Definition of an Open Space

In the past few weeks a lot of Facebook groups that I am part of are discussing topics that are – at best – controversial and often become hurtful, vengeful, and obnoxious in not just what they discuss but the arguments that are spun off them.

Caste system in India, and the current political situation with an openly right wing  fundamentalist party at the helm of affairs are two such discussions that easily become caustic and often define and redefine friendships and social boundaries.

The discussion apart, there are questions that linger in such circles about openness of the groups.

• What members are allowed in spaces where membership is of essence?
• What are the rights of these members?
• At which point do the liberty of the members end?
• Who control and define these rules?

Perhaps not very different from the ‘rules’ of belonging to a country, except in that case one becomes a member/citizen by birth. When these ‘rules’ are violated; in many cases the individual would cease to be a citizen equal to another – by virtue of being imprisoned or otherwise as defined by the law.

Let me go further with an example. Must a member of a group that advocates equal rights be allowed to have pro-caste stand? It is common sense to understand that such a stand stinks of hypocrisy. What then is the status of this individual’s membership in a group that advocates equal rights as one of its core principles? There are many reasons why such members fail to see any pain in the society beyond the one that hurts them the most. While the individual’s stand on caste system may be erroneous, their stand on transgender rights may be virtuous and perhaps they add value to other discussions in that area.

Another convoluted benefit could be bringing the ‘devil’s advocate’ perspective into the discussion – Adding flavour to it, inspiring detailed discussions, and viewpoints.

But looking at this situation from a ‘benefits’ perspective is highly opportunistic and unethical. This is equal to pardon a criminal because they contribute to the economy – something the governments of our nation have managed to do consistently.

In my opinion, when one person violates the core values that an arrangement is based on, there should be just one point to consider – do they get another chance? Having them around and letting them continue with the vile behaviour because they bring fringe benefits is ludicrous.

Any group of individuals evolve together and create the common strands of understanding between them. Things that bind them together, things that separate them from others. In the process of this evolution, points of disagreement emerge and give the group a chance to refine their thought process and give each individual in the group a chance to refine their understanding of the world. The sane voice of the collective wisdom leads and develops the hidden qualities of individuals that might have been suppressed due to circumstances and the general evil that exists in the world at large. At times, there are no way to change what a person deep-down is. These traits define the person and though behavioural change may be brought about by good guidance, there is such a thing called permanent damage to reason. And even if a change in the person is possible, it cannot be wished for while tolerating the callous attitude that does the collective sensibilities a severe damage.

There is room for questions, discussions, and even arguments in any group. But when such thoughts go against the common ethical principles on which the group’s foundation rests; they need to be checked, their source needs to be given counseling and if required severed to protect the group.

An open space is open not just in inclusion. An open space needs to first define what it represents and then be open in accepting all who align themselves to those ideas. Even a forest has order in all the chaos that the trees superficially represent.