October 30th, 2024
(last modified on November 1st, 2024)

Safety, and openness to challenge

Recently, I read a fascinating article in Politico Magazine titled The ‘Safe Space’ Where America's History is Debated in Real Time. (Hat tip to Read in Case of Emergency.)

I recommend reading the whole thing (it's available without any paywall), but if you haven't the time or inclination, the part that jumped out to me was this:

There was another, pyramid-shaped factor at play in the weaver’s shop: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. With the theory displayed on the projector behind them, Treese and Ryalls explained to the interpreters that they must satisfy basic guest requirements before they can move on to higher-level ones. Only once guests have their basic physiological and safety needs met (escaping cold rain) can they take advantage of the museum to meet their higher-level needs (economic realpolitik).

Interpreters can meet the next level of need, social safety, by making guests feel like they belong at the museum. A guest who feels unwelcome or out of place will be too busy protecting their ego to learn anything. Creating these feelings of belonging, Treese says, means “accepting your audience where they are, who they are, what their world and life experience is.”

This concept sounds a lot like something culture warriors would call a “safe space,” often portrayed as an infantilizing bubble that protects the people inside from facts they might find triggering or upsetting. Colonial Williamsburg’s model rejects the dichotomy. First you establish the safe space, then you teach the facts. Only when people feel secure will they feel ready to grapple with realities that might upset them.

Eventually, if everything goes according to plan, guests at Colonial Williamsburg can fulfill the highest need in Maslow’s hierarchy: self-actualization. “It’s the a-ha moment,” Treese says. “Everybody’s seen it when it works, when something clicks and you’re like: ‘They’ve got it.’”

I found this very timely, in part because of the recent brouhaha regarding The Washington Post's decision not to endorse for President and the owner Jeff Bezos' subsequent defense of the decision (both of those are gift links - we remain subscribed).

I don't intend to come down on one side or another of the endorsement decision (Isaac Saul, of Tangle, does a good job as he almost always does of stating the complex realities clearly). But I did find myself nodding along, as Saul did, with the key insight Bezos shared:

We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate.

The guides in Williamsburg are trying to crack this nut as well. As one says, even as he tries to help the visitors understand the truth (for instance, about widespread slaveholding among the founding fathers), he actively tries to avoid making them feel their self-worth is under attack.

We often hear of people who say, "I was only speaking my truth", and this can be deservedly critiqued as a self-indulgent dodge of responsibility for understanding reality. Truth itself cannot be subjective. However, the irony of trying to engage in effective communication is that it is equally self-indulgent to speak truth without respect for the hearer. To communicate effectively, we'll have to hear out the beliefs of others - even the wrong or destructive ideas - in order to understand which of those beliefs make up a part of the other party's sense of self. The golden rule demands it - I expect others to respect my deeply-held beliefs, even though respect doesn't mean agreement.

Publishing a newspaper is significantly different than facilitating a face-to-face encounter, of course. It's more impersonal, as a general rule. But when I hear Bezos call for newspapers that are "credible, trusted [and] independent", I understand that as a way of saying that journalists (and even bloggers, like me) must take on more of the same challenge of self-effacement that the Williamsburg guides learned. We must start, even in writing, by listening. We've got to learn what our readers believe and think, engaging with them as people.

If we don't, any witness to facts or analysis of rational conclusions from those facts will be unheard, or worse, lead our readers to reject those very truths we carried due to our imperfect witness to them.

Sincerely,
David Smedberg