The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[TerraPrime]

Re: Sci

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.

I'd agree that "safer space" would be more apt. As a racial minority who's also not straight, I understand intersectionality and the cross-feeding of various forms of bigotry. Some gay people are racist and some people of color are anti-gay. I have spoken out about racism and sexism in the gay community myself, so your point that excluding white people doesn't purge the group completely of racism is understood and undisputed.

There is, nevertheless, a categorical difference, imo, in combating biases coming from a dominant group versus combating biases from someone from another minority group. There is also a difference in how we are forced to justify ourselves in front of the dominant group in ways that we do not when amongst other minority groups. For these reasons, I think the concept of safe® space is valid and important.

Re: emberling

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.

Yes. Well said. Thank you.

Re: Ser Scot

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.

If a racist skinhead group is cruising around in their cars trying to pick a victim for bullying, will they pick this hypothetical child out from a crowd of strangers, or not?

If this child walks into a convenient store, is s/he going to be tailed by security on the assumption, because of his/her skin color, that s/he will steal?

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

I was saying if the new parishoner is a known party cadre.

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.

I know it really upsets some people to be held accountable for actions of a group to which they are a member but which they don't feel they have themselves contributed to the bad behavior of the group. But, ultimately, yes, if you're white, and you show up at a race discussion group meant for PoC, you're going to be side-eyed and be met with sekpticism until you can show that you're not a racist, and maybe not even then.

There are places where you, and I, don't belong, for good reasons. They did not reject us in order to deny us access to resources. They did not reject us in order to maintain institutional privileges. They did not reject us in order to dimish our contribution. Would I want to be part of a group of black people talking about their cultural history and their experience? Yes, I do. I think I would learn a lot from it. But I have no right to be included and they have made no violations of their support for equality in excluding me. The safe® space is for survival and reprieve, not to alienate and suppress.

I am a male scientist and there are various social and professional groups that cater to assisting women in science to do well. I do not impose myself into these groups unless invited, because it is not for me, and whatever help I may or may not be able to bring is hardly unique in such a way that they'd be deprived of wisdom in my absence. I still participate in discussions and learning about sexism in my profession, however, but I do not need to be a member of each and every women-in-science group to do that.

Re: Nestor

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.

I agree. If the group was chartered under the school's student organization by-law wherein non-discrimination is a requirement, then they cannot legally discriminate against white students.

However, I thought we've moved on from the legality of their actions to the ethical dimension of their actions, i.e. is the very idea of safe® space valid, and if so, does it have to be created by excluding someone based on their traits?

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.

Critical analysis is not a problem. I wouldn't be talking to you otherwise. And I do not believe I was hand-waving things here. In fact, I have been trying to articulate why I support these things.

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.

Well, I don't know what I could bring to alleviate this lack, seeing that I am NOT a scholar in race theory or gender theory. My opinions are formed from sifting through the writings of many people, mostly non-scholars, to find the portions that resonate with me and then using those ideas to reflect on and analyze my own lived experience. I never claimed that I am offering scholarly output on race or gender theory. So... guilty as charged?

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.

I'd say that a safe space is a social space wherein people who have experienced oppression and discrimination gather to discuss their shared experience and where such a discussion will be derailed if members of the dominant group were to be present.

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.”

I don't see why it is such a ludicrous idea.

So if there's a discussion group for, say, survivors of childhood sex abuse in Catholic Churches, then the presence of a Catholic priest, even a certified non-pedophilic one, would make the space "unsafe" for the purpose of the group even if the certified-not-pedophile priest just sits and listens. Is it really a very outlandish scenario?

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.

I just assumed we understood that "safe" is not about physical wellness, but emotional wellness and/or implementing the stated goals of a group. But perhaps I am wrong in the assumption?

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.

The whiteness of people can be, in some contexts, itself be a signal of threat and oppression. That might be mitigated in some cases if the person can show that they are aware of the issue and thus, not part of the problem. The whiteness represents the institution of racism, whether an individual acts in racist ways, or not. I did not say that being white means that a person is a racist, or that s/he will wihtout a doubt act in racist ways. I think it's true that white people often disagree on some concepts of race issues such as privileges, and are, therefore, more likely to derail discussions than to assist it.

[Fragile Bird]

<excellent words>

Well said.

[karaddin]

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?

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.

What Tracker said. I'm white as white fucking comes, but I don't presume to tell people of colour what rules they should set around their safe spaces but I have no problem if those rules exclude me, the group isn't for me.

In Australia it would work differently than in the US. Racism here comes in two flavours, Indigenous people and flavour of the month immigrants - Muslims being the current flavour of the month. Within the Aboriginal community there are certainly individuals who can be said to be white passing, however Aboriginals have facial features beyond their skin colour and can frequently be identified as having that heritage despite their skin colour, combined with only 200 years since white people arrived and fucked everything up. I imagine that the white passing individual could probably have a discussion of their ancestry and be determined to be allowed in or not. Either way I wouldn't presume to tell them what was correct.

The anger at the idea of white people being excluded in this thread really reminds me of something I read I think it was last year, where LGBTQI groups had been trying to combat workplace discrimination by setting up special events for LGBTQI people to meet prospective employers and try arrange a job. Then they started to have a problem, straight people decided that this was a wonderful way to get exposure to potential employers and started showing up at these events in significant numbers. Obviously that one isn't an example of a safe space.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

Is a fair skined blue eyed child of black or interracial parents part of the dominante culture?

[Castel]

Karradin,

Is a fair skined blue eyed child of black or interracial parents part of the dominante culture?

Depends. Do they want to be?

Because "passing" is a thing.

[emberling]

I am not all that well-read on the subject so this is not an intellectually rigorous objection but whenever I hear complaints about the intellectual rigor of cultural studies...well, it sounds very much to me like a refusal to engage with or attempt to understand cultural studies on its own terms, seeing as much of the philosophy underlying cultural studies hinges on exposing as deceptive the very ideas of intellectual rigor, clear definitions, definitive interpretations.

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.

I'm not sure about this. I think both of those things are crucial to the understanding of privilege? Perhaps the idea of good/bad luck would serve as an analogy because to me, at least, it represents the same juxtaposition: individual events determined individually, understandable as probability, but emerging into a clear and observable pattern; not a force or entity in any empirical sense; and yet felt as palpable and inescapable, as a virtual force, by those affected. however obviously with privilege the pattern reflects weighted dice and with luck the pattern is a product of coincidence.

maybe not the best analogy for this audience tbh because it's even easier to dismiss the feeling of having bad luck as Not Real Just Feelings, but what I'm trying to say is that even though we don't believe in luck, we grok it, yeah? and we could leverage this to grok something somewhat less imaginary - privilege - as simultaneously probability and force (we call this a 'system', I guess). particles and waves, yo.

I think the concept of the marked identity is really important here - who is within the norm or the default assumption and who is seen as unusual, exotic, surprising, Other? This framing is usually obscured under the 'who is more oppressed' framing, which produces similar results in basic questions but shatters on tougher ones. The question narrows down to the specific: is a safe space for this purpose justified? A safe space for an unmarked identity rings false because of the relative safety that unmarked people have to express themselves openly in wider society. Thus the proposed safe space for cis women fails, but a hypothetical safe space for persons-with-uteri to discuss issues shared by persons-with-uteri would seem fine (though not for an event unrelated to uterus-having, e.g. a music festival).

[Galactus]

a refusal to engage with or attempt to understand cultural studies on its own terms, s

To be fair, that's kind of a given, no? If you take smething on it's own terms it can't really be critiqued other than for consistency.

[karaddin]

Karradin,

Is a fair skined blue eyed child of black or interracial parents part of the dominante culture?

Given that my answer on racial questions boiled down to "I don't presume to be able to answer, I let people who aren't white define their own rules for safe spaces" I have no idea why you think I would have anything further to elaborate.

Also what Castel said.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

What I'm having trouble with is the idea that exclusions based on external apperance should be accepted without comment.

[TrackerNeil]

Karradin,

Is a fair skined blue eyed child of black or interracial parents part of the dominante culture?

I think the proper way to evaluate these situations is by reference to the experience of the person in question. If this hypothetical child is to all appearances white, then perhaps she will not feel the need of a safe space in terms of race. However, the fact that she has one black parent and one white does set her apart from mainstream society, so perhaps the safe space will be needed after all.

I think focusing on these sorts of in-the-weeds questions doesn't really get u s anywhere. Safe spaces exist because there are people who need them, and in general I feel as though anyone who needs them should be able to create one. (Before you ask, yes, I think it would be fine to have the straight, Christian white guy space.) I think we should all trust that those who differ from us in some way, by gender or sexual orientation or race, know their own experiences better than we do, and we should trust that when they ask for a safe space they probably need one.

[karaddin]

I just trust that an oppressed minority can set their own rules appropriately, I don't presume to know better.

[TerraPrime]

Karradin,

What I'm having trouble with is the idea that exclusions based on external apperance should be accepted without comment.

I already answered that part.

Racism is precisely based solely on the apperance of the target of racism. A black person raised by white parents is treated like a black person, and a white person raised by black parents is treated as a white person, by society at large, on most issues. The home environment and the sphere of influence exerted by the parent's culture is NOT the part that enforces and exerts institutional racism. A white person raised by black parents will indeed be exposed to black culture and be familiar with the norms of the black community. They will also be victim to the accumulated, generational effects of racism that is passed on to them via the disproportionate reduction in opportunities that his/her parents face for being black in this country. S/he will assuredly also be impacted by the biased criminal justice system which will treat his/her parents unfairly.

But at the individual level, s/he is not going to experience the same type of racism that a black person, even a black person raised by white parents, will. If the child is male, he will not be disproportionately stopped by police on account of his skin color, for instance. At job interviews, his/her competency in certain areas will not be automatically called into question. People are less likely to view this child with suspicion over things like propensity for violence, likelihood to steal, being a criminal, etc. This person's lived experience will be, by and far, that of a white person because, you know, s/he is white.

This example of yours really isn't all that great in making your point, imo.

[Galactus]

I just trust that an oppressed minority can set their own rules appropriately, I don't presume to know better.

I'm not sure I trust anyone to set thier own rules approporiately, or at least without critique.

Racism is precisely based solely on the apperance of the target of racism.

It really isn't. It's a large part, arguably the largest part, but it's not the sole issue, and never has been.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not sure I trust anyone to set thier own rules approporiately, or at least without critique.

It really isn't. It's a large part, arguably the largest part, but it's not the sole issue, and never has been.

I don't think it's wrong to critique safe spaces.

Also, can you talk about your second point? I'm not sure I understand.

[karaddin]

We, and by we I mean white people, have been assuming we know best for centuries and in doing this we have done things to other racial groups we decided was in their best interest without consulting them on it. It's paternalistic as fuck. Obviously we also did far more that wasn't even pretending to be in their interest and was entirely in our own, but the precedent is still there.

I think as part of making amends for all the years of paternalistic colonialism we can let them organise their own safe spaces and whatever else without the need for our critique. Do you really think that they are all a hive mind that will be in complete consensus unless a white person is there to point things out?

[Biglose]

It is, yes, although I'm not sure free speech is quite that endangered, on college campuses or anywhere else, for that matter. However, I sympathize with complaints about terms like "the N word" or "the C word" or whatever else. If we're adult enough to clinically discuss these epithets we're adult enough to handle actually hearing them. That doesn't mean we should brandish them like weapons, but neither should we treat them like the Black Speech of Mordor, the very utterance of which causes calamity.

What shocked me is not the lack of freespech. It was kind of the lack of empathy on part of the student writing the article about Ms. El Rhazoui.

You see a women who lived through her coworkes beeing slaughtered like animals and you feel entitled to critize her for speaking about it because it made you feel bad...

This lack of empathy and decency is just shocking to me.

[Fez]

Shockingly, it's entirely possible for something to be paternalistic and correct all at the same time. Just because us whiteys have been super rascist in the past doesn't necessarily mean that individual white people can't know what's best in a specific circumstance.

[TerraPrime]

We don't care if you're right, "whitey." We just, sometimes, want you (collective you) the fuck out of our faces for an hour or two.

[Galactus]

Also, can you talk about your second point? I'm not sure I understand.

Jews weren't exactly rounded up for the gas chambers because of their big noses, y'know what I mean? Racial and ethnic groups (and the terms are basically interchangeable) can be perfectly well maintained without appearance ever being a part of it.

[TrackerNeil]

Jews weren't exactly rounded up for the gas chambers because of their big noses, y'know what I mean? Racial and ethnic groups (and the terms are basically interchangeable) can be perfectly well maintained without appearance ever being a part of it.

That's true, but it's a bit more difficult to experience racism when one does not appear to be part of the minority in question. That's not to say that there is no effect, but I think TP's point remains pretty much intact.