The authors recruited 11 doctoral-level counseling students to participate in a study exploring the lived experiences of people who have encountered social class microaggressions (SCMs). Findings (consisting of 6 themes) suggest that SCMs are a distinct phenomenon arising from interpersonal and environmental exchanges that damage recipients. The authors present implications for counselor education and future research trajectories. Experiences of privilege and oppression continue to permeate the daily lives of people living in the United States (Lewis, Mendenhall, Harwood, & Huntt, 2013; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2016; Sue et al., 2007). Although overt expressions of hostility are considered to be illmannered and undesirable behaviors, covert discrimination and degradation continue to be prevalent in the day-to-day interactions of individuals and groups that experience interpersonal and systemic marginalization (Ratts et al., 2016; Sue et al., 2007). These subtle and commonplace indignities communicate to recipients that they are less than dominant culture individuals, that they do not belong, and that their realities are invalid. These daily hostilities are known as microaggressions, a term coined by Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, and Willis (1978). For the last 2 decades, scholars have generated empirical and theoretical work (Constantine, 2007; Constantine & Sue, 2007; Nadal, 2011, 2013; Sue, 2010a, 2010b; Sue et al., 2007; Torres-Harding, Andrade, & Romero Diaz, 2012) documenting the nature of microaggressions, including the forms they take (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations) and the ways in which they are transmitted (i.e., language, nonverbal behaviors, and environment). Microassaults include overt or covert actions or environments that communicate denigration and hostility (e.g., slurs, swastikas). Microinsults tend to be more covert and involve actions or environments that are offensive or indicate contempt for the recipient. Microinvalidations tend to be more covert and include actions or environments that ignore, undermine, or dismiss the lived realities of recipients (Sue et al., 2007). Most commonly, researchers have investigated microaggressions rooted in race, gender, and sexual identity (Capodilupo et al., 2010; Lewis et al., 2013; Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2011; Sue, Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008). However, microaggressions can manifest in relation to other identity dimensions and in any relationship where power hierarchies, stratification, privilege, and oppression are present (Sue, 2010b; Sue et al., 2007). Because of this, leading microaggression scholars routinely encourage the examination of microaggressions across other identities (L. Smith & Redington, 2010; Sue, 2010a, 2010b), including intersecting identity dimensions (Liegghio & Caragata, 2016; L. Smith & Redington, 2010). To date, microaggressions related to social class have received little scholarly attention. The current study attempts to address this gap by investigating experiences of microaggressions related to social class—namely, social class microaggressions (SCMs). Social class is a complex construct associated with one’s ranked place in the world relative to others based on economic and social factors (Cook & Lawson, 2016). We use the following definition: Social class is a subjective identity dimension composed of discrete socioeconomic status (SES) variables (i.e., income, education, and occupation) that combine with additional factors, such as resources, location, shared and individual experiences, and perceived status, that shape attitudes, beliefs, worldviews, values, and behaviors (Cook & Lawson, 2016; Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004). To identify social class as an identity dimension, people use many descriptors and terms that may vary by person or group (e.g., poor, blue collar, upper class, middle class, lower class, working poor, upper crust, elite, owning class, ruling class, working class). In addition, people often conflate social class and SES (Cook & Lawson, 2016). Although SES is necessary to defining and understanding social class, social class is not SES in and of itself (Cook & Lawson, 2016). SCMs are a burgeoning research area. In clinical settings, difficulties associated with both identifying microaggressions and finding ways to combat them have been researched (Liegghio & Caragata, 2016). Investigators have examined constructs related to SCMs in higher education settings as well (Sarcedo, Matias, Montoya, & Nishi, 2015). Young, Anderson, and Stewart (2015) coined the term hierarchical microaggressions for situations in which participants experienced a systematic devaluing of their personhood based upon their institutional role. L. Smith, Mao, and Deshpande (2016) investigated classist microaggressions in poor and working-class students. Their results indicated that microaggressions related to social class negatively affected participants via financial barriers, alienation, and stigmatization. SCMs in an educational context might include comments such as “You are such an inspiration growing up how you did. How did you move on and up so well?” or “You really need to focus on school and not your other job right now. You can make money when you graduate.” L. Smith et al. (2016) reported that SCMs can include assumptions about students’ backgrounds and about whether students understand how to navigate higher education contexts. For example, some participants in their study reported that professors were surprised if their students did not identify as middle class or could not afford course materials. Others reported not knowing “unspoken guidelines” (p. 138), expectations, and professional etiquette when interacting with professors. In addition, participants reported feelings of disconnection from their families of origin and challenges sharing their higher education experiences. Microaggressive environments, experiences, statements, and beliefs can be insulting or convey that the recipient’s needs are not relevant or valid. In addition, messages privileging middle or upper social class values (e.g., achievement and ambition, the importance of financial investing, centralizing one’s occupation as the reason for living) can create microaggressive environments for those in other social class statuses (Cook & O’Hara, 2017; L. Smith et al., 2016). Even though results from existing studies indicate that SCMs are a real and persistent threat in higher education settings, SCMs have not been explored in counselor education. Ethical codes, accreditation standards, and professional guidelines require that counselors attend to related constructs of social position and SES (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2015; National Board for Certified Counselors, 2012; Ratts et al., 2016). Professional standards do not expressly use the term social class; they only name constructs related to it. Because social class is distinct from and more nuanced than SES, the absence of the term is notable and reflects the need to continue studying social class–related issues. Indeed, the absence of the term may also reflect society’s lack of understanding about social class. Thus, it is imperative that professional counselors increase their competence regarding social class and SCMs and research SCMs to potentially prevent additional marginalization. Furthermore, if members of the counseling profession understand how SCMs manifest, then counselor educators and supervisors can integrate education, prevention, and response interventions throughout their roles and curricula. To understand how doctoral-level counseling students experience SCMs, we used qualitative inquiry— specifically, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Although the phenomenon of microaggressions has been documented by researchers, SCMs represent a newer facet not yet explored in depth. Thus, the purpose of our study was to explore and understand the experiences of SCMs. Because the study was exploratory and not confirmatory, we avoided labeling experiences with preestablished categories. We used the following research question to guide our study: What are the experiences of doctoral-level counseling students who have encountered SCMs during counselor education training?

中文翻译：

---

博士级辅导学生的社会阶级微观攻击经历

作者招募了 11 名博士级咨询学生参与一项研究，该研究探索了遇到社会阶层微攻击 (SCM) 的人的生活经历。调查结果（由 6 个主题组成）表明，SCM 是一种独特的现象，由损害接受者的人际和环境交流引起。作者提出了对辅导员教育和未来研究轨迹的影响。特权和压迫的经历继续渗透在美国人民的日常生活中（Lewis、Mendenhall、Harwood 和 Huntt，2013 年；Ratts、Singh、Nassar-McMillan、Butler 和 McCullough，2016 年；Sue 等人， 2007）。虽然公开表达敌意被认为是不礼貌和不受欢迎的行为，在经历人际和系统边缘化的个人和群体的日常互动中，隐蔽的歧视和退化继续普遍存在（Ratts 等人，2016 年；Sue 等人，2007 年）。这些微妙而普通的侮辱向接受者传达了他们不是主流文化的个体，他们不属于自己，他们的现实是无效的。这些日常敌对行为被称为微攻击，这是皮尔斯、卡鲁、皮尔斯-冈萨雷斯和威利斯 (1978) 创造的术语。在过去的 20 年里，学者们进行了实证和理论工作（Constantine, 2007; Constantine & Sue, 2007; Nadal, 2011, 2013; Sue, 2010a, 2010b; Sue et al., 2007; Torres-Harding, Andrade, & Romero Diaz, 2012) 记录了微攻击的性质，包括它们采取的形式（即微攻击、微侮辱和微失效）及其传播方式（即语言、非语言行为和环境）。微攻击包括公开或隐蔽的行为或环境，传达诋毁和敌意（例如，诽谤、卐字）。微侮辱往往更隐蔽，涉及攻击性或表示蔑视接受者的行为或环境。微观失效往往更加隐蔽，包括忽略、破坏或忽视接受者生活现实的行为或环境（Sue 等，2007）。最常见的是，研究人员调查了植根于种族、性别和性身份的微攻击（Capodilupo 等人，2010 年；Lewis 等人，2013 年；Shelton 和 Delgado-Romero，2011 年；Sue、Capodilupo 和 Holder，2008 年）。然而，微观攻击可以在与其他身份维度以及存在权力等级、分层、特权和压迫的任何关系中表现出来（Sue，2010b；Sue 等，2007）。正因为如此，领先的微攻击学者通常鼓励检查其他身份的微攻击（L. Smith & Redington, 2010; Sue, 2010a, 2010b），包括交叉的身份维度（Liegghio & Caragata, 2016; L. Smith & Redington, 2010 ）。迄今为止，与社会阶层相关的微攻击几乎没有受到学术界的关注。当前的研究试图通过调查与社会阶层相关的微攻击经历——即社会阶层微攻击 (SCM) 来解决这一差距。社会阶层是一个复杂的结构，与基于经济和社会因素的一个人在世界上相对于其他人的排名有关（Cook & Lawson，2016 年）。我们使用以下定义：社会阶层是一个主观身份维度，由离散的社会经济地位 (SES) 变量（即收入、教育和职业）与其他因素（例如资源、位置、共享和个人经历等）相结合组成，以及感知地位，塑造态度、信仰、世界观、价值观和行为（Cook 和 Lawson，2016 年；Liu、Soleck、Hopps、Dunston 和 Pickett，2004 年）。为了将社会阶层识别为身份维度，人们使用了许多可能因人或群体而异的描述词和术语（例如，穷人、蓝领、上层阶级、中产阶级、下层阶级、工作穷人、上层社会、精英、拥有阶级、统治阶级、工人阶级）。此外，人们经常将社会阶层和社会经济地位混为一谈（Cook & Lawson，2016 年）。尽管 SES 对定义和理解社会阶层是必要的，但社会阶层本身并不是 SES（Cook & Lawson，2016 年）。SCM 是一个新兴的研究领域。在临床环境中，已经研究了与识别微侵略和寻找对抗它们的方法相关的困难（Liegghio 和 Caragata，2016 年）。调查人员还研究了高等教育环境中与 SCM 相关的结构（Sarcedo、Matias、Montoya 和 Nishi，2015 年）。Young、Anderson 和 Stewart (2015) 创造了术语“等级微侵略”，用于描述参与者根据其机构角色经历系统性贬值的情况。L. 史密斯，毛，和 Deshpande (2016) 调查了贫困学生和工人阶级学生的阶级主义微观攻击。他们的结果表明，与社会阶层相关的微攻击通过经济障碍、疏远和污名化对参与者产生负面影响。教育背景下的 SCM 可能包括诸如“你是这样一个灵感，你是如何成长的。你怎么进步这么好？” 或者“你现在真的需要专注于学校而不是你的其他工作。毕业了就可以赚钱了。” L. 史密斯等人。(2016) 报告说，SCM 可以包括关于学生背景以及学生是否了解如何驾驭高等教育环境的假设。例如，一些参与他们研究的参与者报告说，如果他们的学生没有被认定为中产阶级或买不起课程材料，教授会感到惊讶。其他人报告说，在与教授互动时，他们不知道“潜规则”（第 138 页）、期望和专业礼仪。此外，参与者还报告了与原籍家庭脱节的感觉，以及分享高等教育经历的挑战。微攻击性的环境、经历、陈述和信念可能会侮辱或传达接受者的需求不相关或不合理。此外，有利于中上层社会价值的信息（例如，成就和抱负、金融投资的重要性、将一个人的职业作为生活的原因）可以为处于其他社会阶层地位的人创造微攻击性环境（Cook & O'Hara，2017 年；L. Smith 等人，2016 年）。尽管现有研究的结果表明 SCM 在高等教育环境中是一个真实而持久的威胁，但在辅导员教育中尚未探索 SCM。道德准则、认证标准和专业指南要求辅导员注意社会地位和 SES 的相关结构（美国咨询协会 [ACA]，2014 年；咨询和相关教育计划认证委员会 [CACREP]，2015 年；国家认证委员会）顾问，2012 年；Ratts 等人，2016 年）。专业标准没有明确使用“社会阶层”一词；他们只命名与之相关的构造。由于社会阶层与 SES 不同且更微妙，因此该术语的缺失值得注意，这反映了继续研究与社会阶层相关的问题的必要性。事实上，该术语的缺失也可能反映了社会对社会阶层缺乏了解。因此，专业顾问必须提高他们在社会阶层和 SCM 方面的能力，并研究 SCM 以防止额外的边缘化。此外，如果咨询专业的成员了解 SCM 的表现方式，那么咨询师教育者和主管可以将教育、预防和应对干预措施整合到他们的角色和课程中。为了了解博士级咨询学生如何体验 SCM，我们使用了定性调查——特别是解释性现象学分析 (IPA)。尽管研究人员已经记录了微侵略现象，但 SCM 代表了一个尚未深入探索的新方面。因此，我们研究的目的是探索和了解 SCM 的经验。由于该研究是探索性的而非验证性的，我们避免用预先确定的类别标记经验。我们使用以下研究问题来指导我们的研究：在辅导员教育培训期间遇到 SCM 的博士级辅导学生有何经验？