Ground Rule #1 for Brave Spaces: Controversy with Civility
Thousands of readers have found this blog helpful: What Do You Mean Brave Spaces? I Want Safety!
The next five quick notes will unpack the ground rules of Brave Spaces.
A few reminders to get up to speed:
- Safe spaces are all around us, often protecting people with identities that bring power.
- Brave spaces cannot guarantee safety.
- People of Color, queer or trans people, or those with marginalized identities do not have the privilege of safety
- Brave spaces invite people to have courageous conversations.
For more information on Brave Spaces by the authors Arao and Clemens (2013), check out The Art of Effective Facilitation - Reflections From Social Justice Educators. I recommend the entire book.
The first ground rule of brave spaces is Controversy with Civility.
This can occur when we keep the conversation honest but constructive; hearing varying opinions.
Holding controversy while being civil is not common.
It is incredibly challenging to genuinely listen to a different perspective while being honest about your own.
When were you last in a space where varying opinions were accepted? Note that acceptance does not mean agreement.
The authors write the following context about brave spaces to honor controversy with civility:
“Implicit in this common ground rule [of Agree to Disagree] is that disagreements often occur in dialogues about diversity and justice. We welcome the voicing of disagreement and encourage [people] to offer contrasting views. However, we believe that agreeing to disagree can be used to retreat from conflict in an attempt to avoid discomfort and the potential for damaged relationships. We often hear [people] say, “I’m not going to change my mind, and neither are they; what is the point of continuing to talk?”
In our view, some of the richest learning springs from ongoing explorations of conflict, whereby participants seek to understand the opposing viewpoint. Such exploration may or may not lead to a change or convergence of opinions or one side winning the debate, but neither of these is among our objectives for our students; we find these outcomes to be reflective of a patriarchal approach to conflict, in which domination and winning over others to one’s point of view is the goal.
Further, we believe that agreeing to disagree in a conversation about social justice not only stymies learning for all participants but can also reinforce systems of oppression by providing an opportunity for agent group members to exercise their privilege to opt out of a conversation that makes them uncomfortable.
An alternate rule is needed, one that inspires courage in the face of conflict and continues rather than stops the dialogue process.”
How have you experienced spaces or relationships honoring controversy with civility?
Fellow leaders and learners, I wish you courage and joy on the journey.
Comments