The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Whitey? Really? As a white person that word just conjures up entitled white people whining about reverse racism.

And I'd say your reading is more unimpressive than the reasoning, which I took to mean that white people who have done work with the minority community in question have already established a relationship and made it clear that they won't behave in a way that invalidates the safe space, the preexisting relationship is what makes it OK.

Excuse me? Who are you to tone police me? Perhaps you should spend less time focusing on the feelings my words "conjure up" for you and focus on the actual arguments. I know that my legitimate anger may frighten you, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own. #notmyproblem

As to the rest of your post, all you're doing is attempting to offer a charitable recharacterization of TP's post, which justifies racial exclusion based upon nothing more or less than a minority individual's level of ignorance about the actual positions held by a white person. Which, to be clear, is a dumb and ignorant position.

[karaddin]

It's not tone policing, it's telling you that word makes you sound like an idiot, but by all means go ahead and keep using it. Your legitimate anger just reinforces that it's the correct interpretation.

As for an established relationship with a group being irrelevant...that's just some pure unadulterated bullshit right there. An established relationship leads to trust being extended that sure as fuck isn't owed to some random stranger.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It's not tone policing, it's telling you that word makes you sound like an idiot, but by all means go ahead and keep using it. Your legitimate anger just reinforces that it's the correct interpretation.

As for an established relationship with a group being irrelevant...that's just some pure unadulterated bullshit right there. An established relationship leads to trust being extended that sure as fuck isn't owed to some random stranger.

Wow. If you ever decide to stop tone policing me and actually want to address the substance of my argument vis-a-vis what TerraPrime actually said, and not your Candyland reinterpretation of what you think he 'really meant' - I'm happy to have that conversation. But I'm decidedly uninterested in you trying to Whitesplain away TerraPrime's support of racial segregation. #CheckYourPrivilege

[karaddin]

OK I'm going to be charitable and just assume you are trolling at this point, have fun with that Nestor.

[Solmyr]

This thread is no longer a safe space :pirate:.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP, Karradin,

Correct me if I'm wrong... using your logic a light skinned blue eyed child of two black or interracial parents should properly be excluded from a safe space in public if that person is unknown to that group based on that person's appearance alone?

[Castel]

It's not tone policing, it's telling you that word makes you sound like an idiot, but by all means go ahead and keep using it. Your legitimate anger just reinforces that it's the correct interpretation.

As for an established relationship with a group being irrelevant...that's just some pure unadulterated bullshit right there. An established relationship leads to trust being extended that sure as fuck isn't owed to some random stranger.

To ask the question that Nestor wants to neglect in favor of belligerence:

If some minority walks in without an established relationship will they have to jump through the same hoops?

Otherwise, isn't he right? You're just reiterating what he said in different terms.

If that's the case then his central complaint that :

even though it's been widely understood for decades by scholars of race relations that racial minorities as a group exhibits similar levels of racial animus and racial prejudice to other minorities - particularly blacks - as does the predominant "white" population.

Is what needs to be dealt with.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Scot

TP, Karradin,

Correct me if I'm wrong... using your logic a light skinned blue eyed child of two black or interracial parents should properly be excluded from a safe space in public if that person is unknown to that group based on that person's appearance alone?

Can't speak for Karaddin, but to me, yes. Until this person is known to the group for not-being-an-asshole-about-race, s/he more-likely-than-not is. I assume that all non-racial minorities fail at getting what racism means to people living with it until proven otherwise, just like I assume that all straight people are somewhat clueless about gay issues until proven otherwise. Is that such a horrible thing? If you meet a fellow Christian and s/he identifies as a Methodist, would you expect them to understand the Orthodox liturgy and tradition, that you celebrate Pascha different than how Protestans may celebrate Easter?

Oh now this is fascinating. So the standard for whether the mere presence of white people renders a space "unsafe" has nothing to do with the actual positions held by said white people, but rather the relative level of ignorance of the (presumably) persons of color ABOUT the actual positions held by said white people, who have determined themselves to be gatekeepers of said "safe spaces." Extremely interesting.

And of course, what makes a safe "space" only has to do with the assumption of racial animus on the part of whites towards persons of color, even though it's been widely understood for decades by scholars of race relations that racial minorities as a group exhibits similar levels of racial animus and racial prejudice to other minorities - particularly blacks - as does the predominant "white" population.

But of course, what does it matter if the person sitting next to you ACTUALLY holds racial animus towards you when you can exclude whitey from your "safe space" because you aren't sufficiently convinced of his or her bona fides? Unimpressive reasoning.

Be unimpressed then. It's really not about trying to impress you, you know.

And as the members of the group, why is it NOT their jurisdiction to ascertain what is "safe" for their space? What's the alternative here, that there be a universally accepted objective standard carved in stone? Or a separate authority source to impose a standard onto the group?

The most common attack on safe space is the critique that the exclusionary act imitates the same exclusionary act that the groups try to address, i.e., a safe space for women where no men are allowed is morally equivalent to a country club that excludes women, for instance. That sort of analysis is the same type that makes people feel smart in suggesting that we need Straight History Month and White History Month - it is lacking in accounting for power differential and degree of institutionalized harm. The very term "safe space" implies that outside of that venue, it is unsafe for minority members, and that is indeed true. I am actually a more lenient supporter of Safe Space where I will accept allies of known qualifications. I've encountered groups where I am absolutely excluded from regardless of my actual positions, and I think that's ok, too. If they need that space and if my presence is going to distress them or derail the purpose, then I do not need to be there. There will be other venues of engagement outside of that meeting. My need to participate doesn't trump their need for solidarity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

No, I wouldn't expect a Methodist to understand the Pashal liturgy. Nor would I exclude a Methodist from attending the Paschal liturgy because they want to know more or they want to participate in that liturgy. Finally, I wouldn't assume someone I was unfamilier with at the Paschal liturgy wasn't Orthodox.

My problem with your position is excluding people based on nothing more than their apperance. That seems to me to frequently, if not always, lead from bigoted assumptions.

That said if they started disrupting the liturgy I would feel no compunction about asking them to leave. Their behvaior would show them to be disruptive. That's a striking distiction from excluding someone based upon appearence alone.

[Castel]

TP,

No, I wouldn't expect a Methodist to understand the Pashal liturgy. Nor would I exclude a Methodist from attending the Paschal liturgy because they want to know more or they want to participate in that liturgy. Finally, I wouldn't assume someone I was unfamilier with at the Paschal liturgy wasn't Orthodox.

My problem with your position is excluding people based on nothing more than their apperance. That seems to me to frequently, if not always, lead from bigoted assumptions.

The purpose of this particular group is not to bring people up to speed though is it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

The purpose of the Pashal Liturgy isn't to "bring people up to speed" either. It is to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Without disruptive behavior I'd never, based on apperance alone I'd never ask someone to leave a liturgy.

Why should a blond blue eyed child of black or interracial parents be asked to leave a public gathering because of the mistaken perception that this person's apperance (alone) makes the space "unsafe"?

[TerraPrime]

Ser Scot:

In China, Catholics are often monitored and put under surveillance by the government, because the Chinese government is super paranoid about religious organizations that obey a foreign head of state serving as covers for political dissidents.

Imagine a Chinese Catholic attending service and seeing a local CCP official in attendance. Do you think it's wrong for the attending Catholics feel uneasy and restricted in what they say in front of this person?

But wait.

It turns out that this particular CCP member is ALSO a Catholic. They just didn't know at first. But does that make their initial unease the their desire to get away from him the same type of bias at work in racism against non-whites? The CCP member has done nothing to persecute Catholics, but the organization that he belongs to has. When the group you belong to is known for its persecutorial practices against a group of people, it seems silly to say that unease and distrust of you as a consequence of your group membership is qualitatively equivalent to the persecution itself.

And no, not every group has to serve to educate others. Some groups serve the needs of the members of the minority group and in some cases, in order to provide that service, members of the dominant group need to be excluded.

Millionaires don't need foostamps. It is not unfair to them to deny them access to foodstamps. They. Don't. Need. It. Members of the dominant group need to be a part of a safe space to talk about the lived experience of minority like a fish needs a bicycle, to borrow a phrase.

But let's try a different example.

Women in areas occupied by the imperial Japanese army were conscribed to be sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers. They are called "comfort women." There are still a few comfort women survivng and they sometimes have gatherings and meetings, for support and for healing. Using your logic, their refusal to allow someone wearing the imperial Japanese army uniform to attend their meetings is the same as racism and other forms of bigotry, because, by golly, how can a 30-year old Japanese man be responsible for any of the atrocities that happened to them nearly 70 years ago? And how unfair and discriminatory of them to exclude people based simply on how they dress?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Is the white looking child of black or interracial parents a member of the dominant group the way I am? You, based on apperance and would deny access to someone who may need that safe space as much as anyone else.

In your Chinese hypothetical are you saying any new parishners are subject to such scrutiny?

And showing up at a support meeting for comfort women in an imperial Japanese military uniform is a behavior. Being fair skined and blue eyed, is not.

[Sci-2]

I know, right?! White people - are there anything they're NOT good at?! NO! I can't think of ANY! Even in being progressive about racism, white people do it better!! Go white people!

It has nothing to do with an individual white person being better, it's noting that the whole idea that an area devoid of white people being safe for racial discussion b/c they're absent is laughable nonsense.

[emberling]

Seems to me some people are stuck on the idea of safe spaces as safe from oppressive behavior, or oppressive opinions. That isn't what they're for. That's hopefully included in the package, but the purpose, in my understanding. is to be safe from the oppressive gaze, in the Lacanian/Foucaultian sense. The point is to have a place without the pressure to perform the dominant culture's ideas of respectability. Even the most progressive, privilege-aware outside observer is going to bring that gaze along until and unless the safe space's participants trust the observer, because it's a psychological effect within the participants' minds.

of course the rationalist response to this is that if it's just in their minds then it isn't real and therefore doesn't matter, and they're imagining it, and maybe they're crazy why are they so crazy, and maybe they're just looking to be offended, and why can't we just be objective and fair. see also: rationalism as a tool of hegemony for assholes.

that said, 99% of cases i would think it would be enough for the hypothetical light-skinned PoC to simply say that they are a PoC and gain at least provisional trust. otherwise the culture within the safe space is asserting its own 'gaze'; I understand this has been a problem in some queer spaces e.g. where people with insufficiently radical genders are marginalized, or bisexual people with opposite sex partners, etc. And I've personally encountered some disturbing misogynistic and MRA-lite garbage in trans womens' spaces, so as Sci says it's not necessarily free of the dominant culture - but really, again, the important part is the illusion of freedom rather than actual freedom - actual freedom is impossible tbh because the dominant culture is in all of us - but the point is to lift the gaze, the perceptual trick of the dominant culture that silences us, so that we gain the confidence to speak.

(cue privileged rationalist 'but why don't you just speak')

[TrackerNeil]

Be unimpressed then. It's really not about trying to impress you, you know.

And as the members of the group, why is it NOT their jurisdiction to ascertain what is "safe" for their space? What's the alternative here, that there be a universally accepted objective standard carved in stone? Or a separate authority source to impose a standard onto the group?

The most common attack on safe space is the critique that the exclusionary act imitates the same exclusionary act that the groups try to address, i.e., a safe space for women where no men are allowed is morally equivalent to a country club that excludes women, for instance. That sort of analysis is the same type that makes people feel smart in suggesting that we need Straight History Month and White History Month - it is lacking in accounting for power differential and degree of institutionalized harm. The very term "safe space" implies that outside of that venue, it is unsafe for minority members, and that is indeed true. I am actually a more lenient supporter of Safe Space where I will accept allies of known qualifications. I've encountered groups where I am absolutely excluded from regardless of my actual positions, and I think that's ok, too. If they need that space and if my presence is going to distress them or derail the purpose, then I do not need to be there. There will be other venues of engagement outside of that meeting. My need to participate doesn't trump their need for solidarity.

Exactly. It is not for me as a white person to decide what is a safe space for black people, and so forth. Like TP, I think that "outsiders" are welcome in safe spaces as long as they respect the intent of the space and not try to take ownership of it. However, I would never myself presume a welcome at a safe space that is not my own, and if invited I'd 1) make damn sure my presence is acceptable; and 2) treat the visit as a chance to listen and learn.

[Castel]

Castel,

The purpose of the Pashal Liturgy isn't to "bring people up to speed" either. It is to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Without disruptive behavior I'd never, based on apperance alone I'd never ask someone to leave a liturgy.

Why should a blond blue eyed child of black or interracial parents be asked to leave a public gathering because of the mistaken perception that this person's apperance (alone) makes the space "unsafe"?

Still, there's a difference between a place of worship and a "safe space". I mean, it's in the name.

I wasn't really concerned with whether a blond blue-eyed child can go to a safe space -I've already raised my problems with karaddin- it can go either way, there is both privilege and a shared problem there. Definitely an uncomfortable point in the argument.

I was just pointing out that I don't really consider any random religious event to be the same as a space created specifically to avoid the myriad issues present in ordinary society. Now, if you were a Christian in a land where they were persecuted a Muslim wanted to come to service...I can see you making the exact same argument these people are making. Of course, YMMV on how bad it can get before someone has the right to reasonably exclude people. (Perhaps the least controversial position here pegs it at "being a victim of rape")

It has nothing to do with an individual white person being better, it's noting that the whole idea that an area devoid of white people being safe for racial discussion b/c they're absent is laughable nonsense.

The only argument I can see here is that ultimately the goal is not to be free of racial animus but specific racial animus, presumably the one associated with the hegemonic culture. Minorities can get into fights about the jokes over light-skin vs. dark skin or interracial marriage all day but they'd react totally differently if some white anchor was dictating the "Truth" to them on the topic.

edit:Apparently ninja'd

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Be unimpressed then. It's really not about trying to impress you, you know.

And as the members of the group, why is it NOT their jurisdiction to ascertain what is "safe" for their space? What's the alternative here, that there be a universally accepted objective standard carved in stone? Or a separate authority source to impose a standard onto the group?

Well we obviously need to unpack a few things before we can actually engage in meaningful conversation on the subject.

First, it depends on what type of group you’re talking about.

If you’re talking about an officially recognized campus group of a publically funded state university, looking to hold official events on school property, then yes, it is absolutely the case that a “separate authority” should impose certain standards onto the group. The campus organizations of public universities should be bound to follow anti-discrimination laws and university anti-discrimination policies which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.

If you’re talking about a purely private associational group, I’ve already stated at length in this thread that I think such groups should be free to engage in discrimination based on whatever basis they want, even if it includes otherwise protected characteristics such as race. Now, that doesn’t mean I think this kind of discrimination is okay – I don’t. But I’m willing to tolerate, for the sake of a free-ish society, people engaging in certain types of behavior that I don’t approve of.

That does not mean, however, that this means you need to accept any old reason such groups may give as to the reason for their discrimination – whether it’s to create a “safe space” or some other reason. Any rationale for discrimination is subject to critical analysis, and it is perfectly appropriate to do so. You don’t get to hand-waive these things away based upon some unchallengeable prerogative that you know best.

The most common attack on safe space is the critique that the exclusionary act imitates the same exclusionary act that the groups try to address, i.e., a safe space for women where no men are allowed is morally equivalent to a country club that excludes women, for instance. That sort of analysis is the same type that makes people feel smart in suggesting that we need Straight History Month and White History Month - it is lacking in accounting for power differential and degree of institutionalized harm. The very term "safe space" implies that outside of that venue, it is unsafe for minority members, and that is indeed true. I am actually a more lenient supporter of Safe Space where I will accept allies of known qualifications. I've encountered groups where I am absolutely excluded from regardless of my actual positions, and I think that's ok, too. If they need that space and if my presence is going to distress them or derail the purpose, then I do not need to be there. There will be other venues of engagement outside of that meeting. My need to participate doesn't trump their need for solidarity.

Candidly, it’s hard to have a discussion about these things because of the problematic lack of intellectual rigor infesting so much of critical cultural studies – including gender and race. It’s not that good work isn’t being done in these fields, but the signal to noise ratio is awfully high. Frankly, nobody in this thread has put forward a clear definition of what a “Safe Space” is, and nobody appears to be applying a definition with any actual consistency.

Between this post and the post you made yesterday that you responded to, you actually truly seem to be making the argument that the mere presence of people with a certain skin color renders a space “unsafe.” Which, to be clear, is a fucking lunatic argument to make, at least if you’re using a definition of “safe” that you’re able to locate without a flashlight and a mirror. Exposure to different opinions is not “dangerous.” It doesn’t make you unsafe. If what you really want is an environment where everyone has the same set of positions on an issue – okay. But that’s not a safety issue. And if that’s what you mean by “Safe space” then “safe space” is a misnomer for what you want.

And of course, to get back to what we were ACTUALLY talking about, skin color is not, and should never be, a proxy for what someone’s actual beliefs or opinions are. To assert otherwise is racial prejudice at its most pure.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Emberling,

I understand this has been a problem in some queer spaces e.g. where people with insufficiently radical genders are marginalized, or bisexual people with opposite sex partners, etc.

That would seem to me to be a problem for any situation where there isn't a convenient external identifier to use in determining who should be excluded.

[Sci-2]

Seems to me some people are stuck on the idea of safe spaces as safe from oppressive behavior, or oppressive opinions. That isn't what they're for. That's hopefully included in the package, but the purpose, in my understanding. is to be safe from the oppressive gaze, in the Lacanian/Foucaultian sense. The point is to have a place without the pressure to perform the dominant culture's ideas of respectability. Even the most progressive, privilege-aware outside observer is going to bring that gaze along until and unless the safe space's participants trust the observer, because it's a psychological effect within the participants' minds.

of course the rationalist response to this is that if it's just in their minds then it isn't real and therefore doesn't matter, and they're imagining it, and maybe they're crazy why are they so crazy, and maybe they're just looking to be offended, and why can't we just be objective and fair. see also: rationalism as a tool of hegemony for assholes.

that said, 99% of cases i would think it would be enough for the hypothetical light-skinned PoC to simply say that they are a PoC and gain at least provisional trust. otherwise the culture within the safe space is asserting its own 'gaze'; I understand this has been a problem in some queer spaces e.g. where people with insufficiently radical genders are marginalized, or bisexual people with opposite sex partners, etc. And I've personally encountered some disturbing misogynistic and MRA-lite garbage in trans womens' spaces, so as Sci says it's not necessarily free of the dominant culture - but really, again, the important part is the illusion of freedom rather than actual freedom - actual freedom is impossible tbh because the dominant culture is in all of us - but the point is to lift the gaze, the perceptual trick of the dominant culture that silences us, so that we gain the confidence to speak.

(cue privileged rationalist 'but why don't you just speak')

This is an excellent post. I think the term "safe space" is a misnomer though, it seems more that at different points of discussion removing the attention drawn by a particular gaze might be conducive. I'm not arguing against the necessity of safe spaces in certain contexts, but I do think the assumptions of privilege become increasingly confusing and less applicable.

In my own experience racial animosity between minorities can be as bad as or worse than racial animosity between all minorities and white people. (I could tell varied stories of Indian relatives bigotry toward other races.) As noted early on there may be times where a person feels comfortable articulating something in a place devoid of certain other groups, and this isn't a necessarily a bad thing. Yet would people be okay if the excluded group was not white people but another race? What if cisgender women want a safe-space devoid of trans-women? The gradient of privilege can, it seems to me, become confused though I do accept the concept of safe-spaces as valuable in certain instances.

That said, I do worry there's an over-emphasis on privilege as a nebulous but somehow still definitively present trait that colors all social interaction. It's a concept that works better IMO if understood as a statistical factor rather than a kind of ethereal, ever-present force that makes the group assumed to have privilege a potentially permanent Other.