reflection and empathic inquiry. 3. Asking about the meaning of nonverbal messages from clients’ perspectives, and helping them to unpack both their assumptions and one’s own. Deliberately discussing with clients the nonverbal messages that are occurring in the sessions—particularly the differ- ences in meaning making that can occur between the counselor and client—affords them a safe forum to begin to process the body-to- body interactions that occur in their daily lives through the lens of nonverbal microaggressions. Westland (2015) asserted that nonverbal communication originates in the body, and that when we examine the competency of the counselor to com- municate effectively both as a sender and as a receiver in the therapeutic rela- tionship, “we can all see and come to understand this kind of communication through learning how to read our internal body sensations (including our intuitions) and couple them with our observations” (p. 2). These reflexive observation skills can be strengthened by additional professional training in one of the many somatic psychotherapy modalities currently practiced. Another way to understand the nonverbal nature of the therapeutic rela- tionship is to reflect on how counselors, because of the inherent power dif- ferential in the counseling relationship, have the ability to microaggress on their clients by how they look at and respond to the clients’ bodies. In what 167 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

14. ways might counselors be unconsciously making their clients’ bodies wrong because the clients don’t move like they do, sit like they do, or gesture like they do? How might different physical appearances and movement styles challenge counselors’ assumptions of what “normal” looks like? (Caldwell, 2013). Westland (2015) urged counselors to start with tracking their own bodily sensations in a session as a way to surface their unconscious body-to- body reactions—making the implicit explicit so that it can be named and dealt with consciously. When clients are supported to examine embodied microaggressions in the counseling session and in their lives, they can also begin to experi- ment with new ways of being in the world. Embodied microresistances provide a way to “push back,” “stand up,” and “hold your ground” in the face of the constant erosion of pride, dignity, and self-respect that microaggressions produce. By refusing to enact the nonverbal scripts of subordination and reclaiming physical expressions that feel authentic and empowering, clients experience their bodies as sources of personal and social power, not just as targets for discrimination and abuse. Sup- porting clients in understanding how their bodies are implicated in and affected by microaggressions also supports them in developing authentic embodied subjectivities that, through everyday embodied microresistances, can lead to macrolevel social change. references Archer, D. (1997). Unspoken diversity: Cultural differences in gestures. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 79–105. Argyle, M. (2013). Bodily communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Aviezer, H., Trope, Y., & Todorov, A. (2012, November 30). Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science, 338, 1225–1229. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Blume, E. S. (1990). Secret survivors. New York, NY: Wiley. Brandolo, E., Rieppi, R., Kelly, K. P., & Gerin, K. W. (2003). Perceived racism and blood pressure: A review of the literature and conceptual and methodological critique. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 55–65. Bryant-Davis, T., & Ocampo, C. (2005). Racist incident–based trauma. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 479–500. Burstow, B. (2003). Toward a radical understanding of trauma and trauma work. Violence Against Women, 9, 1293–1317. Caine, V., Steeves, P., Clandinin, D. J., Estefan, A., Huber, J., & Mur- phy, M. S. (2017). Social justice practice: A narrative inquiry perspec- tive. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1746197917710235 Caldwell, C. (2013). Diversity issues in movement observation and assessment. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 35, 183–200. doi:10.1007/s10465-013-9159-9 168 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

15. Caldwell, C. (2015, October). Micro-movements: Clinical applications in dance/move- ment therapy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Dance Therapy Association, San Diego, CA. Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 13–105. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and codings. Semiotics, 1, 49–98. Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.). (2012). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. Fromkin, V., & Rodman, J. (1983). An introduction to language. New York, NY: CBS College. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York, NY: Free Press. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). London, England: Sage. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. (1986). Smiling and gazing. In J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 136–158). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Henley, N., & Freeman, J. (1995). The sexual politics of interpersonal behavior. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp. 474–491). London, England: Mayfield. Herring, R. D. (1990). Nonverbal communication: A necessary component of cross- cultural counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 172–179. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.1990.tb00448.x Hickson, M., III, Stacks, D., & Moore, N. (2004). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications (4th ed.).London, England:Roxbury. Kira, I. A., Alawneh, A. W. N., Aboumediene, S., Lewandowski, L., & Laddis, A. (2014). Dynamics of oppression and coping from traumatology perspective: The example of Palestinian adolescents. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20, 385–411. Kira, I. A., Ashby, J. S., Lewandowski, L., Alawneh, A. W. N., Mohanesh, J., & Odenat, L. (2013). Advances in continuous traumatic stress theory: Traumatogenic dynam- ics and consequences of intergroup conflict: The Palestinian adolescents case. Psychology, 4, 396–409. Kira, I. A., Ashby, J., Lewandowski, L., Smith, I., & Odenat, L. (2012). Gender inequal- ity and its effects in female torture survivors. Psychology, 3, 352–363. Ling, C. W. (1997). Crossing cultural boundaries. Nursing, 72, 32–34. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal communication. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 19, 107–162. Mol, S. L., Arntz, A., Metsemakers, J. M., Dinant, G., Vilters-Van Montfort, P. P., & Knottnerus, J. (2005). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after non-traumatic events: Evidence from an open population study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 494–499. doi:10.1192/bjp.186.6.494 Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. New York, NY: Norton. Pierce, C. M., Carew, J. V., Pierce-Gonzales, D., & Wills, D. (1978). An experiment in racism: TV commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and education (pp. 62–88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 169 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46

16. Rothschild, B. (2000). The body remembers: The psychophysiology of trauma and trauma treatment. New York, NY: Norton. Scott, M. J., & Stradling, S. G. (1994). Post-traumatic stress disorder without the trauma. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 71–74. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286. Sue, D. W., Jackson, K. F., Rasheed, M. N., & Rasheed, J. M. (2016). Multicultural social work practice: A competency-based approach to diversity and social justice. New York, NY: Wiley. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosex- ism: Measurement, psychosocial correlates, and research directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 510–524. Teyber, E. (2000). Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: A relational approach. New York, NY: Wadsworth. van der Hart, O., van Dijke, A., van Son, M., & Steele, K. (2001). Somatoform dissocia- tion in traumatized World War I combat soldiers: A neglected clinical heritage. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 1, 33–66. van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score. New York, NY: Viking. Waller, G., Hamilton, K., Elliott, P., Lewendon, J., Stopa, L., Waters, A., & Hargreaves, I. (2001). Somatoform dissociation, psychological dissociation, and specific forms of trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 1, 81–98. Wallin, D. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Walters, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (2002). Reconceptualizing Native women’s health: An “indigenist” stress-coping model. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 520–524. Westland, G. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal communication in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Norton. 170 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • July 2018 • Vol. 46 View publication stats View publication stats