by Wong Cai Jie
In this video, Pragya Sethi ‘19, the co-founder and co-facilitator of SPACE: Room for Conversation, a dialogue-based group at Yale-NUS College which seeks to fight the oppressive forces of gender inequality and silence. This article serves as a theoretical accompaniment to the video interview with Pragya.
Dialogue and Safe Spaces are two significant concepts from Black feminist literature. In this written piece, we will primarily discuss these concepts in the context of Black feminist epistemology. At the same time, we must recognise that they have become important parts of all forms of resistance against oppression – and how consider they could be applied in practice such as as demonstrated by SPACE: Room for Conversation.
Dialogue is highlighted by bell hooks (1989), to refer specifically to a kind of humanizing speech between agents. Patricia Hill Collins (2000) further elaborates the role that safe spaces play in allowing individuals, especially those of marginalised identities, to freely and critically engage in dialogue and examine issues that concerned them. I will elaborate on these two concepts and discuss how they relate to each other.
To begin, we must first understand bell hooks’ assertion that “dialogue implies talk between two subjects, not the speech of subject and object. It is a humanizing speech, one that challenges and resists domination (1989, 131).” In the context of prevailing oppression where the voices of marginalised individuals tend to be ignored or invalidated, dialogue is seen as a form of resistance where individuals partaking in it treat each other as equal agents. Dialogue becomes a way to affirm the experiences and humanity of all participants. Patricia Hill Collins (2000) adds to hooks’ definition, arguing that dialogue is particularly powerful in fostering connections with people that lead to harmony. This allows dialogue to be a tool in community-building.
The use of dialogue is particularly important in Black feminist epistemology for it has deep roots in African-based oral traditions and in African-American culture. Historically, dialogue played a critical role in the knowledge validation process of enslaved African-Americans. Discourse and knowledge building took on an interactive and communal process where every individual in the group must participate. This is necessary for ideas to be validated and challenged properly. The refusal to participate, especially if one disagrees with what has been said, is considered an act of ‘cheating’ (2002). As such, dialogue necessarily resists domination and allows all participants to engage in knowledge building as active agents.
This leads us to the next related concept of safe spaces as defined by Collins.
Firstly, safe spaces are not necessarily physical spaces. Rather, they represent any platform (physical and non-physical) where Black women could freely examine issues that concerned them. We can understand them as platforms that foster dialogue. They are one of many mechanisms that foster Black women’s empowerment, and support their participation in social justice projects. By definition, the integrity of safe spaces is threatened by the presence of those who are not Black and female because they do not have a lived understanding of Black women’s experiences.
Historically and even presently, dominant culture has often been permeated by controlling images and stereotypes that marginalise Black women. This is why safe spaces are necessarily exclusive: it is a place free from surveillance by more powerful groups, and free from the need for Black women to explain or justify themselves to outsiders. It is in safe spaces that Black women can safely affirm their collective knowledge and build their own epistemic resources which are necessary for more inclusive and just societies.
Contemporarily, safe spaces have come to refer to platforms where criticism or judgment is not welcome. Safe spaces have been derided as being overly-sensitive or uncritical. These views represent an unfortunate misunderstanding of what safe spaces actually are, and make it all the more important to refer back to safe spaces as they were originally imagined by Black women: a space that encourages free, critical dialogue (which as we noted, requires the active participation of all individuals, especially in disagreement) within a group.
Brave spaces, an alternative to the term, has also emerged. While brave spaces are described to serve the same function that safe spaces (as defined by Black feminists) do, the term is perhaps more obvious in affirming the courage required in individuals to partake in challenging conversations that resist oppression and injustice.
In summary, dialogue and safe spaces are very complementary tools that help Black women (and other marginalised communities) resist domination. They promote self-definition, knowledge building and they elevate historically oppressed voices. We must see that those who engage in dialogue and with safe spaces are performing acts with great vulnerability and courage that is channeled into building a more just world.
References:
Collins, Patricia Hill. (Perspectives on Gender) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000.
hooks, bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. South End Press, 1989.
Comments