Youth work is a broad term that covers different types of activities – social, cultural, educational, and political – and is carried out with, for and by young people. In different geographical areas there are differences in how the sector is considered, the areas it works in and the activities that are carried out. However, it is possible to identify a common element in all the different practices and contexts: that is the educational nature – the learning – that is inherent in all these diverse forms of youth work that aims to empower young people and their participation in democratic life (EU-Council of Europe Youth Partnership). For this reason, the following is a reflection on the need to make these learning contexts inclusive and to make them capable of going beyond what is taken for granted when thinking about inequalities and discrimination.

THE LEARNING PROCESS IS A JOURNEY

The learning process can be understood as an adventure/travel that provides an opportunity for young people to explore new knowledge and make discoveries. The youth workers or facilitators of this learning journey are the guides of the process which is designed to lead the young people to the destination – the achievement of the objective(s). The facilitators also propose the itinerary – the themes of the learning process, and they provide the means of transport – the methods and activities. The duty of the facilitator is to accompany the young people in this foreign place and support them in finding the proper path to follow. The journey should also be interesting enough in order that the participants are not bored and are willing to continue the trip. At the same time, facilitators must ensure that the participants do not have the perception that they are in danger which could cause them to want to return home.

The metaphor of the journey allows us to see the learning process as a progressive departure from one’s comfort zone (home), to moving to the learning zone of “somewhere I do not know but have the opportunity and resources to engage with” (new places). The key for the facilitator is to identify the proper “level of risk” that participants can cope with in order to support them in their learning process.

WHAT IS A SAFE SPACE?

There is a popular idea in youth work, and formal and non-formal learning contexts, that we need to create “safe spaces” for participants so that they can feel comfortable expressing themselves, discussing and learning. A safe space is defined as a place where young people are able to express their views and positions openly, even if these differ from those of their peers and/or youth workers. “Safe space is emphasised as being a main precondition for exploring diversity and the importance of providing opportunities for students to participate in open discussions and dialogues” (Flensner & Von der Lippe 2019 p.277).

The safe space is a starting point that seems, in the majority of cases, to be taken for granted. It is one of those things that is seen to be “easy to set up” by simply appointing some democratic principles and making explicit some basic rules for the learning environment. In other words, the concept of the safe space is far too often “overused and under theorised” (The Roestone Collective 2014).

A space is truly safe, when all the young people who are participating are not afraid of being vulnerable because individual fragilities and vulnerabilities are considered in the group as a gift and a learning resource that is pooled, recognised and valued. Therefore, a space is safe when all those involved are willing to reflect, to question themselves, to struggle, to stand in conflict – not to be right but to investigate reality, and to accept what cannot be understood without considering it worthless (Bell Hooks 2020; Ludlow 2004). Finding a strategy to build a learning environment in youth work that is balanced between something that is comfortable and at the same time acceptably uncomfortable, is a complex task that must take into account the diversity of participants, and the power dynamics that are generated in the group and with the youth worker.

DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND RULES ARE NOT ENOUGH 

It is important not to take for granted that all the people we work with share the same values and principles – with each other and with us. Setting democratic rules for a learning space is a fundamental element, but it is not enough. Rules and principles can be understood and perceived in different ways, by both those participating as well as other youth workers. If these things are tackled in a superficial way they can generate “dangerous” spaces instead of “safe” ones.

For example, democratic principles and rules for a group can include things like discretion, willing/voluntary participation, and freedom to disagree. But what these things mean to me will not be the same as what they mean to you. In a group setting these things can be analysed more deeply in order to better understand them and the consequences of what happens if they are not understood in the same way. Unfortunately this rarely happens in a learning context or in a youth work activity. Time is usually short and what is assumed as part of a common vision is just mentioned.

Questioning the concept of the safe space allows us to unveil some aspects that rules alone cannot guarantee. “Safety” cannot be uniquely defined and must take into account the characteristics of the people entering in the learning space. The concept of “safety” should also take into consideration the diversity of the participants, their identity characteristics, learning patterns, experiences, and backgrounds in general.

To go one step further in the complexity of the process of creating a safe space, the facilitator needs to learn to share the responsibility for making a space suitable for the full freedom of all the young people. The needs of each individual need to be understood when creating a space in order for these individuals to become a group or collective – or as Bell Hooks would say, a learning community (2020).

BUILDING A LEARNING COMMUNITY – EVEN IF TEMPORARY

Ludlow (2004) recommends that when addressing controversial issues, social justice issues or cross-cultural relations (all three can be regular occurrences in youth work practice), it is important to move beyond the “light idea” of democratic functioning and polite rules. It is important to spend time with the young people to build something Ludlow calls a “contested space”.

In a “contested space” participants recognise the need for the learning to be both collaborative and contentious. They need to recognise that intellectual dispute is part of the learning process. The contentious space admits the possibility that different truths can coexist because knowledge is situated in experiential contexts (Haraway in Ludlow 2004). It means that in some cases, we should accept the coexistence of simultaneous truths and unresolved contradiction. Then, the participants need to approach issues with intellectual honesty and argue their position without making them universal or unquestionable. Recognising that knowledge needs to be contextualised in one’s own experience which in turn is related to the position one occupies in society. We need to be ready to interrogate the system of power and privilege we belong to or are affected by, so as to understand intersectional identities (different positions) and so deconstruct lines of discrimination.

NO SPACE IS FREE FROM DOMINATION DYNAMICS 

If we follow the Ludlow proposal, it is necessary to consider the power and the privilege relations that enter the youth work and the learning space, and are not to be considered as separate from the cultural context. As youth workers, it is important to be aware about how we and the young people can reproduce unequal dynamics in the learning space. If we do not unveil the diversity and differences present in the learning space, we contribute more to the feeling of safety of the people of privilege than with those who identify as part of a vulnerable group (Ludlow 2004). These aspects relate to the diversity that each person represents in terms of their identity, background and experiences – in life as well as in other educational experiences. Stereotypes, prejudices and behaviours replicate forms of social hierarchy and discrimination and can also be present in the educational space. These should be openly addressed.

There is a dilemma that emerges: from one side, we need to uncover the power relations, especially that which is coming from the stereotypical hierarchy of society’s culture. We do this in order to raise awareness about the privilege of some and the risk that they could be unfair or offensive in their opinions. From the other side, by following this concept, we risk putting individuals from vulnerable groups in the spotlight and therefore in a more uncomfortable position.

MORE THAN SAFE SPACE

Beside the Ludlow “contested space” conceptualisation, several other proposals suggest substituting the concept of “safety”. Alternative options that have been developed in the last decade include the “brave space” (Arao and Clemens 2013) and the “community of disagreement” (Iversen 2018). These proposals stress the importance of including in the learning space, the need and the possibility of conflict and the need for arguing from sometimes very different perspectives and experiences. The space becomes safe or brave or a community, when effort is made to argue one’s views and be able to separate the intellectual level from the personal, and to be able to accept that there may be more than one truth and thus give up the need for “being right”.

It is worth making time to address these dilemmas for building safe spaces because it allows us to 1) promote participants’ awareness of the fact that all people have forms of privilege and vulnerability; and 2) the experience of vulnerability can empower people and enable them to shift their perspective about how society constructs lines of discrimination and power.

Concluding with the travel metaphor, building a more in-depth and shared approach to individual and group “safety” means allowing participants to build a more conscious itinerary, moving from being simply tourists to adventure travellers, who are along with the youth worker are responsible for their itinerary. The young people have the opportunity to understand the importance of creating exchange and of supporting those in need at different times of the journey. In this way, the group (the community) are able to enjoy the beauty of a natural landscape or a city, and at the same time to pass through polluted or neglected areas, to notice architectural barriers, and realise the limits and obstacles some people face.