Interesting to play this off the phrase "microaggression," a term for the casual, unrealized degradation of a minority group. The micropolitical emphasizes the smallness of the action, but also the way in which these tensions stem from frequently nonrealized and "nonconscious" ideas. Unlike microaggression, though, micropolitical emphasizes a broader network of interactions, relationships, and dynamics, which might be helpful in sidestepping the inevitable defensiveness that follows the phrase.

One of the things I note with embodied rhetoric is that Douglass and the abolitionists weren't the first movement to face physical violence for their beliefs, but they were a movement where physical violence could not be distanced from their advocacy. Douglass not only uses his scars as a rhetorical tool, that scarring is significant to the construction of his own identity. I'm looking to Harriet Wilson's Our Nig, particularly at the end where the protagonist, Frado, contrasts herself against her husband, a fugitive slave who's touring the abolitionist lecture circuit, and notes his "back showed no marks of the lash, erect as if it never crouched beneath a burden." The scars of slavery aren't just a demonstration of his condition, they're a part of how his identity was formed.

Can't imagine Blair's Polite Society would think too highly of that

"Good Sense" being defined as "the sense not to be Inappropriate." "Inappropriate" being defined as "working within the boundaries established by Good Sense."

It's politeness all the way down!