Header image: KF in Dall-E
Notes on Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: a new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In Landreman, L. (Ed.), The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators (pp. 135-150). Stylus Publishing. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6af3b236099ba883a28b1e/t/5dcc5b2ae2b90a3c5af08fc5/1573673770842/From+Safe+Spaces+to+Brave+Spaces_2013.pdf
My short take:
Brave space is potentially (and necessarily) provocative, but respectful, tolerant, and generative
Safe space is sterile, artificial, and intolerant
- The issue seems to be “A conflation of safety and comfort” but remember:
“Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it involves overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at their face value; it involves willingness to endure a condition of mental unrest and disturbance. Reflective thinking, in short, means judgment suspended during further inquiry; and suspense is likely to be somewhat painful. As we shall see later, the most important factor in the training of good mental habits consists in acquiring the attitude of suspended conclusion, and in mastering the various methods of searching for new materials to corroborate or to refute the first suggestions that occur. To maintain the state of doubt and to carry on systematic and protracted inquiry ― these are the essentials of thinking’ – Dewey (1910)
What if Trigger Warnings Don’t Work? (Sept, 2021)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-if-trigger-warnings-dont-work
The Latest Study on Trigger Warnings Finally Convinced Me They’re Not Worth It (July, 2019) https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trigger-warnings-research-shows-they-dont-work-might-hurt.html
More snipppets:
- One Step Forward, One Step Back activity
- “a violation of safe space ground rules” – “discomfort”
- “the potential to revictimize target group members”
- Holley and Steiner (2005), described safe space as an ‘‘environment in which students are willing and able to participate and honestly struggle with challenging issues’’ (p. 49).
- Staff at the Arizona State University Intergroup Relations Center described the contours of safe space in more detail, with a stated objective of creating ‘‘an environment in which everyone feels comfortable expressing themselves and participating fully, without fear of attack, ridicule, or denial of experience’’ (as cited by National Coalition for Dialogue &Deliberation, n.d., §S).
- The word safe is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary as ‘‘free from harm or risk . . . affording safety or security from danger, risk, or difficulty . . . unlikely to produce controversy or contradiction’’ (Safe, 2010). Boostrom’s (1998) critique of the idea of safe space, and in particular his assertion that bravery is needed because ‘‘learning necessarily involves not merely risk, but the pain of giving up a former condition in favour of a new way of seeing things’’ (p. 399).
- Though a given activity or discussion question may provide a challenging opportunity for participant learning, much of that learning may be internal. Students may not externalize evidence of the degree to which they are engaged, but this does not mean they are not wrestling with difficult questions or criticallyexamining how privilege moves in their lives and the lives of others. Further, we recognize this kind of engagement cannot be forced.
- small but important linguistic shift in our facilitation practice
- Agree to Disagree restated as “Controversy with civility,” where varying opinions are accepted
- Don’t Take Things Personally restated as “Own Your Intentions and Your Impact” in which students acknowledge and discuss instances where a dialogue has affected the emotional well-being of another person
- Challenge by Choice restated as “Consider the Impact of Your Participation” where students have an option to step in and out of challenging conversations
- Consider what Respect looks like culturally and with regard to bravery where students show respect for one another’s basic personhood
- Consider what No Attacks looks like culturally and with regard to bravery and where students agree not to intentionally inflict harm on one another
More:
Ali, D. (2017). Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces: Historical Context and Recommendations for Student Affairs Professionals. NASPA policy and practice series. issue no. [National Association of Student Personnel Administrators] https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Policy_and_Practice_No_2_Safe_Brave_Spaces.pdf