How “Safetyism” is Making Us Fragile
There is a growing fear that interacting with opposing ideas could be harmful. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff explore this in The Coddling of the American Mind, calling it “safetyism”: where safety becomes the sacred value, rather than one concern among many. People increasingly view opposing ideas as violent, equating the simple act of hearing them with violence. Destructive conflict is growing at an alarming rate, and antagonism towards diverse viewpoints is ever increasing. Instead of engaging with ideas as true or false, our current culture is increasingly interpreting them as safe versus dangerous.
This is a growing trend on university campuses, with one site tracking over 90 attempts (some successful) to de-platform speakers over controversial topics this year alone.
This inclination towards safetyism isn’t protecting us—it’s making us more fragile. Instead of developing our skills in the art of dialogue, we are becoming more and more defensive in our interactions with others, and the excessive focus on emotional-wellbeing is undermining our ability to think critically.
As a trained athlete, I have come to appreciate the strength that comes from resistance; continued exposure to advanced weights may fatigue muscles in the short term, but over time it builds the muscles so that the same weight becomes easier to manage. The same can be said for practicing dialogue. The discomfort in interacting with opposing ideas, dialoguing around differences, and exploring various perspectives increases our understanding of others and informs how we think about these topics. Strengthened physical muscles enhance game-time performance, just as developing dialogue skills can enhance our relational and vocational performance. How have we lost sight of the benefits of resistance in developing our resilience?
In this conversation, I hope to bring us back to the middle. On either extreme, we can recognize that some opinions, when acted upon, can have damaging impacts. However, these aren’t the conversations we’re encountering day-to-day that are dividing us. Think about an issue that feels polarizing to you, an issue you feel passionately about. How might you engage in a more constructive way? Instead of “canceling” someone who thinks differently or cutting people out of your life who voted for a party you don’t support, how could you start a dialogue instead?
Engaging with Divergent Ideas
It’s great to find support for the topics you care about, and it can be encouraging to find people who resonate with your perspective. We don’t have to eliminate these voices entirely, as solidarity can build trust and collaboration to accomplish more than we can alone. The limiting factor is when our resonating voices become echo chambers that lead to groupthink, where we suffer from a paralysis in questioning the collective. We think better when we encounter differing views and when people challenge our ideas. These contesting voices can help us wonder, “What am I missing?” or “How might I think about this differently?” The more we invite and receive feedback, the better we become as thinkers, leaders, friends, or colleagues.
Adam Grant, in Think Again, argues that we don’t just need to cultivate the ability to think, but we need to strengthen our ability to rethink — to be presented with opinions that counter or refine our existing thinking and to integrate them into our current mindset. While some may believe that “not having the answer” makes you appear weak, opening yourself to new insights actually increases your competence — revealing possible blind spots or bolstering existing thinking. To apply this to someone else, if you hope someone will change their mind, Grant argues it’s much more effective to have them explore the motivations and reasons behind their thinking. Inquiring with humility and curiosity, and listening more than talking, can encourage people to rethink their assumptions and possibly change their minds. Engaging in constructive dialogue helps us think better, and can foster meaningful connections with others.
Building Resilience
We are doing ourselves, and the upcoming generation, a disservice by coddling them from divergent perspectives. By reducing the opinions they hear, we try to control what they think, rather than teaching them how to think.
When we dictate the thoughts and opinions of young people, we believe we are equipping them for the road ahead, but we are actually making them fragile. Depriving young people of healthy dialogue lowers their threshold for what they consider threatening and, in turn, spikes their defences when confronted with opposing ideas. The more this happens, the more everyday conversations become challenging to navigate, which can disempower Gen Z.
A Life of Discovery
People are fascinating, and each person you encounter sees the world from a different perspective. The temptation to create archetypes out of people with divergent opinions is strong, and algorithms encourage us to view others through a lens of “us vs. them.” The more we resist this urge to villainize others and see opposing ideas as harmful, the more we can build resilience through a posture of curiosity.