Something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately that runs along the same tangent as trigger warnings is what constitutes a safe space. This post will be less of an analytical post about the readings this week, but more so analytical of the concepts applied to my own experiences.
Within the past year or so and specifically within the Edmonton arts and music scene I’ve noticed pop up’s of certain venues and shows that post guidelines of what makes them a “safe space”. These rules were posted on event pages, various other forms of social media platforms, and even the walls of the venus on big pieces of poster paper. A specific “safe space” environment was one that existed as a music venue and collaborative arts space inside of a house that frequently hosted events. It became a well known spot for it’s inclusive and strict safe space rules that remained on one wall in the main room. This space was greatly appreciated for it’s intolerance to discrimination, sexism, ableism, and any oppressive attitudes that an individual could bring into the house, to name a few. They spoke on the importance of personal space and consent, and voiced the potential to get kicked out if you violated those rules. Much like how trigger warnings are a way of announcing certain elements that could potentially trigger someone, safe space guidelines are a way of harbouring a positive environment and discouraging harmful behaviour that could have the a triggering result. This house felt like our own mini-revolution that brought up issues we cared about within creative atmospheres that we already inhabited.
While safe space guidelines seem productive, much like trigger warnings, they still have the potential to be problematic. Even at that particular house with it’s elaborate rules, I still heard relatively unknown stories of exclusivity and harassment that happened inside. Not everyone felt safe. What is even more perplexing is what can be completely deemed as safe, what elements determines safety. I felt that that house did thrive because it brought issues to the surface to be confronted, leaving more room for creative expression. But it is impossible to highlight everything that could possibly make a space unsafe on a large piece of paper, much like how it is impossible to list everything within a trigger warning section. Trigger warning sections are typically broad and umbrella-like, and normalize certain triggers while lacking acknowledgment of more individualized triggers like scents, sights, or noises. What feels safe for some could easily feel unsafe for others.
To contrast, much like what is brought up in the article Feminist Hurt/Feminism Hurts, those guidelines and trigger warnings are still somewhat necessary in which they welcome the opportunity to face these things head on. How we address what may trigger someone, what may deem a space unsafe and what is absolutely unacceptable, can still positively work to shape a culture that confronts broader issues within smaller atmospheres. While there is no blanket that covers what is unsafe or triggering, providing these warnings, rules, and guidelines attempts to foster an environment of acknowledgement, which is a good place to start.
Abigail, I really liked how you critiqued the effectiveness of trigger warnings and especially save spaces but still view them as something we should have. I find that a lot of the time once something does not work or does not work the way we were hoping it would, as a society, we stop viewing it as valid. In the safe spaces case, you are right, no space can ever be 100% safe because humans have free will. In my mind trying is better than doing nothing. As more and more safe spaces are coming to be it will become less of a deal. Once something is normalized people pay no attention to it anymore. So far in history this has been disadvantaging us but through modern technology and a passionate generation, I think that we can normalize what we view as right.
ReplyDelete