Creating a safe space: meaning and challenges.

The idea of a safe space originated in contexts of political and social activism, where marginalized people needed protected environments to organize, share experiences, and strengthen their identities.

In the context of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, safe spaces began to take shape as sheltered places for those excluded from the dominant norm.

This concept was born out of the need to create refuges where people could freely express themselves without fear of retaliation, violence, or external judgment. The feminist movement, in particular, fought for emancipation, equal rights, and the freedom of self-determination, seeking spaces where women could speak openly about their experiences and struggles—often silenced by the dominant patriarchy.

Consciousness-raising groups and shelters for women who were victims of domestic violence are key examples of how safe spaces were created to provide support and protection. The former—meeting places where women gathered to share stories and experiences—offered the emotional and collective strength needed to resist social, cultural, and political oppression. The latter—women’s shelters—provided physical refuge for those who were vulnerable and isolated, but also became centers of solidarity and resistance, where the first battles for women’s rights began to take shape.

In the LGBTQ+ context, the need for safe spaces arose from the brutality of discrimination and the criminalization of queer people. With the first liberation demonstrations and the civil rights movement, the LGBTQ+ community began to create refuges where individuals could be themselves without the risk of violence or social and familial rejection.

In the 1970s, gay bars and community centers became protected places—away from external scrutiny and aggression—but also spaces of political struggle and solidarity. A symbolic example was the Stonewall uprising in 1969, a turning point in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. At the same time, organizations such as the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance established support centers and educational spaces, offering assistance to young people who were often rejected by their families.

Even before safe spaces as we know them today came into being, the concept of the transitional space proposed by Donald Winnicott provided a psychological foundation for understanding the importance of protected environments for emotional growth and well-being. Winnicott described this “intermediate place” as one that allows a child to experience separation from the mother in a safe way.

This kind of emotional protection—essential for psychological development—finds a parallel in the safe spaces created by the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Just as Winnicott emphasized the need for a secure environment to support a child’s emotional development, women and queer people sought spaces that could sustain their growth without fear of rejection or violence. In both cases, the safe space becomes a vital resource for emotional safety and growth, allowing individuals to explore who they are without the weight of external discrimination.

This concept also intertwines deeply with Paulo Freire’s pedagogy—particularly his ideas on dialogue, self-determination, and the creation of an environment that fosters learning and growth. The Brazilian educator developed an approach that opposed traditional education, which he saw as oppressive.

In his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire emphasizes the importance of a learning environment that allows students to become active participants in their own educational process, through a respectful and non-hierarchical dialogue. This dialogue takes place in a space where people can express themselves freely, challenge preconceived ideas, and build knowledge together—without fear of judgment or repression.

The safe space, therefore, is not only physical but also psychological: it nurtures self-determination and critical consciousness.

Even in much earlier times, the concept of safe spaces existed—though in different forms—within spiritual and monastic communities. These places, far removed from the pressures and hardships of the outside world, offered protected refuges where people could devote themselves to inner growth and reflection, free from judgment and conflict.

This idea also resonates in modern community policies aimed at creating inclusive and protective environments for vulnerable individuals. Contemporary approaches seek to ensure that every person, regardless of identity, can feel respected and supported—promoting both physical and psychological spaces where discrimination is actively challenged.

The goal is to build communities grounded in solidarity, emotional safety, and inclusion as the basis for participation and self-determination. From physical and communal settings, this concept has expanded to broader contexts such as schools, universities, and workplaces, where people increasingly demand environments free from microaggressions, bullying, discrimination, and psychological violence.

In this sense, the safe space is not merely a refuge—it is also a statement of resistance against social and cultural injustice.

Safe space and yoga.

Non-violence and liberation.

The Yamas and Niyamas are the first two steps of the eight described in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, offering an ethical framework for living in harmony with oneself and with others. These principles are essential in creating a space that is free from harm—both for practitioners and for teachers.

Yamas (guidelines for our conduct toward others):

Ahimsa (non-violence): The most direct principle that fosters a safe environment. It means not only refraining from physical violence, but also from verbal and mental harm—creating a place where no one feels questioned or judged.

Satya (truth): Encourages honesty, which is fundamental for building trust. In a safe environment, everyone can express their needs and challenges without fear of being ignored or diminished.

Asteya (non-stealing): Refers to respect for others—not only in a material sense, but also in respecting others’ time and experiences. A teacher practicing Asteya does not take ownership of others’ progress or emotions and instead offers space for individuality.

Niyamas (self-discipline and personal observances)

Santosha (contentment): Promotes acceptance of where one is along their path. In a safe space, each practitioner can find satisfaction in their own progress without the need for comparison

Svadhyaya (self-reflection): An invitation to self-awareness. Yogic philosophy teaches that healthy self-reflection is essential for a deep and self-directed yoga practice, allowing each person to recognize and work through their own emotions and reactions.

In the context of yoga, the concept of a safe space is not just an abstract ideal but a concrete necessity to foster a healthy and inclusive practice. Creating a safe space means ensuring that every individual, regardless of their characteristics or experiences, can practice in an environment that promotes respect, protection, and trust. In this way, yoga becomes a tool for growth and healing, where people can explore themselves without fear of judgment or mistreatment. Moreover, it is not only the result of mindful and attentive teaching but also of the community that forms within each class. Every participant plays a role in ensuring that the environment remains respectful and welcoming, where mutual support is fundamental to a shared practice. Thus, collective energy becomes a means of empowerment, where vulnerability is not seen as weakness but as a strength that unites and sustains.

To address the differences between the common perception and a more critical view of safe space in yoga, we can explore two contrasting approaches: the one often seen in mainstream representations and the one that emerges from deeper reflection. A common view might see the safe space as a place free of conflict, where everything is welcoming and harmonious. In this scenario, yoga is seen as a refuge where everyone is accepted without distinction, and power or abuse dynamics are ignored, assuming that a practice environment is “by nature” safe for everyone. The critical view, however, highlights that safety is never automatically guaranteed. Even an apparently welcoming environment can hide power dynamics, discrimination, or other forms of oppression. This perspective stresses the need for concrete measures to protect all participants and a continuous commitment to creating an inclusive space. For instance, it may require ongoing evaluation of existing practices and policies to ensure that emotional and psychological safety is preserved—for the protection of teachers, their collaborators, and students alike.

Unfortunately, common perceptions tend to oversimplify the concept of a safe space, while a critical approach calls for active review and implementation of policies that ensure real, tangible safety. This approach does not take for granted that an environment is safe for everyone but questions the structures and dynamics that may hinder true inclusivity.

Awareness of one’s own power as a teacher:

The yoga teacher holds a position of power, as they guide the practice and establish group dynamics. However, it is essential that the teacher is aware of this position and the privileges it entails. This power can have a profound impact on how people perceive themselves and others, creating an imbalance between teacher and student. Being aware of this power means being cautious with words and behavior. It is also important to avoid reinforcing the idea that the teacher is “superior” or “all-knowing,” as this can create an atmosphere of reverence and distance that undermines the trust and vulnerability needed for personal growth.

Creating open and inclusive dialogue:

A yoga teacher should foster an environment where participants feel comfortable expressing doubts, questions, or concerns. In more formal or authoritarian settings, students may feel inadequate or unable to communicate freely. The teacher should always be willing to listen, show empathy, and respond respectfully and non-defensively. This kind of interaction helps break down power barriers and builds trust. Open communication also allows for the resolution of issues before they escalate.

Clear boundaries and respect for limitations:

Creating a safe space implies respecting both physical and psychological boundaries. The teacher must establish and enforce clear rules about behavior during classes, especially regarding physical integrity and respect for others’ limits. Awareness of one’s body, the importance of saying “no,” and respect for others’ boundaries are crucial. Furthermore, the language used to motivate or correct students should be respectful and non-coercive, avoiding any form of emotional manipulation.

Responding to reports with care and seriousness:

If a participant raises a concern about behavior, the teacher must take it very seriously. Ignoring or minimizing concerns can create a toxic and distrustful environment. It is crucial to have a clear protocol for handling such reports, including the option of involving an external figure (such as a mediator) to resolve the issue impartially. Moreover, being willing to acknowledge mistakes and step back when necessary demonstrates humility and commitment to creating a safer, more inclusive space.

Preventing abuse of power in personal relationships:

Power dynamics can be particularly delicate when a teacher forms a bond of trust with one or more students. Teachers must not exploit their role to manipulate emotionally or form inappropriate relationships. They should maintain professional boundaries, avoiding overly intimate connections with students, especially outside the practice context. Transparency and ongoing education are essential to maintain clear boundaries.

Continuous training and self-reflection:

A key aspect of managing power dynamics is the teacher’s commitment to personal and professional growth. Constant self-reflection helps recognize biases, privileges, and areas where one can improve relational dynamics. Participating in trainings on trauma-informed yoga, inclusivity, conflict management, and safe space creation can enrich teaching practice and help prevent unintentional harm to students or the community.

Collective responsibility within the community:

Finally, managing power dynamics should not fall solely on the teacher—it is also a shared responsibility among all members of the yoga community. Teachers and practitioners alike should feel part of a system committed to maintaining a safe, protected, and inclusive space. This means everyone must actively recognize inappropriate behavior and support the creation of a respectful environment—even among peers.