When Safe Spaces Become Silencing Spaces
- Brainz Magazine
- 10 hours ago
- 6 min read
Written by Gilles Varette, Business Coach
30 years of experience in Leadership: NCO in a paratrooper regiment in his native France, leading a global virtual team for a Nasdaq-listed company, Board stewardship, Coaching, and Mentoring. Gilles, an EMCC-accredited coach, holds a Master’s in Business Practice and diplomas in Personal Development and Executive Coaching, as well as Mental Health and Well-being.
This article explores the unintended consequences of overprotective environments that sometimes silence disagreement instead of fostering true inclusion. It is a call to reclaim the original purpose of safe spaces, not as zones of insulation, but as arenas for dialogue, emotional maturity, and courageous growth. At a time when our collective resilience is waning and digital echo chambers replace human engagement, we must restore the value of discomfort, emotional agility, and intellectual challenge if we are to create spaces that truly empower.
Introduction: The paradox of safety
We were told that safe spaces would help us grow. They were meant to offer refuge, a break from hostility, prejudice, or trauma. And for many, they did just that. But somewhere along the way, safety stopped being about healing and started being about control.
Like handing out sedatives to a society in crisis, we are numbing discomfort when what’s desperately needed is deep, honest, and often painful conversation. We soothe the symptoms, awkwardness, disagreement, emotional tension, without confronting the root causes (2025):
Fear of the other. Fragile identities. Unresolved historical wounds.
Discomfort is not the enemy. It is often the doorway to transformation. When we medicate every moment of friction with overprotection, we sacrifice resilience, growth, and the possibility of true connection.
This reflects a broader cultural shift: growing emotional fragility and a decreasing ability to tolerate ambiguity. The rise of curated social media lives and algorithmic certainty has reduced the depth of human engagement. Instead of dialogue, we retreat into judgment.
Instead of seeking understanding, we seek affirmation.
Amid this, emotional agility (David, 2017), the ability to navigate discomfort with curiosity and awareness, has never been more crucial. And yet, we often mistake emotional protection for emotional development.
This article is not an attack on safe spaces. It is a call to reclaim their original purpose: to hold both care and challenge, both respect and truth. Because if safety means avoiding discomfort, we risk losing the very conditions required for empathy, transformation, and meaningful social change.
The origins: Safe spaces as sanctuaries
Safe spaces emerged from justice movements led by women, LGBTQ+ communities, and people of colour. Their intention was vital: to create environments where people could speak and exist without fear of judgment, violence, or traumatization.
These spaces were designed for healing and empowerment, particularly for those navigating institutions where their identity was ignored or attacked. They offered psychological safety and helped marginalized voices find community and confidence.
But healing is a phase, not a destination. When safety becomes permanent insulation, spaces risk turning inward (Haidt, 2021). What began as sanctuaries can morph into silos, where discomfort is mistaken for danger, and difference becomes a threat.
From protection to avoidance
Somewhere along the way, safety became synonymous with the absence of challenge. Disagreement was rebranded as aggression. Emotional discomfort, a necessary part of learning, was treated as harm.
This shift creates environments where people are excluded simply because their presence or perspective is considered "unsafe." But how? Are we talking about real danger, or the discomfort of encountering a different worldview?
True maturity demands we sit with discomfort, not avoid it. Growth comes not from insulation but from engagement. Avoidance may protect wounds, but it does not heal them.
When inclusion silences dissent
When only certain perspectives are welcome, safe spaces risk becoming spaces of ideological purity. Debate disappears, curiosity withers, and growth stagnates.
This is particularly dangerous in learning environments, schools, universities, and workplaces. Without dissent, ideas go unchallenged. Intellectual safety, the freedom to think and speak without fear of ideological punishment, is as vital as psychological safety. As Lars Laird Iversen (2018) notes, the well-intentioned pursuit of safety can backfire when it suppresses conflict rather than equips learners to navigate it.
Classrooms and organizations flourish not by eliminating disagreement, but by learning to hold it well.
Exclusion doesn’t only affect outsiders; it often targets those within marginalized groups who don’t conform to prevailing narratives. Diversity of thought is sacrificed for performative unity. Are we truly protecting others, or shielding ourselves from being challenged?
The cultural roots of overprotective
The silencing of dialogue is not isolated. It reflects four larger cultural shifts:
Decline in resilience: While attention to mental health is valuable, overprotection can stunt the development of psychological strength. Shielding from discomfort leaves people unprepared for real-world adversity.
Low resilience increases susceptibility to stress, leading to long-term health consequences (Perry, 2022).
Loss of purpose: As traditional anchors like faith or community weaken, people often turn to identity for meaning. But identity without purpose invites fragility; it breeds defensiveness instead of openness.
As Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl observed (2015), “Those who have a ‘why’ to live can bear almost any ‘how’.” Without a deeper sense of meaning, people are more vulnerable to emotional instability, ideological rigidity, and a fear of challenge, conditions that turn dialogue into a threat and disagreement into danger.
Digital hyperconnectivity: Algorithms reward outrage and certainty, not nuance. Online interactions lack the tone and empathy of face-to-face conversation, reducing emotional depth and increasing reactivity.
Social media algorithms amplify extremism by promoting content that elicits strong emotional responses, such as fear and anger (Awasthi, 2025).
Performative activism: Moral signalling can replace authentic dialogue. The fear of being "called out" discourages curiosity. Learning is replaced by defensiveness. Courage gives way to conformity.
Performative activism is often done to increase one's social capital rather than out of genuine commitment to a cause (Lartaud, 2021).
Together, these shifts help explain why discomfort is now seen as intolerable and why safe spaces sometimes evolve into echo chambers.
When the silenced become the silencers
There is a deeper discomfort: sometimes, the oppressed adopt the tools of the oppressor, not to liberate, but to retaliate.
This is not justice. It is vengeance disguised as virtue.
We now see instances where moral authority is used to shame, cancel, or silence. The language of trauma is sometimes deployed not to heal, but to control.
This cycle mirrors the very systems these groups once fought: hurt people hurting others under the banner of progress. When moral power becomes a weapon, the line between justice and tyranny blurs.
We must resist this spiral, not by minimizing harm, but by refusing to endorse new hierarchies of exclusion.
Brave spaces: Toward growth and dialogue
What we need is not just safe spaces, but brave spaces (Trowell, 2024).
Places where discomfort is not feared but embraced.Where disagreement is not silenced but explored.Where emotional responsibility is nurtured alongside protection.
Brave spaces honour both care and challenge. They assume adults can handle disagreement. They teach that growth requires being stretched, not just soothed.
This is not a call to tolerate hate or abuse. It is a call to distinguish between discomfort and harm, between challenge and threat.
Such spaces allow vulnerability without weaponization, and dialogue without domination. They are not easy. But they are necessary.
Conclusion: Choosing growth over comfort
If our spaces offer only comfort, they will never ignite change. As Susan David reminds us, discomfort is the price of admission to a meaningful life.
If our dialogues are only agreeable, they will never be deep. And if our communities exclude in the name of inclusion, they risk becoming mirrors of the very systems they aim to replace.
Safe spaces were born out of necessity, to protect, to affirm, to heal. That mission endures. But healing is not hiding, and comfort is not the same as truth.
Let us build brave spaces where discomfort is not feared but welcomed as a teacher, where people of every kind can show up fully, listen deeply, speak honestly, and grow together.
Not because it’s easy, but because it’s the only way real change begins.
Gilles Varette, Business Coach
30 years of experience in Leadership: NCO in a paratrooper regiment in his native France, leading a global virtual team for a Nasdaq-listed company, Board stewardship, Coaching, and Mentoring. Gilles, an EMCC-accredited coach, holds a Master’s in Business Practice and diplomas in Personal Development and Executive Coaching, as well as Mental Health and Well-being. He strongly believes that cultivating a Growth Mindset is the key to Personal Development and a natural safeguard against the expertise trap. He lives by this quote from Epictetus: “It is not what happens to you that matters, but how you react; when something happens, the only thing in your power is your attitude toward it.”
References:
Awasthi, S. (2025). From Clicks to Chaos: How Social Media Algorithms Amplify Extremism. Observer Research Foundation.
David, S.A. (2017). Emotional Agility: Get Unstuck, Embrace Change, and Thrive in Work and Life. Great Britain: Penguin Life.
Frankl, V.E. (2015). Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
Haidt, J. (2021). The Coddling of the American Mind. Shelf Reflection. [Accessed 14 May 2025].
Iversen, L.L. (2018). From Safe Spaces to Communities of Disagreement. British Journal of Religious Education, 41(3), pp.315–326.
Lartaud, D. (2021). Can Performative Activism Actually Make a Difference?. KQED.org. [Accessed 14 May 2025].
Perry, E. (2022). Hardship and the Mind-Body Connection: The Effects of Low Resilience. BetterUp.com. [Accessed 14 May 2025].
Psychology Today. (2025). Overprescribing Drugs to Treat Mental Health Problems. Psychology Today. [Accessed 11 May 2025].
Trowell, M. (2024). The Importance of Safe, Brave and Facilitated Spaces in Student-Staff Partnerships – Finding a Space for Compassion. Pastoral Care in Education (Print), pp.1–22.
