Hearing promises of “safe spaces” is usually a quick way to get me very angry. Safe for whom? And safe from whom? Probably not safe for minorities from dominant discourses… But then calling for “brave spaces” instead does not help a lot either. Brave spaces demand bravery from everybody, so far so good, but what about those people who have to be brave to show up as themselves every single day already because of society’s reaction to who they are? Also, it should not require being brave to be heard. So then, an alternative seems to be to strive for accountable spaces. Here I am digging into some literature to see how people generally think and write about it!

The first discussion of the topic that I can recall reading is “Safe and Brave Spaces Don’t Work (and What You Can Do Instead)” by Elise Ahenkorah. She writes that “accountability means being responsible for yourself, your intentions, words, and actions. It means entering a space with good intentions, but understanding that aligning your intent with action is the true test of commitment.” This can be facilitated through guidelines that describe what is expected of people entering the space and help act in real time and after the fact, for example asking people to not interrupt others, to be mindful of their air time relative to others, to apologize for actions and words rather than for someone feeling insulted by them, to speak for themselves rather than everybody, to recognize that intent and impact are not necessarily the same, … (for a nice list, read the original article).

Next, I am reading Shawna (2019) on “How White Educators Can Subvert Dominant Discourses”. This is a fascinating discussion of how one well-meaning document with the goal of creating conversations around different sexual orientations and genders can backfire from a decolonialising perspective. One example that really hit home for me is “inclusion”. Who includes whom into what, and on whose terms? There are clearly assumptions here about who is “in” or “out”, and who needs to be integrated into some system (rather than acknowledging the other system as equal), and the assumption that everybody wants to be “included” (see the very similar problems with the concept of “belonging“). Also the probably well-meaning “his or her”, or “both genders” does reinforce a gender binary as the norm. Conversations about such topics are supported through accountable spaces, which “allow for a dialogue that deconstructs systemic oppression and the multiple, complex, and intersecting ways in which we are implicated”. They do that by “calling in”, inviting people into conversations to learn together, rather than “calling out” people, and investigate how language can perpetuate colonialism, stereotypes, and other. The reflections in the article result in three recommendations: Reflecting on language and assumptions; questioning the goal of “inclusion”; and questioning the goals of a “safe space”.

Verduzco-Baker (2018) writes about “modified brave spaces: calling in brave instructors.” Again it is explained that safe spaces are sometimes conflated with “comfortable” spaces, where no idea is challenged, not even one that is not supported by data. Brave spaces, in contrast, are the ones where people are supposedly open to be challenged on ideas. But again, even if the majority is brave enough to let themselves be challenged (and that work involved in that “is more likely to be novel and to feel optional rather than a matter of survival”), the emotional labour of actually challenging their ideas falls too often on the minorities that deal with microaggressions or biases constantly already.

They recommend three strategies for “modified” brave spaces (which sound very similar to accountable spaces!):

1. Integrating first-person “virtual” accounts of personal experiences of oppression in the curriculum. In this way, there is no pressure on minority students to share their personal experiences (unless they choose to do it freely, but they explicitly do not have to), yet majority students can begin to understand those experiences. The teacher also starts to build trust with minority students through showing awareness of their experiences
2. Practising “calling in” rather than “calling out” to challenge uninformed or biased beliefs. Students now still need to be brave to engage constructively and potentially be challenged. But the process of “calling in” is explained as a learning opportunity, which is addressed by repeating a problematic statement in a revise form to be more appropriate; restating the assumption the person meant no harm; explaining the origin of the misconception or myth; describing the harm caused by this kind of comment or choice of language; and drawing on class content to reveal the flawed assumptions underlying the comment
3. Modelling being brave in their own response to being “called in.” This means not getting defensive, but embracing the learning opportunity

I like the suggestion in the first point with the “virtual” accounts. In my teaching portfolio, I reflect extensively on teaching about microaggressions and describe how I went from, at first, sharing a lot of personal experiences in order to spare participants the emotional labour of sharing their own experiences while still making the problem real to everybody, but then over time stopped doing that because it felt like I was depriving participants of an opportunity to share their own experiences and centring myself too much (which, I feel, worked out well because there were always people willing to share some smaller microaggressions so that people who I am sure have experienced much worse did not have to). But it did not occur to me that, of course, I could use first-person narratives from people outside of my classroom, and that that would take away the stress of “I wonder who will speak up, or if I should?” from participants. But now I will consider that for next time!

But on the whole, contrary to my first impression, there does not seem to be a lot of literature on the topic. Maybe time for us to write something!

Shawna, M. C. (2019). How White Educators Can Subvert Dominant Discourses. The Journal of Engaged Pedagogy, 18(1), 137-152.

Verduzco-Baker, L. (2018). Modified brave spaces: Calling in brave instructors. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 4(4), 585-592.