Social charter for safe spaces

There are many ways a sense of safety can be upset in any social setting. And there are also many possible reactions to that safety being upset.

Societies consisting of conflicting groups are highly “inflammable” and require stronger measures against transgressions (in places like Ireland, Balkans, Palestine, regions in India etc.). A small spark may ignite a massive fire. It goes without saying that such fires start around irrational, ideological and even dogmatic matters that people viscerally identify with.

Societies with fewer (overt!) tensions permit broader and freer expressions. There’s less chance that offence will be taken and that reactions to such “offence” will be fierce, even violent. Covert tensions, however, may come to the surface explosively in seemingly non-conflicting heterogeneous societies. We’ve seen that in ex-Yugoslavia — with the first religious war in history among atheists.

Homogenous vs. heterogeneous society

In homogenous groups, everyone is immersed in common culture and certain normative behavior, guided by the same inner moral compass as everyone else. It’s tempting to go that way: let’s all become Mormons or Scientologists or Sufis or Evangelicals or Hare Krishnas or Democrats or … — being homogenous would level the ground and we wouldn’t need to struggle with a myriad of cross-cultural translations. (Everyone would, of course, be most comfortable with their own culture/ideology prevailing and uncomfortable adjusting to another culture/ideology.)

The history of civilisation is cultures and ideologies spreading dominance over each other in thousands of wars. Only recently have we learned to coexist in (a relatively) hetero-cultural reality without killing each other by millions over different beliefs, bodily characteristics, folklore, manners and habits.

The price of a diverse society is that everyone has to adapt to some shared neutrality (which, let’s admit, is never 100% neutral, but it’s the best we can do in any given era). No matter what culture and ideology you practice in your home and close social circles, there are secular rules of behaviour in common spaces. Therefore a high level of freedom of ideological expression and pluralism is only possible in a secular state. Secular society secures the neutral ground, the safe space for cross-cultural interactions that would otherwise be difficult or even impossible.

In shared spaces, it is necessary to follow neutral, non-instigating behaviour and messaging. No swastikas on shawls in Europe, for example. Let me add that in Europe, swastikas might be unacceptable but in India, they are a common symbol of good luck, visible on facades and on religious paraphernalia. It would be unenlightened to censor them in that cultural context predating nazism by a few millennia. On the other hand, if you drew a swastika in the Western countries to celebrate Diwali, you shouldn’t be shocked if angry people knocked on your door.

Ah, how easy our lives would be in the simplicity of homogenous groups! People would keep themselves and others in place on their own. But would they really?

Secularism secures space for ideological freedom

As long as there is an enlightened, secular common space in society, there will be safe spaces for cross-cultural expression. Secular law depends on the separation of state and religion (or ideology) — the law is the guardian of just, safe space and people count on the law to hold transgressors accountable and to remove the most disruptive ones from the society.

When an ideology enters the state and the law, general social space becomes less safe for other ideologies to express — and paradoxically even for the dominant ideology itself! We can see this wherever a single ideology takes over: society becomes rigid, puristic and intolerant to the fringe inside its own ranks.

Ask a Muslim, adapted to living in the West, where she would prefer to see her daughter grow up, in Denmark or in Saudi Arabia (or the country of their ancestors). I don’t say all mothers would prefer Denmark but I wouldn’t be surprised if most would.

What’s true about the general society is also true about smaller groups and organisations. Secular (non-ideological) general culture is necessary to secure safe spaces for ideologies to coexist. Mature groups keep a large common space of neutrality where each individual can enter with their fuller self without feeling the need to self-censor her or his words, ideas, clothes, symbols … but it goes the other way around too: mature individuals respect the safe space and are conscious of how bringing in too much of their culture may make it smaller for others.

“What I stand for is not ideology, it’s science,” some people might say. To check if that’s true, ask them, under what conditions would they change what they stand for. If they wouldn’t change it under any conditions, it’s ideology. If they can think of conditions that would make them change their mind, then they’re standing on rational, scientific ground.

The own trap of secularism

Secular openness to diversity allows for the spread of ideological radicalism inside that openness. A homogenous society gives less room to extrinsic ideologies, while a heterogeneous society is inherently open. Self-regulation by public opinion is not guaranteed when a powerful ideology comes up and starts spreading. Mature ideologies are patient and allow for decades, even centuries to spread, while young ideologies tend to proselytise more feverishly and forcefully.

The best mechanism for protecting heterogeneous societies from homogenisation is, still, self-regulation powered by cross-cultural enlightenment. To foster the coexistence of diverse ideologies we need a high level of cross-cultural literacy and tolerance. We need to scrutinise ideologies and detach them from cultural identities. Only in enlightened societies, can dogmatism diminish and functional diversity becomes possible.

The diversity of cultures enriches humanity, builds character and shouldn’t be done away with. In a pluralistic, metropolitan sphere, however, these cultures need to soften down on edges to be able to interact and create a safe space for all.

The mobility across subcultures is a sign of a truly pluralistic society. The ghettoization of subcultures, with low or no mobility, is a manifestation of false heterogeneity. Social pressure and cultural oppression keep diverse groups in their separate “fences” and discourage deep intercultural blending. High global cultural pluralization may enrich our civilisation or impoverish it.

The trap here is that in the name of diversity an open society may end up broken down, fragmented if people are not meeting across cultures sufficiently and if shared neutral spaces are not used.

The danger of hypersensitivity

Protecting the weak is a common instinct in humanity. Developed societies take good care of the disadvantaged and underprivileged. The quality of human culture literally depends on solidarity.

Ideologies can abuse such solidarity by inventing and inflating points of vulnerability and spreading their tenets to neutral spaces. Thus they make these spaces safer for the adherents of the ideology but less safe for others; safe space narrows down and becomes less inclusive.

Hypersensitivity plus hyper-reactivity make for a tremendous force. A pattern emerges: in the eyes of the ideologue even the smallest transgression justifies a fierce counterattack. They also insist on holding both the role of the “plaintiff” and that of the “judge” (they want to call out the wrongdoing and decide the punishment). The end doesn’t justify the means if you use bigotry to fight bigotry, intolerance to fight intolerance, hate speech to fight hate speech etc.

If neutral spaces become invaded by the rules of one ideology, especially if that becomes an official requirement or even a law, that’s the road to disaster. Organizations and governments should resist such infringements on liberal social agreements and protect secular, neutral spaces from ideological dominance.

Maybe we need to add a chapter on neutral, safe spaces to the European Social Charter? The manner such spaces are used is an indicator of the heterogeneity of our society. If diverse people participated in cross-cultural exchange, that’s a good sign; if protests and boycotts occur at the suggestion of broadening the freedom of neutral spaces that’s a bad sign.

I think we need to insist that (sub)cultures respect the neutral, secular nature of shared spaces and participate in those spaces — knowing that these spaces can never be 100% neutral — they are and will always be tilted towards the prevailing cultural heritage and that’s inevitable. Presuming irreformable systemic viciousness in the dominant ideology and suggesting that the reform is only possible by replacing it with a new ideology, closes the doors for a conversation and will lead to a war of ideologies over neutral spaces. When one extreme conquers a fraction of the neutral space, the other extreme won’t stop until they do the same.

We should not tolerate ideologies violently imposing their norms on neutral spaces. If some people don’t want to collaborate in neutral spaces and if they choose to call such spaces systemically biased, they can do so, but that’s not a reason enough to expect that others will blindly consent to another, usually a much narrower version of “neutrality”, being enforced on everyone. We must challenge our own ideological shortsightedness and narrow-mindedness, we must challenge each other, we need more common ground, not less. That’s how human civilisation can keep collective madness and insanity from running amok.