Safety is a concept that can be manipulated to justify nearly anything.
~Bruce Schneier
In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in group discussions, particularly in professional and social settings. When faced with ideas that challenge their beliefs or worldviews, some individuals retreat behind the claim, “I don’t feel safe.” While personal safety is undoubtedly crucial, this phrase is increasingly misused as a shield against intellectual discomfort, stifling meaningful dialogue and growth.
The concept of safety in discourse originally aimed to protect vulnerable groups from genuine threats or discrimination. However, its scope has expanded to include protection from ideas themselves. This shift poses a significant threat to open dialogue, critical thinking, and the exchange of diverse perspectives.
When someone claims they “don’t feel safe” in response to challenging ideas, they often conflate emotional discomfort with actual danger. This false equivalence does a disservice to both the individual and the group.
The act of verbalizing “I don’t feel safe” in a discussion setting can have an immediate and chilling effect on open, honest, and candid conversation. It shifts the focus from the ideas being discussed to the emotional state of the individual, often leading others to self-censor or tiptoe around certain topics. This disruption can derail productive exchanges, preventing the group from delving into important issues or considering alternative viewpoints. The mere utterance of this phrase can create an atmosphere of tension and caution, where participants become more concerned with avoiding offense than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Moreover, this retreat to perceived safety can be seen as a form of intellectual cowardice. Growth – both personal and societal – often requires us to confront ideas or situations that make us uncomfortable. By avoiding these confrontations, we limit our ability to refine our own beliefs, understand others’ perspectives, and develop the resilience necessary to navigate a complex world.
The “I don’t feel safe” response can also be weaponized to silence opposing viewpoints. By framing disagreement as a threat to safety, individuals can effectively shut down conversations and paint those with different opinions as aggressors.
This tactic not only impedes productive dialogue but can also create a chilling effect, where others become hesitant to express their views for fear of being labeled as threats.
It’s essential to recognize that discomfort is not synonymous with danger. Feeling challenged, confused, or even upset by new ideas is a natural part of learning and growth. These feelings should be embraced as opportunities for self-reflection and expansion, not avoided in the name of safety.
Individuals, too, must cultivate resilience and openness to challenging ideas. This involves developing the ability to engage with concepts that contradict our beliefs, to consider them critically, and to respond with reasoned arguments rather than emotional retreats.
When faced with the urge to claim, “I don’t feel safe” in response to challenging ideas, we should instead ask ourselves: What about this makes me uncomfortable? Why do I hold my current beliefs? How can I engage with this perspective productively, even if I ultimately disagree?
By reframing our response to intellectual challenges, we open ourselves to growth, empathy, and a deeper understanding of the world around us. We must recognize that true safety lies not in avoiding discomfort or using “unsafe” as a defensive mechanism, but in developing the strength to constructively face it head-on.
In conclusion, while personal safety remains paramount, we must be wary of using “safety” as a shield against intellectual discourse. By embracing discomfort, engaging with challenging ideas, and fostering resilience, we can create more robust, dynamic, and enlightening group discussions that benefit all participants and society as a whole.
Editor’s Note: Enjoy our evolving Exploring Our Shared Humanity Series HERE
This is so true. Rarely is there a reason to fear harm in most situations, but we shut down and don’t continue the dialogue once disagreement starts.
“This tactic not only impedes productive dialogue but can also create a chilling effect, where others become hesitant to express their views for fear of being labeled as threats.”
It used to be that we could disagree and still be friends. In the past 20 years it seems like saying, “I disagree with you” means “I hate you.” That isn’t even close to the truth.
We need the ability to disagree productively so we understand differences and learn different perspectives even if we aren’t going to change our minds. There should be no fear in sharing ideas and having a difference of opinion. Sometimes it’s neither good nor bad, it’s just different. Not everything is life altering.
You’re right, Jane. Productive disagreement is valuable for broadening perspectives and fostering understanding, even when minds don’t change. Open dialogue without fear is important, and many differences are simply neutral variations rather than critical issues. Thank you for adding such value to this important issue, my friend.
Saying “I don’t feel safe” in a discussion is passive-aggressive. It passes the responsibility of fixing the situation on to the leader or the group but gives them no clue about what to do. If the person were to say, “I’m feeling scared, sad and angry because (every time I try to say anything, people interrupt or the discriminatory language some people use reminds me how “my minority” has been hurt), you know what to do. Better listening and more aware speaking will help any discussion go well.
When one person shares what they feel, it encourages other people to do the same and leads to a deeper and more open conversation.
It’s tempting to overinvest your energy in fixing one person’s problems in a group. (I have done this, and my team-building event failed.)
You have the authority as a group leader to say, “I am sorry you don’t feel safe. It looks like you really don’t want to be here. That’s OK. You don’t have to stay. Let’s talk next week about your experience in the group. There may be some things we can do.”
Thank you, Nick, for your thoughtful insights! I completely agree that expressing feelings directly fosters a more open and honest dialogue. When individuals share their emotions, it not only clarifies their experiences but also encourages others to do the same, creating a more inclusive environment. Your approach emphasizes the importance of active listening and understanding, which are essential for effective group dynamics. It’s crucial for leaders to acknowledge these feelings and work collaboratively towards solutions. Your perspective on balancing individual needs with group cohesion is invaluable. Let’s continue to promote this kind of communication!
Very interesting and shareable article.
Trust can quickly transform into distrust, if not cultivated and educated, both by clear and transparent communication processes, as well as by training processes where knowledge and research are fundamental activities.
Precisely the high degree of complexity that current times entail requires us to get back into the habit of dialogue and cultivate it with greater awareness. In dialogue, the friction between differences is reduced without excluding them, creating an ‘environment’ in which the parties can enter into relationships with their energy and intelligence. Comparison between people can only bring a wealth of perspectives, which must be listened to, understood and valued. At work, in particular, dialogue is the basis of the effectiveness of every group action.
It is through dialogue that that communicative climate develops which guarantees psychological safety, which opens up the possibility of giving life to a real exchange between people, and which brings with it the desire for mutual understanding.
Aldo, your insights on trust and dialogue are spot-on. You’ve captured the essence of how transparent communication and continuous learning foster trust, especially in complex times. Your point about dialogue reducing friction while preserving differences is particularly astute. It’s true that effective dialogue creates an environment where diverse perspectives can thrive, leading to richer outcomes in group settings. Your emphasis on psychological safety as a foundation for genuine exchange is crucial.
Excellent post, my friend!
Thank you, Victor – this is the beginning of our efforts to lean forward under the umbrella of of “shared humanity” my friend. So pleased that you are walking this walk with us.
Dennis, a timely and important topic, as usual. I’m looking forward to Bench more than ever. And yes, I feel entirely safe and confident going there. Thanks for this, and for your time yesterday.
Simply grateful for your calming presence, my friend.