For Participants:
Assume camaraderie, not attack. Sometimes, more impassioned parts of conversation can lead us to feel we are being put on the defensive, but, in principled discussion, this should not be the case. It is not you versus your conversation partners; it is critical to remember that you are trying to deepen your communal understanding. You can’t “win” a discussion.
Assume your comrades in conversation carry trauma and difficult experiences with them. Statistically, this is a safe bet to make. An oft-cited 2015 study carried out by the World Mental Health Survey Consortium across 24 countries found an over 70% rate of traumatic event occurrence in adults, with nearly 30.5% of participants exposed to more than four traumatic events.1 This does not account for protracted traumatic situations or the violence of living as an oppressed person under capitalism. Life is difficult for all of us in different ways and to different degrees; it is best to be mindful and sensitive rather than overly frank or matter-of-fact when discussing difficult topics.
Check-in before going too deep on difficult matters. It is a good idea to ask “is it okay if I talk about…” rather than risk triggering or activating group participants, especially if you intend on discussing something activating in graphic or frank detail. It also needs to be okay with you if the answer from your discussion partners is “no.” Consent is critical in all interpersonal relationships and we need to work together to create environments where everyone feels comfortable contributing.
It is generally better to summarize or paraphrase harmful and violent viewpoints rather than to quote or “parrot” them directly, even if your intention is to disprove them. Quoting right-wing thinkers still exposes your comrades to violent and possibly triggering rhetoric, even if you are making fun of it or tearing it down. This is unnecessary and can be avoided (or at least lessened) by generally summarizing conversations or ideas.
Be open-minded to criticism. If a group member expresses discomfort, calls you in on a point, or critiques an idea or point you’ve made, take it as a call to reflect and grow. Though it can be difficult to internalize, criticism is not a personal attack, nor is it an invitation to become aggressive or defensive.
Take breaks if needed. Your mental health and well-being are more important than continuous participation in the conversation. You are not weak or a bad comrade for needing to take a break from an uncomfortable or intense discussion.
Share the mic. If any one person speaks for too long, power imbalances can start to take shape within a group. If you have not spoken much during a discussion and want to share, do so if you are able. If you have been doing a lot of speaking, give others a turn in order to facilitate healthy group dynamics. No one person needs to speak on every piece of a discussion.
Don’t play “devil’s advocate” to prove a point. If your argument is strong enough to share, it is strong enough to stand on its own without introducing a potentially harmful invisible critic.
For Facilitators:
Address the possible sensitive nature of the discussion upfront when tackling difficult topics. This helps keep the discussion space courteous and discourages overly callous or matter-of-fact conversation.
Return to the original intention of the question if the conversation gets too heated or too uncomfortable. This will aid participants in remembering their intentions for the discussion space and anchor them in the space’s purpose if they begin to drift from discomfort or anxiety.
Consider establishing a word or phrase that halts discussion on the present topic entirely. If the conversation is going to be especially difficult, consider establishing a “safe word” like “halt” that will trigger a break in the conversation, no questions asked. Being able to claim this power in potentially harmful or triggering situations can make a huge difference in comfort and safety to participants living with trauma.
Encourage and de-stigmatize taking breaks. Remind participants of the critical importance of their mental health and reassure them that taking breaks does not mean they are less valued or less powerful in the discussion space. Creating intentional break time framed by a facilitator acknowledging that they need a break can also help break down this potential stigma. It also does not necessarily indicate conflict or wrongdoing on the part of other discussion participants; sometimes the group just needs a break!
Diffuse moments of high tension by acknowledging them. Saying something along the lines of “this conversation feels tense, let’s step back for a moment” can improve the health of the discussion space by acknowledging what some participants may not feel brave enough to say aloud themselves.
Create an environment where it is safe to speak up if a participant feels uncomfortable. Regularly asking something like “how are we all feeling about this conversation” or otherwise soliciting feedback and/or commentary can go a long way towards this point. Let participants know that you can provide them with resources or further support where applicable.
Shut down overly inflammatory remarks. This may seem obvious, but sometimes a speaker can get carried away and it can be difficult to interrupt them. Doing so, especially if you notice other participants reacting adversely, is one of the most critical responsibilities of a facilitator.
Try not to let any one participant monopolize the conversation. This can also be difficult, but phrases such as “I’d love to hear from folks who haven’t answered questions as much yet” can go a long way in maintaining the health of the discussion space.
Be open-minded to criticism. Just as you would as a participant, take any critiques of your facilitation style or skills as a reminder that we all have room to grow as facilitators, comrades, and human beings. Try to listen carefully to criticism and not be too hard on yourself when it arises.
1 Benjet, C., et al. “The Epidemiology of Traumatic Event Exposure Worldwide: Results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium.” Psychological Medicine, vol. 46, no. 2, 2016, pp. 327–343., doi:10.1017/S0033291715001981.
