Why We Need Affinity Spaces

What I read: The Power Of Affinity Spaces by Aparna Rajagopal-Durbin. Published August 19, 2020.

As someone who has engaged in quite a bit of community building over the past decades, the discussions taking place about fully inclusive versus affinity spaces is one that’s been going on for a while and periodically heats up again, especially online. It’s an important discussion.

Many of these discussions are related to a category of social and economic activism and organization commonly termed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) which Wikipedia describes like this.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is a conceptual framework that claims to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been under-represented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.

"Diversity" describes a wide variety of differences that may exist amongst people in any community, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual identity, disability, neurodiversity, and others. "Equity" is the practice of providing fair opportunities via personalized approaches based on individual needs, thus aiming to "level the playing field" by taking into account the different starting points of different individuals. Therefore, "equity" aims to achieve fairness by considering each individual's trajectory and context, and should not be confused with the notion of "equality" which aims to treat everyone the same. "Inclusion" specifies the desired outcome, namely, ensuring that individuals find opportunities and spaces to participate, regardless of their differences.

While DEI efforts often focus on the workplace, the concepts and applications are important across the cultural spectrum and are increasingly applied to all sorts of groups, events, brick-and-mortar spaces, and so on.

Related to DEI, in part because many see it as a counterbalance to inclusion, is the concept of affinity spaces. Wikipedia describes an affinity space like this.

An affinity space is a place where learning happens. According to James Paul Gee, affinity spaces are locations where groups of people are drawn together because of a shared, strong interest or engagement in a common activity. Often but not always occurring online, affinity spaces encourage the sharing of knowledge or participation in a specific area, and informal learning is a common outcome. In his coining of the term, Gee takes the notion of participatory cultures, and reframes it to the idea of "space". To Gee, what is happening in these online cultures is not merely a "culture" – and far different from a "community". In Gee's view, the word "community" conjures up images of belongingness and membership (p. 70). Instead, he has defined these worlds as "spaces" – a term that allows for the "robust characterization of the ebbs and flows and differing levels of involvement and participation exhibited by members."

According to Gee (2004), "An affinity space is a place or set of places where people affiliate with others based primarily on shared activities, interests, and goals, not shared race, class culture, ethnicity, or gender."

While affinity spaces were initially conceived as learning environments, now, much like DEI, the concept also crosses the cultural spectrum and applies to a variety of online and physical spaces.

DEI and affinity spaces sound great, right? A clash however sometimes emerges when a group wants affinity space and countering voices believe they should not be allowed that affinity space.

Topics like this tend to experience a lot of churn, especially online, because coming to a readily accepted agreement about balance between concepts like this is a messy business. Change within communities and cultures isn’t linear and is typically replete with instances of turmoil and argument. That’s just how it goes. Anyone who’s worked within a community for more than a hot minute has seen these types of discussions play out. It comes with the territory.

When I stumbled on Aparna Rajagopal-Durbin’s article, I had just read an online discussion in which someone who was hosting an event for gay men was told in the comments that it was wrong to do that. I won’t go into the details and I mostly stayed out of the discussion because I wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind in that thread. But I’m going to speak to it here and generalize why I feel we need a healthy balance between being diligent with intentional inclusion while also fostering affinity spaces.

Rajagopal-Durbin makes the case for affinity spaces quite nicely in a single sentence.

Affinity spaces have served as vital crucibles for communities with marginalized identities to heal, celebrate, collaborate, and mobilize.

The article then identifies the ingredients of the “magic sauce” that make affinity spaces beneficial for those who seek them out. I’ll let you read the article for full explanations, but the ingredients listed are:

• Safety – Safety beyond just physical safety.

• Feeling the feels – Fully expressing our emotions.

• Healing – Addressing community oppression and trauma.

• Connection – Communing with others like us.

• Role models and mentors – Finding guides.

• Less intimidation – Escaping the toxicity of societal judgment.

• Exploring our multidimensional selves – Discovering other facets to our identity.

• Unpacking our own shit – Acknowledging we’re all complex humans.

• Decentering dominant identities – Experiencing presence without dominant element influence.

• Radical imagination – Creating solutions together.

I think that’s a damn good list of what comprises the magic of affinity spaces.

The writer rightfully assumes there are people who will want to argue that we should not have affinity spaces.

Ok, so maybe I didn’t convince you and you’re still like, “Yeah, but aren’t these spaces exclusive?” Yes, yes they are. And it’s ok because it’s the one party to which folks with dominant identities are not invited. Perhaps a better question is to ask, “How can I support these spaces?”

It’s going to come as no surprise to anyone who knows or follows me that I agree with Rajagopal-Durbin. We need and should champion affinity spaces. But, and this is important, we also need not promote affinity spaces in order to squelch the efforts to make more spaces also inclusive. That’s important too.

The tricky part is when the creation of inclusive and affinity spaces clash and the correct decision isn’t as clearcut as it might be in other instances.

Should a corporation be allowed to resist its job opportunities being accessible to anyone from any walk of life? No. That’s a rather solid example of inclusion being ethically required. It’s why so many companies these days employ or hire DEI consultants.

Should a women’s retreat at a resort or meeting at a restaurant be allowed to restrict attendance to women? I contend, yes. And before someone tries to raise the issue, let me state definitively that trans women are women and belong in any space women gather. I believe women should be allowed their own spaces.

Maybe this seems entirely logical to you, but it can get messier. What about LGBTQ (queer) spaces? Should all queer spaces invite the entire spectrum of LGBTQ+ identities? What if gay men or lesbians want their own space? See how muddled this can become? Of course, everyone should be included at a Pride event, but what if lesbians wanted to have a party just for lesbians at a club? Shouldn’t lesbians be allowed the benefits of affinity space if they don’t feel they can truly be themselves with gay or bisexual men there?

I know. This is tough stuff. At least I think it is. But that’s why it deserves discussion. These are the issues that communities and society must wrestle with because that’s how positive change and mutual understandings happen.

I recall attending an online DEI training workshop during the pandemic. A Black lesbian DEI consultant (I hope I’ve identified her correctly) was leading the workshop. The first part of the training was dedicated to DEI topics and was rightfully well received. Then, about halfway through her presentation she said “Now let’s talk about affinity spaces.” There were a few head tilts among the attendees who were visible on the meeting screen. The trainer then went on to explain that diversity, equity, and inclusion are vitally important, but that there is also a place in our culture, events, and gatherings for affinity spaces too. That synced with my view and I hope I’ve presented enough information here for you to consider that we need affinity spaces.

Please continue this conversation within your own social networks.

You can use this link to access all my writings and social media and ways to support my work.