Safe Spaces, Places of Truth, Inclusion, Shame and Silence
The idea of safe spaces crept into the culture in the 1960s and gradually took hold through the 1970s. Eventually, it spread to college campuses, and it became normalized. The concept of safe spaces originated in feminist and LGBTQ communities to create places where marginalized people could freely discuss shared ideas and concerns without fear of retaliation. The idea is intrinsically feminine in nature to manifest psychologically and emotionally nurturing places that “feel” safe. There are no threats, there is no danger, there is no aggressive challenge (elimination of male dominated impulses), so that people may be supported and are encouraged to be themselves. It is a way of exerting power through the use of censoring boundaries—you are allowed to be seen if there is no aspect that is uncomfortable to others who are present. Enforcement of these boundaries is often brutal and includes emotional coercion, peer pressure, shaming, cancelling (expulsion from space) or verbal corrective guidance that relies on the possibility of more severe measures. Instead of physical harm or death (which men tend to favor), the threat is psychological or spiritual in the form of censoring, including rejection. Emotional dishonesty tends to run rampant in spaces where the expression of members is tightly controlled. Honesty and trust are sacrificed at the altar of acceptance, comfort and validation.
During the early decades of the safe space movement, I think it served a legitimate purpose, and I think there is a continued place for the concept of safe spaces. But it comes down to where the lines are drawn, and these lines may need to look very different depending upon the audience. Today, safe spaces are often used as a means to enforce coercive silence. For example, let’s say I say something that another person finds inappropriate or makes that person feel uncomfortable, then it will often lead to a rebuke, usually shaming in some way, if not expulsion from the group. In a safe space, the leader(s) and the group at large get to define how each person is allowed to show up. If you are unwilling to adhere to those boundaries, then the space is not safe at all. I am not allowed to show up as my authentic self. I am allowed to show up only in ways acceptable to the safe space. In other words, groups that form safe spaces, often because they feel censored in the greater culture, turn around and do the same exact same thing to those who are part of their space. Many people drawn to safe circles have felt gravities of shame, and there is a reflex to pile shame on to others as needed to prevent the onset of more shame to themselves.
Because men tend to be more aggressive and prone to challenge, spaces comprised of a mix of men and women are inherently difficult. Safe spaces have become a way for women to control the behavior of men by defining what’s acceptable. Alpha, sigma, zeta, omega and gamma males will struggle to be authentic as they must repress their challenging, aggressive, creative, independent and rebellious impulses. Further exasperating the divide between the sexes, boys are typically given more leeway to express anger and with girls it’s sadness. Safe spaces are much more forgiving to the expression of sadness over anger. To the extent anger is expressed, it must be directed at people excluded from the circle (eg/”unsafe” people). Men and women manipulate, and as far as I know, do so in equal measure. However, women have higher emotional intelligence and therefore have a built-in advantage (men who have high emotional IQs have the same advantage) in controlling the expression of safe spaces. Invariably, the emphasis is on women feeling safe over men being authentic and women being authentic over men feeling safe; this pressure exists even when the groups/spaces are led by men. That doesn’t mean there is no inherent value in such spaces, only that there should be awareness that there is a natural tension between safety and authenticity even though the road to the former ultimately must pass through the latter.
Identities tend to feature as a significant component of a safe circles culture, and though this can be empowering it is also limiting. Identities have always been a thing in human cultures, but the greater culture is consumed by it like never before. In part, this obsession has become a quest for external validation. If others are seen and heard, and they share identities, then I’m by extension seen and heard as well. For me, this trend is ironic because if someone only sees that I’m male, gay or white, they are not seeing much at all. Boundaries are a good thing both for personal and group dynamics. But a safe space isn’t safe if the idea of safety coerces someone to silence. There may be the appearance of safety, but when such appearances are delivered with the threat of punishment, including rejection, then it’s won at the cost of a dystopian utopia. To shame another out of their voice is to commit the very injustice that safe circles were meant to address.
Predatory behaviors, whether intended or not, are a legitimate boundary to control and exclude. But I judge that such boundaries should be as expansive as possible. Do we want authentic human beings or do we want children at their desks with hands folded, quiet and nice, of no disturbance to others, to avoid getting their hands slapped by the ruler? The latter paints a serene picture, but that’s only because we cannot see the soul. Our culture has glorified the quest for comfort. There is little or no growth in comfort. Our culture has glorified the virtue of inclusion. But what virtue has been achieved if inclusion comes at the cost of silence?
