(The 2nd of a Series)
In my last blog entry, I challenged the thinking behind a “safe space”. In short, having a “safe space” means I’m relying on other people in order to feel safe. Once I abdicate the most basic of human rights, the right of self-protection, to another person, group or environment I no longer have complete control over my own life.
As a teacher, this abdication flies in the face of my most important lesson: self-control. I tell my students, “If you cannot control yourself, then you will not be able to learn how to defend yourself.”
What is self-protection if not the ability to control yourself in order to stop someone else from controlling you? What is a bully or a criminal other than a person trying to force another to comply with their wishes?
If I allow society to provide me with a “safe space” emotionally, physically, or mentally then by default I am allowing everything outside of that space to be considered “unsafe”. Essentially, when I allow for safe spaces, I agree to everything else being chaos.
What’s more, isn’t it naive to believe that four walls and a plaque on the door can protect us from other human beings? Or, even from ourselves? Labeling an area as a “safe space” lulls its visitors into a false sense of security, too. As a teacher and a human being, I don’t want my students or fellow human beings falling into this mentality.
It seems that so much about today’s world is about mentality. In our modern-day society, thoughts and emotions are the reigning kings of all that is seen as sacred and successful. Why is the body given such low-class treatment?
As Socrates said:
“No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”
It’s important to remember that a beautiful mind is only as safe as the body attached to it. In order to traverse “safe” and “unsafe” spaces equally, we must ensure that our bodies are exercised in the art of self-protection. This does not mean the genius must resolve his disputes with fisticuffs, nor the “fighter” reduce his exam paper to confetti. Rather, both archetypes must have the ability, grit and courage to know when and how to lay down boundaries of word, deed and action. Without these abilities a person no longer owns himself but will be usurped by the tyrant of inaction.