Strona

Chayn built a cultural map of what “intimate” means across the world. This initiative illustrates how we can develop practices and knowledge from lived experiences. The project began with the recognition that commonly used terms such as “image-based sexual abuse” do not always reflect survivors’ lived realities, because what counts as “intimate” or “harmful” varies across cultures and contexts. Instead of imposing fixed definitions. So they invited survivors and communities to collaboratively define what “intimate” means in their own lives and to identify which forms of harm matter most to them. In doing so, the research was built with participants, not for them, embedding lived experience into the very framing of the issue and its possible responses.

This approach demonstrates why care, safety, and non-retaliation are essential in Safe(r) Spaces. If organisers impose definitions, norms, or participation criteria without attending to local meanings and power dynamics, they risk reproducing exclusion and misrecognition. In your work, this could translate into practical commitments such as:

• Co-defining terminology and norms with participants, rather than assuming a universal framework. Just as Chayn reconceptualises “intimacy” to bring forward previously invisible harms, participatory spaces should invite participants to define core concepts in ways that reflect their contexts. This can include co-creating a glossary through Decidim’s proposals, publishing and iterating definitions publicly, making the process of sense-making transparent and adaptive rather than fixed early on. 

• Designing research or participation criteria collaboratively, asking participants what harms, risks, or opportunities matter most to them and why. This ensures that decisions about what counts as “safe,” “harmful,” or “meaningful engagement” are grounded in community sense-making.

Importantly, definitions and agreements should not be fixed at the outset. Just as Chayn publicly iterates its evolving understandings with community input, participatory spaces can publish and revisit norms, allowing them to adapt over time. In this sense, Safe(r) participation is not only about procedures or platforms; it is about co-reflective and co-creative governance that treats community knowledge as foundational, not auxiliary.