417 - Are "Safe Spaces" Possible in Relationships?
Safe spaces with Dr. Keyanah Nurse
One of our research assistants, Dr. Keyanah Nurse, has joined us this week to talk about safe spaces! Keyanah is a historian and writer who is passionate about Black history, feminism, and 19th century Latin American racial politics.
When delving into the history of safe spaces as a term, Keyanah shares that “safe spaces have always been about centering marginalized voices and strategizing around how to end oppression.” The term was first introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, used mainly for movement-building and social justice/advocacy efforts. It was used both on and off college campuses, but there are several integral movements that began on university campuses, such as the Black Power and antiwar movements.
“Safe space” became coupled with advocacy work overall; these spaces were the literal locations for organizing and planning. Additionally, they were spaces where people could be themselves and have their identities respected. Through the 20th and 21st centuries, the term has been used for different social justice movements, including:
Civil rights.
HIV/AIDS activism.
Anti-apartheid movements.
Prison abolition.
Occupy Wall Street.
“The use of safe spaces was an integral part of the movement-building process, and created opportunities for intersectional communication and cross-issue dialogue.”
- Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces, historical overview, by Diana Ali
Debates around safe spaces
Some have criticized the concept of safe spaces, arguing that the term creates a false binary between safe spaces and freedom of expression (as in, safe spaces supposedly suppress freedom of speech).
For students with marginalized identities, there is no truly safe space, and in “Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces” by Diana Ali, published in 2017 in the NASPA Policy and Practice series, the author suggests we create BRAVE spaces instead. The framework for BRAVE spaces consists of:
“Controversy with civility,” where varying opinions are accepted.
“Owning intentions and impacts,” in which students acknowledge and discuss instances where a dialogue has affected the emotional wellbeing of another person.
“Challenge by choice,” where students have an option to step in and out of challenging conversations.
“Respect,” where students show respect for one another’s basic personhood.
“No attacks,” where students agree not to intentionally inflict harm on one another.
Interpersonal relationships and BRAVE spaces
When applying the BRAVE framework to interpersonal relationships, we have to consider the possibility that when not unpacked carefully, some of the suggestions could potentially cause more emotional harm than folks want:
Controversy with civility:
Civility can be weaponized as a form of dismissing, minimizing, or gaslighting valid reactions.
It’s important to be able to express emotions in a healthy way.
Challenge by choice:
Opens up space for withdrawing from conflict and repair, which can trigger feelings of abandonment in others.
Important to be able to healthily receive others’ emotions; “holding space” for difficult conversations.
Respect:
If the term “respect” is functioning as a synonym for mere tolerance, then marginalized students/people may not feel safe enough.
We must recognize there is no universal “personhood;” some folks are still denied full and basic personhood.
No attacks:
The absence of intent to harm is critical, but we must also recognize impact of words and actions.
Instead of asking “How can we create a safe space?” we should consider the question “How do we create safe and/or brave spaces for our partners?” or “How do we mitigate risk enough to create opportunity for connection and vulnerability? How do we do that in a way that’s attuned to the cultural and historical realities of power and oppression?”
Actionable takeaways for redressing harm and fostering safety
Practicing nonviolent communication all the time, but especially in moments of conflict, noting the three modes of NVC:
Self-empathy.
Receiving empathetically.
Expressing honestly.
Embracing accountability and impact.
Being an active participant in the repair process if you’ve caused harm rather than allowing your own guilt or shame to prevent you from doing that reparative work
Being honest and up front about the extent to which you may need time to process that shame or guilt (with others and not with those who experienced the harm)
Practicing “critical humility:”
Embracing the possibility that you may, in fact, be wildly wrong or ill-informed about something yet remaining open to that and moving in the direction towards learning
Intentional rituals that soothe your brain and allow it to perceive the space(s) of your relationships as “safe.”
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about creating safe spaces in relationships. What are safe spaces and how do we make sure that they're present in our relationships? Today, we're also going to be discussing the history of safe spaces on college campuses, their use in various social justice movements, as well as discussing some considerations for how you can take this and make your own intimate relationships safer as well. To have this discussion, we are joined once again by one of our researchers, Dr. Keyanah Nurse. Thanks for joining us, Keyanah.
Keyanah: Thank you for having me.
Emily: I wanted to start out because I was the one who initially presented this topic to the group, and I appreciate the fact that you pushed back and said, there's so much further that we can go with what my initial idea and take on this topic was. Initially, I had just thought how is it that we create safe spaces for our partners? How do we create a safe space in terms of being able to come to our partners when something is wrong, for instance, when there are challenges within the relationship?
How do we make it okay and safe for our partners to be able to come to us in those moments, even though it might be vulnerable and it might be challenging, and scary? When you came back to me and discussed this, I could see that there were so many additional layers and things that I hadn't even thought about in terms of what this potential topic could be. I'm really excited to get more into that today.
Keyanah: Yes. I think it's a great topic. Certainly, when you talk about safe spaces, I think that initiates a reaction in people because we see it-
Emily: Oh, definitely.
Keyanah: -so much in our cultural lexicon, but also obviously safety looks like and feels like different things for everyone depending on the identity that you occupy. Also, it's a fraught topic for a lot of us, because again safety as defined completely devoid of any harm or any risk is impossible. I think it's definitely worth it to think about what safety looks like interpersonally, but also think about how that's always informed by the larger cultural context that we're all navigating.
Dedeker: Yes. As we'll cover this episode, definitely the macro level of this, the larger cultural context does get mirrored and vice versa in our personal relationships or intimate relationships as well. This has been bouncing around in my brain ever since a few weeks ago when we had Martha Kauppi on the show, and at one point she dropped, "Whoever is the one who says, oh, I don't feel safe, they get their way."
I think she was phrasing it in a context of not necessarily saying that that's good or that's bad, but that's just how we have compassionate ethical relationships. I've really, really been chewing on that one, because I agree with that, and also it's true that I think even in our intimate relationships, we cannot completely scrub out any risk or any stepped on toes. It's definitely something that I've been chewing on of like how we rectify that tension and that push-pull.
Jase: Yes. This is what we're getting into in this episode, if full-on safety of no risk of any harm at all is not realistic, that's not really possible. I would argue not even really desirable because then we would all just live in little padded boxes with IVs feeding us or something like that. The question then is what do we aim for instead? What can we strive for? What other frameworks are there out there that allow us to create relationships where we have opportunities for connection and vulnerability and not feeling unsafe. It's like maybe we can't be totally safe, but we don't want to feel unsafe either, so what does that look like?
Dedeker: That weird in-between space, so before we dive in, we need to jump in with the caveat that today we're not going to be talking about safety or safe spaces within the context of a relationship that is abusive. Once we've crossed that line into abusive behavior or abusive dynamics, this conversation is different, so we just have to clarify and make that distinct. Basically what we're going to go through today is we're going from a more zoomed-out perspective into a more zoomed-in perspective, so we're going to be starting out talking about definitions, the history of safe spaces. We're going to move on to talking about how we evaluate tolerable risk in relationships. Then we're going to close out talking about actions for creating relationships that do feel safe.
Emily: Just a classic Multiamory episode.
Jase: Let's jump into this from the beginning with the question of what are safe spaces. What's the history of this term and what does this even mean? It is important here to begin with that historical context like Keyanah was mentioning, because this term safe spaces is so much associated with intersectionality and those sorts of challenges with people who've historically been made to feel very not safe. Then taking on top of that, the fact that everybody's experience of safety and their definition of what feeling safe even means is going to be different.
Sometimes very different, sometimes just a little bit different, but the important point is that safety is about how we experience the flow of power in society, whether that's a big society or the society of a classroom or a company, or potentially even an interpersonal relationship as we get to that later on in this episode. To start out the conversation, when we talk about safety, it begs the question of safety from what? How a person's identity and their position in society is going to influence and determine the answer to that question?
Emily: I think immediately what comes to mind is safety from potential physical harm. This can occur in a variety of ways, in a variety of settings, but even in an interpersonal relationship, even if it's not a heterosexual relationship, but in some relationships, there may be a human who is larger than the other, and so that right away creates a potential power dynamic and the potential for one person to feel more or less safe than the other.
Dedeker: Yes. I guess extrapolating out from there, of course, it's not just physical harm. We can extrapolate into emotional pain or being taken advantage of financially or sexually or things like that. There's a lot that falls into that umbrella, I think.
Keyanah: Yes. When I think of safety, I'm also thinking about my experience of being valued as well and being seen. I think it also begs the secondary question of safety to do what? Not just safety in so far as avoiding something, but also safety as something that gives you capacity to do something else. I wanted to also start with a conversation around the history of safe spaces, because it reminds us that safe spaces have always been about centering marginalized voices and strategizing around how to end oppression.
For example, during the 1960s and '70s, this is like a glorified period in terms of social justice movements in the United States.
The term safe space emerged within those pockets of activity. For example, in LGBTQ+ neighborhood-based organizing efforts, safe spaces referred to places where folks could freely and openly exist within their respective identities with a lower risk of societal and legal repercussions. In that way, safety was about obviously your physical safety, but it is also about the emotional safety of presenting yourself as you want it to be presented in the community.
Dedeker: Yes. When we are grappling with those two questions of safety from what and safety to do what, that was one of the first things that floated to my mind, is thinking about safety around authenticity. It's something that's, instead of, again, just being defensive, it's almost like it's being additive in a certain way. It's creating, expanding space around being able to show up in that really authentic way without needing to worry about how you're presenting, and who you're talking to, and their judgments and things like that.
Jase: I'm also thinking about in communities where people are discussing things, that feeling of safety from a more, just even social within that group standpoint is something like if we're all debating something or sharing opinions, feeling like mine isn't going to be shot down because of who I am or because my opinion's different from the group or because I don't agree with the teacher or the leader of this group, or something like that. That it enables you to speak up and say those things without eventually learning you have to stay safe by not saying something which is not actually safe in the sense we're talking about here.
Dedeker: Yes. I think part of what's so interesting about these spaces is that when the space is defined around a shared identity and you create community around that, you begin to see how you invested in your safety because it relies on the safety of others as well. It's that interdependency. I think that's really tied to folks' identity within these spaces that makes for that capacity to show up authentically.
Emily: Absolutely. You found a historical overview that was written in 2017 by Diana Ali called Safe Spaces in Brave Spaces, and it was published in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Policy and Practice Series. That's a mouthful for sure. It discusses how the term safe space is also intimately tied to social justice movement building on college and university campuses during that same 1960 and 1970 period.
There are some examples of that that include things like the Black Power movement, the Anti-war movements that were occurring during that time, student-led protesting. Also, this occurred at Columbia and Cornell Universities most notably. The term Safe Space became coupled with advocacy work overall. These spaces were literal locations for organizing and for planning.
This is a quote from that Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces source and it says, "The use of safe spaces was an integral part of the movement building process and created opportunities for intersectional communication in cross-issue dialogue." This use of safe spaces also has continued throughout the 20th and the 21st century with different social justice movements like civil rights movements, HIV, and AIDS activism, anti-apartheid movements, prison abolition, also Occupy Wall Street, things along that nature as well.
Keyanah: It is interesting just tracking this history, how, since this vocabulary seems to be often tied to pretty lefty groups and lefty organizations that for now it's clicking into place for me why usually the voices that are the loudest in bashing the term safe spaces often I think tend to be on the right is my impression.
Dedeker: Exactly. The current debates around Safe Spaces are complicated on both sides of the spectrum because, on the one hand, you have the argument that safe spaces detract from freedom of expression. They don't allow people to actually exchange ideas, they don't allow people to speak honestly and frankly because, and again, this is where the college campuses as breeding grounds for liberal snowflakes comes in. Where folks are not equipped to be able to deal with opinions that are drastically different from their own.
I also think that there are interesting conversations within the left about safe spaces as well where a commitment to safety as free from harmful stock can also shut down conversation. Also, as a related matter, the way that safe spaces because of its history tied with social justice leaning spaces, the universities can now co-opt that in a way to be like, "Oh look, we're super liberal." Even when the experience of some of those students on campus is beyond creating safe spaces is not conducive to their well-being. There's a lot of complexity to it on both sides.
Jase: Yes, that's interesting you brought that up Dedeker, because I felt, for me, I've seen more criticism from left spaces about the term Safe Space in terms of, "Oh, well this organization or this university has put such and such rules in place and they now call this a Safe Space." That's not necessarily the experience of the people in it. As you were just saying, Keyanah. That's interesting depending who you're hearing complaints from, what the flavor of those complaints might be.
Something related to that actually just came up on our episode last week with Alyssa Gonzalez was talking about spaces where it's a safe space for one particular type of weirdos. That was the context we were talking about. Let's say it's all the polyamorous weirdos have gotten together, so we can all express more freely about that but then someone who in that context is weird.
They're a furry or they're into some kink that nobody else is, or their a triad wife or something is their thing that is an outsider within this otherwise safe group for one identity, but not for another identity that they have. Again, this idea that to call something a Safe Space is probably always going to be false for somebody in that situation at some point. It just that we shouldn't use it at all because it's not possible and it's lying to say that any space is.
Dedeker: Yes, I think that speaks volumes about one, the multiplicity of all of our identities but also the positionality of them that one part of your identity can become more or less salient depending on the room that you're in. If you're in a room with all polyamorous people, as I have often been, as I'm sure you all have been. I don't know that I like that anymore. It depends on the space, but sometimes it, I'm like, "Oh, this is a mostly white polyamorous space.
This is a mostly hierarchical polyamorous space." All of these different ways that we inhabit our identities can show up even when we're trying to create safe spaces oriented around them. I think, to bring it back to this conversation that's happening on campuses, again, the idea of safety full stop is impossible for students with marginalized identities, even when the explicit goal is to create a safe space for them. Precisely the reasons that I was just mentioning. This author I think calls for creating brave spaces and it's something that I've seen other people in higher education looking more closely at because of the impossibility of safe spaces. Brave spaces, at least according to this author, there are five components to it, right?
Keyanah: Yes. Another quick caveat before we dive into this list of five that there are merits to each of these and there's also demerits to each of these that we're going to get into a little bit later. Yes, we're not making any claim that this list is perfect and completely foolproof.
Dedeker: No, absolutely not. It's a starting point for conversation. The first is controversy with civility. We're varying opinions are accepted and this is really about the ability to offer opinions and thoughts without the fear that you'll be ostracized or criticized, humiliated made fun of that your ideas will be responded to in such a way that makes you shut down and makes you not want to engage further in conversation.
Keyanah: See, that's hard because I feel like right out the gate, that's such a hard one to actually accomplish in many spaces. I think especially if we're talking about community spaces that are largely internet based where it's just really easy to I think fall into just complete groupthink to a certain extent and to, I guess get really polarized really quickly that I feel like even hitting that gray area of yes, we can embrace controversy, we can embrace differences in opinion, but we'll do it in a civil way.
I really just don't associate civility with a lot of online internet spaces. I feel like we're already stumbling out the gate in so many spaces on this first point of making a brave space.
Jase: I feel like that's always such a dream situation to be in where you're with people discussing things where it's okay to disagree, and that is so hard to find. I understand why that sounds great, right?
Emily: I'd like to think academic spaces are better for that, but because yes, you work more in academia, Keyanah, you may disagree with that sentiment.
Dedeker: Always the question/comment crowd where it's not really a question, it's just this is why your research is trashed, right?
Emily: Oh, my goodness.
Dedeker: The second part of creating Brave Spaces is about owning intentions and impacts, which is really about allowing folks the space to acknowledge and discuss the instances where a dialogue has affected the emotional well-being of someone else. If controversy without civility is difficult, I think this one is even more so because it asks folks to sit in the harm that they may have caused and really grapple with the impact of it on another person, which is an incredibly vulnerable thing to do.
Keyanah: Yes, it definitely is. I appreciate that this includes both intentions and impacts. I feel like five years ago or so in a lot of these lefty spaces that everyone was tossing out that impact is the only thing that mattered. Your intentions are trash. We don't care what your intentions were and I appreciate that this ropes in the fact that both things are at play at any given moment.
Jase: The safe space question here is so interesting because it's on both sides. It's on the one hand, we're helping to make the space, I guess brave instead of safe is what we're here, but by not attacking someone for disagreeing with their opinion and yet at the same time, if you did or if you do, also feeling like it's a safe enough place for you to admit that and accept that and sit in it like you said, Keyanah. It's not only vulnerable to accept that you've done that yourself, but also vulnerable in a society that really likes to paint with this black and white brush of, "Oh, you did a bad thing, therefore you are bad." That is also another form of safety or unsafety I guess.
Keyanah: Yes, I agree. I think while this point doesn't quite go here, I think it opens up the potential for allowing people to take part in the repair process rather than being ostracized and saying, "Well, you did a bad thing, so you're done." The third part of brave spaces is challenged by choice, where folks have an option to step in and out of challenging conversations. This comes out of offering trigger warnings, content warnings, which I think empower people to make the decision around the capacity to which they can participate and engage in a conversation.
Emily: I really appreciate that that is such a thing now, whereas even I feel five years ago, it wasn't really done very much, especially in online spaces or places where you could potentially just come upon something that might be triggering or challenging for you. Especially in our group for instance, which again, it's not perfect, but I appreciate so much that people tend to put trigger warnings or what it is that they're looking for in our online groups.
Jase: The challenge by choice also, I'm thinking about this in terms of in-person groups too and not just online. We talked before on several different episodes, but also just last week about any kind of public gathering having quiet spaces as part of that. Now, I was thinking about that also in maybe a discussion group or a classroom setting or something where these ideas are getting exchanged, where there's a place to get away from it that's okay to go.
It's not like, "Oh, you're walking out of class." It's like, "No, you just need a moment, and that's okay." This is on my mind too because just last week I was at a conference that was just constantly loud and crowded all the time. I was just thinking, "Gosh, if there was a quiet room, I would love that." Anyway, I'm thinking about a little bit of a different angle on this, but I think related, that idea to escape the intensity. It doesn't mean I'm never going to engage it, but just I might need a break or I might not be ready to do that right now.
Dedeker: I love that. That's also something I discuss in my day job around academic convenings, creating quiet areas for people because it's not even the matter of challenge by choice in terms of the content of the conversation, but just stimulus generally.
Jase: Yes, for sure.
Dedeker: The fourth part of brave spaces is about respect where folks are able to show respect for another person's basic personhood. How capable are you of recognizing people's identities, doing things like using the pronouns that they want used to describe themselves, pronouncing their name properly, really just seeing folks as different identities?
Keyanah: Imagine this all, I think that ties into the controversy with civility, the idea that if you have an opinion that differs from mine or even just slightly differs from mine, I don't immediately dehumanize you in my brain or in my behavior, in my speech toward you.
Dedeker: Then the final one is I think a relatively simple one, but unfortunately in our climate, hard to come by, no attacks, where you agree not to intentionally inflict harm on one another. Again, it's bringing up that notion of intentions and the importance of that. I think for me when I'm able to better understand people's intentions, I can more easily extend grace. That's not always the case, but it is important for me.
Jase: It's something we do at the beginning of our video discussion groups is always have some little intro, explaining that we're all here to take care of each other and have good intentions for each other. If someone does screw up or does say something wrong or hurt your feelings to know that it's not coming from a place of intention, and I do find that it does help, avoid things escalating quickly because you start, like you said, from that place of being able to offer a little bit more grace to something, even if it is a little challenging or frustrating or upsetting or even triggering.
Now, let's dive into this a little bit more and look at some of the challenges with this and some of the ways that people have tried to address this. Some of the challenges with that, and how we might be able to apply it before we get into how we can then take these things even closer to home and apply them in our own intimate relationships. First, we're going to take a quick break to talk about how you can support this show.
If you value this content, if you benefit from this, if it's helped you in any way, it really helps us to keep this going and to keep this information out there in the world for free, for everybody who wants to listen to it. By taking a moment to check out our sponsors, contributing to the show, and spreading the word about it, it really does make a difference and we appreciate you. We're back. All right. Now we're getting into these concepts of safety and risk and brave spaces. Let's get into the nitty-gritty now of how this can go wrong and maybe what we can do about it.
Dedeker: I was just thinking the five elements of brave spaces. They are all well and good, but is this trademarked yet? Don't weaponize this shit.
Keyanah: Not yet. We should work on that for sure.
Jase: Yes, you're right.
Dedeker: It's certainly an interesting framework to apply to interpersonal relationships, but I do think that these suggestions require a lot of unpacking because without care, without intention, those very same suggestions could create unsafe relationships and this context, unsafe being, relationships that have more risk of emotional harm than folks have consented to.
Emily: The first one that we want to unpack is that controversy with civility. That's where, again, where varying opinions are hopefully accepted and you come at those opinions in a kind way, in a civil manner as it were, but civility can really be weaponized like you just said, and it can be functioning as a form of dismissal or minimizing or even potentially gaslighting valid reactions, things along those lines.
Keyanah: Imagine tone policing would fall under this category.
Dedeker: Yes, absolutely. Whenever I see the word civil discourse, immediately, I get hives because it has always been a way to silence women, silence Black people because it implies a certain way of talking with each other that is the accepted way. If you do anything outside of that, then you're suddenly uncivilized, and all of the implications of that racialized term.
Emily: Your next point here about how important it is to be able to express emotions in a healthy way. That doesn't necessarily mean anger, but emotions can take a variety of shapes. This really resonates for me because I've definitely heard from people, "Oh, your tone is maybe a little too loud or your voice is a certain way or not." I think it's challenging because to me and to my inner life, I may feel like I'm not getting overly expressive in terms of the way in which I'm expressing my emotions, but then to another person they may feel like, "Oh, you're really acting out of control even."
It's that challenge of where is that line. Where is that barrier between feeling as though I want to be able to express myself in this moment, and I may be upset and I may be angry or I may just really want to tell you that I feel a certain way in a specific way, and I don't want, obviously, that to be harmful to another person, but where is that line between the two? I think that becomes so disjointed at times and blurry. I'm not exactly always sure how to parse that out and how to make sure that I'm not harming another person, but that I'm also being true to myself.
Dedeker: Yes, and I think that identity is so important here because some of us have more space to express emotions even in unhealthy ways than others. I struggle a lot with that as well, Emily, because I think the whole history of hysterical women and how that shuts off space for you to even just emote and then, in my case, the archetype of the angry Black woman. I have a lot of trouble with expressing anger for that reason. Where is that line between being able to just emote as humans do versus not harming people who have to be on the receiving end of that? Where is the line between raising your voice because you're angry versus yelling and berating someone because you're angry?
Keyanah: Yes, that can be so subtle, but it also makes me think of-- and I've heard this experience from other women as well, that I've had a handful of experiences where certain men that I've dated, the minute that a woman starts crying, then everything is like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whether it's tears of anger or tears of sadness or frustration or whatever--
Dedeker: You're crying at me.
Keyanah: Yes, which is so funny. Obviously, it's not every person that I've dated, but again, it's like the context and what we take certain expressions of emotion to mean who takes certain expressions of emotion to be appropriate versus inappropriate. Then that also connects me to something that we've talked about a lot on this show, which is switch tracking. The idea that you come to me, whether this is in a classroom or this is in our personal intimate relationship and say something about how you're feeling or make a request or you stayed a boundary.
I switched tracks by being like, well, you shouldn't have asked it in that way, or you came to me crying and that really upset me or you weren't being civil enough with the way that you asked me that it's completely, literally jumping tracks. Now we've completely derailed from what the original content of the conversation was. That seems like a very easy way that even this pillar of creating a brave space could be weaponized.
Jase: This reminds me of a book called Civility, actually. I'm not sure if any of you have come across that or read it. It's by Stephen L. Carter. It's called Civility, Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. This was a book that was assigned to us before entering freshman year at Oberlin College when I started going to school there. It's a book all about civility, written by a very conservative Republican black law professor. It was interesting reading this going into a school that's known for being very, very liberal and how much when we showed up, first of all, how few people actually read it.
Keyanah: Is that really surprising, Jase?
Jase: That part's not surprising. You're right. That part's not surprising. Really, none of it is surprising to me now. At the time I was a little surprised by how dismissive so many people were of all the stuff that he said in the book because they're like, "Ah, this is a conservative, I'm not going to listen to them." It's actually a book that I still to this day, I disagree with a lot of what he said in it but there's parts of it where I'm like, that's a really great point and that's something to think about.
Anyway. When we were talking about our connotations with the word civility, I do think that in his book he both showed some ways that we miss out on civility but he also weaponized civility in some ways to quash people who might disagree with him. It's interesting seeing that on both sides there too.
Keyanah: I want to move on to talking about the challenge by-choice part of this. The idea that anyone at any time has the option to step in or to step out of a challenging conversation or a challenging context. Again, we talked about all the positive ways that that can operate but the negative ways that this can potentially show up could be in making it so you can just withdraw from conflict and from repair anytime.
I feel a little bit tense about the fact that you're making a request from me that I don't like. I can just be like, "No, I don't feel safe and so I'm not going to continue this conversation," which could be veiled withdrawal, it could be veiled, stonewalling to a certain extent. That in itself can then trigger feelings of total abandonment in your partner or the other person who came to speak to you or came to make a request of you.
It does speak to the fact that it's important for us to also be able to receive somebody else's communication or somebody else's emotions. When we talk about holding space for someone to share something vulnerable or share something difficult with us and this is another concept that I think we touch on a lot in this show about, are you someone where it's safe, to be honest, or safe to approach with these things? If you're operating under this framework that while I should be feeling safe at all times and never feel any risk or ever feel any sense that I've done something wrong. I'm okay to just completely withdraw myself from any challenge or any pushback or any accountability.
Emily: We talk a lot about this in terms of the framework of halt and how it is important to be able to say, "No, I'm going to stop this conversation and I'm going to potentially come back to it." I think that part of being able to reenter a conversation when you feel maybe more safe or maybe just calm down or you are going to hopefully help the other person also feel more safe in that moment. I think that's the really important part in terms of that framework. That's interesting here because I agree that it's important to be able to say no but ideally you do come back to it at some point if both parties are willing, I guess.
Dedeker: It's a really sticky one because I also very much appreciate that space to step away if I need to. I love when people do that for themselves and they take care of themselves in that way. One of the things that I've noticed that's been helpful for me is when the withdrawing around the same issue and true withdrawing as in I am leaving and I'm actually not going to do any work around trying to have this conversation. When that repeatedly happens, then I can discern that that's what's happening and not someone genuinely needing to take space for themselves because the topic is too challenging.
Jase: That brings up a great point that I think hits on a lot of this. That's why we always say don't weaponize this shit about basically everything is that I think people will try to come up with rules of, okay, well, if we have this thing in place or we have this rule for how we talk in this group or in our relationship, that somehow we can just come up with the right rule that will solve the problem. What you were just pointing out there, basically what everyone has said now in some form or another is that sure, that's all well and good if it's done with the right intention and for the right reasons.
It could also easily be used as a way maybe not even trying to be hurtful but of a way to not engage with something that you really should be. That is the feedback you do need to hear or something you do need to process for this relationship. All of this really relies on not just trying to find some rule that makes this work but evaluating those situations and those relationships and deciding when something's not safe for you, I guess, or not safe enough I could say.
Dedeker: I want to move to the respect item of showing respect for another person's basic personhood because this is probably the one to me that seems the most like a Trojan horse in a way because it's so vague and also of course who would disagree that you shouldn't show respect. The reason why it stands out to me is because I question, well, what does that term mean? Does it function as a synonym for mere tolerance? That's a little bit of what it feels like.
That is not enough for folks, especially with marginalized identities to feel safe. A question that I personally consider in assessing whether or not I feel safe with someone is to ask, in what ways are you actively trying to change your sphere of orbit, whether that be professionally, socially, politically, to allow folks who have been historically disenfranchised the same opportunities you have to thrive?
For me, that question goes beyond mere respect but is required for me to feel safe with someone. I think it also loops back to the original history of safe spaces as organizing spaces as they serve a particular purpose. They have an intention behind them which is intervening and oppression. I try to phrase it that way so that there's a lot of different points of where you could come in and do some work because if I am talking to someone and trying to form a relationship with them, I don't expect them to have an answer of how to solve racism. I do want to know that they have some sense of or doing some things within their sphere of influence to open up more possibilities within the world for someone like me.
Keyanah: How would you define and distinguish mere tolerance?
Dedeker: Colorblindness. .
Keyanah: Sure, sure, sure, sure.
Dedeker: The too long didn't read version of it is like, Oh, you happen to be a black woman . I think part of what this is about too is the recognition that there's no universal personhood. That doesn't exist. Some folks are still denied full basic personhood if we're thinking about that in legal terms, if we're thinking about that in cultural terms. Just always the push to really interrogate, well, who are we talking about here and how are people's experiences of how they have to navigate the world drastically different? How is that showing up in how I interact with them and how they interact with me?
Jase: Then the last one of the five was the no attacks. Again, going back to this idea of intention, it's hard to define that as a rule because something that might seem perfectly civil could actually be a quite vicious attack. We mentioned that before but that intention's are really important part of it. I would say that this one actually loops back to number two that we haven't really gotten back to which is being able to own your intention and your impact if you have caused harm to someone else.
That idea of no attacks but also if something happens that even wasn't intentionally attack but was hurtful to someone or was out of line, then being able to own up to that and feel safe enough to own up to that is, I think a big challenge. I think that's one of the hardest ones. They're all hard. All five of them are hard.
Dedeker: It's all hard because, again, to zoom into looking at personal relationships, it makes me think of how, for instance, in a toxic relationship dynamic or an abusive relationship dynamic doing something like going to couples therapy is not recommended because that same dynamic can still be perpetuated just quieter and with better, more gentler therapy language. You can still fall under the jurisdiction of this isn't an attack even though in intention and an impact, it completely is an attack. It was just done with very, very nice, very civil words.
Jase: Again, that's a really vague terminology, just no attacks. It's like an attack to one person may be very different than an attack to another person and I guess questioning that, all of this reminds me of just the intersectionality between what history a person has, who they are on a variety of levels and what that's going to bring to the conversation in terms of whether or not they feel safe in a situation or not. Even though the intent is there and is good, it's not necessarily looking at all of those intricacies of what the person may be bringing to the situation. That's really challenging, and I think yet again, another reason why my initial idea of, let's just talk about safe spaces is like there's so many more layers to it than even what I initially thought.
Emily: This discussion as we've been talking about the history of safe spaces, the pros and cons of brave spaces, it changes the conversation from how do we create safe and/or brave spaces for our partners to how do we mitigate risk enough to create opportunity for connection and vulnerability? Then the second thing that I think is incredibly important is, how do we do that in a way that's attuned to the cultural and historical realities of power and oppression because again, everyone's experience and idea of what they need to feel safe is always going to be tied to how they have to navigate the world.
Dedeker: It is such important work in relationship to be figuring out how much emotional risk can I tolerate here? What is my threshold for when something not only ticks out of my comfort zone, but into this zone of risk, but then when does something tick from the zone of risk into this is the danger zone where it's too risky? These are conversations that I'm having a lot with my clients, and this is really relevant for a lot of the work that I do since I work with a lot of people. Somatically is that sometimes feeling emotional risk and also feeling into emotional safety.
We really do need to be attuned to what's going on in our bodies and in our nervous systems because you can be telling yourself all day long that your relationship is safe or that it's safe to have this particular conversation or it's safe to make this request, but everything from the neck down can be telling you no, can do. Your heart can still be beating, and your palms can still be sweaty and that can be based on stuff that's happened in the history of your relationship or it can be based on literally what body you are in and whether or not the body that you happen to be in has had an overvalued membership in society or an undervalued membership in society.
That also intersects with who you happen to be in a relationship with and what body they happen to be in. Stan Tatkin, I believe, gosh, what was it? 200 years ago, Emily, that we did that episode about Stan Tatkin's book about attachment. He talks a lot about this stuff as well, about finding emotional safety and attachment safety and that being a foundation for being able to have a satisfying and a loving relationship.
Jase: This book by Stan Tatkin, it was called Wired for Love and we discussed it on episode 177 and also on 291 a long time ago
Dedeker: Tatkin is a great resource to look to for more information about this. This is also relevant to the work of Stephen Porges who has done a lot of work that a lot of somatic therapy is based on about the autonomic nervous system and how that goes into play in relationships, and then Porges as well, so Porges is most famously known for developing the polyvagal theory that talks about how our autonomic nervous system is what creates our embodied, internalized sense of safety and trust and intimacy and about how our brains have evolved to be constantly scanning for threat.
Our brains and nervous systems can pick up very, very, very subtle cues of threat. We can especially be trained to pick up how quickly or slowly a partner is responding to us or whether their face is doing that tick thing that it does when they're frustrated or noticing a little bit about how the porosity in their voice is rising as they're getting more activated like we do pick up on those things.
Then that gets internalized via process that Porges calls neuroception essentially, which is our brain checking in with our body to assess those feelings of risk and safety. When we get the message that things are actually safe, that's when our ventral vagal complex, which is our social engagement system, it lets us actually listen to somebody compassionately to connect with them, to make eye contact with them, also to be able to be creative, to problem-solve, to be able to share vulnerably.
Then of course the opposite is also true, that when our brains in our nervous systems are picking up these cues of threat, even if it's from a partner that we can cognitively know is someone who loves us and maybe isn't dangerous, but still that survival mechanism can kick in, which means we're more likely to shut down. It's a lot harder to listen, it's harder to empathize, it's harder to stay close to that person physically and emotionally.
Jase: This is why I think it is really important to have time to emotionally regulate if you are in the middle of conflict. However, it is again that challenge because you do want to be able to say and express yourself in ways that feel good and okay and worthy of the time and respect of the other person, but I do think that ideally if you can get to a place of gentleness and understanding and emotional regulation, then that's really good in terms of safety and that's easier said than done, I think, in a lot of instances.
Emily: I think it's so interesting how our brains can pick up signs of threat and how that obviously will look different for everybody. Now I'm thinking about this and I'm like, oh, that's why I get really nervous whenever my partner starts with, "So I have to talk to you about something," that threat or you get the text, it's like, "We need to talk," and I'm like, "About what?
Dedeker: There's a particular sigh that Jase does.
Emily: Oh boy.
Jase: Oh, no.
Dedeker: It's when you do the prove, sigh when you the-- Oh gosh. It's not even anything to do with me. It's not like it comes out in conflict. It's just you're stressed by something and you do the poof, and I feel all those little muscles in my back just go rink.
Jase: That's the power of mirror neurons.
Dedeker: I know.
Jase: Especially with people that we're attuned to where our mirror neurons in our body are actually firing in sympathy, essentially doing the same thing as someone else, even if we're not experiencing what they're experiencing. It's why watching someone eat or watching someone get punched in a movie, there's a part of you that's actually physically reacting to it. It's super fascinating stuff, but that response that we have to someone's nervousness.
This is something we talked about way back on episodes about coming out or talking to your partner about opening up your relationship or something of if you are regulated and calm, it's going to be easier for them to hear you as well. Anyway, we're getting off track a little bit, but we're all so attuned to each other. It's really fascinating as humans.
Emily: We're paying attention and you can probably pick up on it a little easier with folks that you do know because you know their habits, but again, I think that the way that your brain scans for threats is where self-awareness and culpable cultural awareness is key here because I could step into a room full of people that I don't know and my brain because of Dedeker said, the body that I occupy, can feel that this is not the safest space for me.
I think that that's something important for us all to consider in so far as you can try very hard to make someone feel safe, but you also have to understand how the cultural reality of your identity impacts them. Even if you love them, even if you're in a relationship with them, even if you've known them for a long, long time, that is still always going to be present in the space.
Jase: I think there's also something really valuable in being on the other side of that too, of being aware of how your physical presence can affect your partner or even just your friends or coworkers or whatever based on their identity and your own. It's a very complex thing, so it's not like, just do this math equation and you'll know exactly what the effect will be, but more just being aware of it and trying to learn as you go and see what those reactions are.
Something that I think we've talked about before on this show is, like Emily mentioned way back at the beginning about physical safety and that if you are someone who is a lot larger than other people, if you have a big reaction to something, that could be really scary to someone else who's less of a large person.
Less of a large human than you are, even if they have no past evidence that you would be violent to them or that you would be threatening to them or anything like that but that doesn't mean that there's not that impact and that their body isn't going, holy shit, holy shit. This is a scary thing, I should be worried here. I think that I just mentioned size as one example. I'm thinking of one particular example of two friends that I saw talking at a party years ago and he was like a real big guy, like way huge compared to me too, and she was much smaller, and he jokingly was like, "Oh I'm not, I think this thing," whatever they were joking about.
I watched her physically like recoil and be freaked out and feel uncomfortable and I was like, I need to go in here and break this up and talk to both of them and try to resolve this but seeing how clearly in a different situation, what he did would've been totally fine but in that context it wasn't. I think there's also a lot of value in becoming aware of these things to try to be that safer person to be around and come to, even if it's like, well, I'm safe, I'm not going to do anything to anyone, but it goes beyond that. There's also that effect very subtly in how people feel around you because of whatever their history, your history, all of that.
Emily: As we think about what this looks like in practice and how we can actually do the work of creating safer relationships or rather safe enough relationships, safe interactions, there are a few action items that we want to get into around what this looks like in practice because it's really about, again, thinking through the capacities you've built in your relationships to hold the inevitability of harm.
Dedeker: Yes. I like that you point that out, that we do need to accept the inevitability of this even if it's literally just trotting on someone's toes emotionally or physically, that we bump up against each other. That's what we do as human beings and we do need to have pathways to repair.
Keyanah: The first potential action item is something that we've talked about a lot on this show and that's practicing nonviolent communication, you can do this at all times but especially in moments of conflict and we actually wrote about this in our book, which is coming out, so come look that section up in our book but is something that you can think about in terms of nonviolent communication are things like self-empathy and then also receiving empathically. Non-violent communication suggests that however the other person expresses themselves, we're hopefully going to be focusing on listening for the underlying observations, feelings, needs, and requests.
Some of this also comes out in like I statements, stuff like that but essentially talking about things in terms of what is it that occurred during the specific situation, how did I feel when that thing was occurring? What do I need from you in the future and offering a potential request of the individual? It goes in that trajectory when you're talking about nonviolent communication. When you're doing those specific things ideally, you're going to be expressing yourself in an honest fashion but it's occurring in a way that is not violent towards the other person but still hopefully holding space for you to be honest and communicative about the thing that happened and that was potentially harmful to you.
Emily: Yes, non-violent communication has been such a great framework for me in all instances, personally, professionally, friends, families, co-workers, and especially with the honesty bit because I used to be one of those people that said, "Well, I'm just blunt," not really taking accountability for the fact that I was mean. I love the focus on the observation, feeling, need, and request because it's a clear definition around what that honesty looks like but also it focuses on you rather than just making judgments on other people and oftentimes, again, when I'm not feeling the safest with someone, it is because I feel that they're making judgments around what I think what I feel and I'm like, well, you can possibly know that and it prompts this defensiveness that I think nonviolent communication helps you circumvent.
Jase: I think that's also a good example of how having some framework can help even if earlier I was just talking shit about rules and being like, oh, we tried to come up with, oh, if I just do X, Y, and Z, then I won't be causing harm or then this space will be safer, whatever bullshit, but on the other hand, the reason why these frameworks like non-violent communication and maybe brave spaces are important is it does at least give us something to remember and to think about and to strive toward. I think that's such a good example of how that shows up for you practically. The second one here is about embracing accountability and impact, so we're going to come back to this one again.
A few parts to this. One is being an active participant in the repair process, if you are the one who has caused harm, rather than allowing that guilt or shame or even fear that you feel to prevent you from actively engaging in that and trying to repair. We talked about this earlier in the context of groups and things like that and I think that's a challenging place depending on the community because there can be that feeling of, oh, if anyone admits they did something wrong, that gives us the excuse to ostracize them and they admitted guilt, they're guilty, throw them in jail, kind of a thing. That very punitive Western way of thinking about justice.
If you think about this in like your interpersonal relationships and your friends and things like that, it is very different and this is one I know came up a lot with Dedeker and I, early on in our relationship, I think Dedeker, you could tell it better but that you weren't used to someone admitting fault ever.
Dedeker: Oh yes.
Jase: Wasn't me off how it was done in your family?
Dedeker: Really threw me off for sure and that's interesting you bring that up because this makes me think about not just having the ability to say that you're sorry in a relationship but I think also the ability to say that you're sorry without just collapsing into that because I think we see something maladaptive happening on both extremes of the spectrum. There's both the extreme of someone who can never embrace accountability, who can never acknowledge impact, who can never say that they're sorry and then on the other side, the other extreme of if that's like the first card you whip out as soon as there's any critique or pushback is just like, I'm sorry, whether it's--
Emily: Guilty some many times all the time.
Dedeker: All right. Well, whether it has meaning behind it or whether it's just like a throwaway, I'm sorry, just to try to get the heat off your back, it's like there's something about this middle path in between those two extremes that needs to be in place in order for like actual accountability to take place.
Emily: I was just going to say that I myself have been in dynamics where someone does something wrong and the apology then becomes about me having to support them because they feel bad, rather like the apology.
Dedeker: Oh boy, been there.
Emily: Yes. It's just exhausting and then you still scratch your head at the end of it being like, I don't think I actually got the apology that I was looking for and that accountability, embracing it, and I think being an active participant in the repair process is so important to avoid that.
Jase: I think, yes, part of that then is being honest about the extent that you might need to figure that out on your own. If you were the one who realized, "Oh, shit, I did something." I think especially if it's become a pattern, if this is something that's happened more than once or realizing, okay, this is a repeated pattern of, what work do I need to do and being willing to take that time and do it. I think that step is hard because sometimes it's just, oh, I admit I was wrong. I said I was sorry.
It's all better, and maybe if it was just a one-time little thing but maybe it's not. If this is part of a larger pattern in which case actually doing your work separate from your partner and not making them do that work for you is a really important step in that.
I'd say on the other side is as the partner who feels like you need that apology and your partner needs to do that work, I guess one being willing to let them do it or realize that you're not ever going to forgive them or feel okay and get out and stop trying to force this thing to feel safe somehow by like punishing them enough or by, I don't know, just hoping they'll be a different person or you'll be a different person or something like that. Just to realize that you either need to give them the time and opportunity to fix that or let's just not and move on, and that might be better for both of you.
Emily: The third action item on this list is practicing critical humility, and this is a term that I learned recently from English scholar Kathleen Fitzpatrick in her book, Generous Thinking. It's a great book. I'm not going to bore you into the specifics of it but it's just about how people are mean in academia to lead to, but the term really embraces the possibility that you might in fact be wildly wrong about something or ill-informed about something, but still remaining open to that and moving in the direction towards learning.
For me, I think this is so important when you end relationships with people, especially people with different backgrounds than your own, because if someone is actually doing the work of sharing their reality or sharing their lived experience with you, you shouldn't respond to that as if it were somehow like a proof of concept of this larger thing that you don't get.
You should actually acknowledge that, oh wow, I didn't know that that was the case. Believe that experience and validate that experience. Thank them for exposing you to something that you didn't see, and then take your own initiative to learn more. I often feel the least safe with people when I have to one, just explain my existence, but then the questioning of that becomes a questioning of how I think about things as well.
Dedeker: Well, so related to all of these things, number four is rituals. We love talking about rituals. Go to Multiamory, episode 409. We did a whole episode just about rituals, but as you'll find in that episode, we talk about how rituals can really serve to soothe anxiety, and again, create those cues that your brain and nervous system are going to pick up on as being safe. This is why we recommend to people, if you get anxious before an uncomfortable conversation, if you get anxious before radar or before check-in, you can do something like build a nest for yourself and your partner. Literally put your body in a context that tends to make it feel safe and secure and comfortable and get into your PJs and cover yourself in pillows if that's what it takes.
That may not be the magic bullet that makes talking to your partner completely unscary. Again, we're not completely eliminating the risk and the vulnerability, but it's still supporting your body and your nervous system to be able to open up a little bit more, and there are so many things that you can do in your relationship to support this. Whether it's something as simple as I don't know, I feel like on a day-to-day basis, like I'll go through moments where I don't necessarily feel like responding to a partner's bid. If they're like, "Oh, watch this YouTube video," or if Jace's like, "Let me talk to you about AI for 15 minutes," or things like that.
If I'm in the middle of like, I don't know, I'm trying to do the dishes or work on something or whatever, but if I find a way to respond to that bid, that's not adding to a sense of, oh, it's not safe for you to come to me. I'm not responding to it in a way that's actually pushing against. It's just like these little drops in a bucket that eventually fill up the bucket. That sense, and you develop that sense of embodied safety and almost like that reserve, that the relationship is safe and it is okay for the two of you to turn to each other.
I think this is really important to think about, especially if you're in a relationship where you are more prone to feeling anxious about connecting with a partner, is that the two of you can strategize on like what are the ways that we can incorporate rituals in order to feel safer, including little informal rituals, like the ways that the two of you greet each other when you're reuniting at the end of the day, or the way that the two of you go to sleep at night, or if you don't cohabit the way that you leave each other's spaces or come back into each other's spaces. There are so many opportunities for sprinkling in these little rituals that can create that feedback loop of safety.
Jase: Well, I think we learned a ton today. Thank you so much, everyone. Keyanah, thank you for bringing your expertise and your perspective to this really important topic, because again, I think this is such a better version of my initial idea on this topic, so we really, really appreciate it.
Keyanah: Thank you for having me, and again, always being open to collaborate on how we can deepen the discussion for these topics. This was a really interesting way to think about safe spaces within my regular realm, but then also to bring it into interpersonal relationships as well.