The Project Theory Probe Journal

In Journal 16, I wrote: "We must move beyond fragmented experiences of intimacy toward a systemic framework—an Architecture of Intimacy that actively promotes safety of voice (i.e. visibility), thus sustaining diverse ontologies and multitudes of truth."

But what creates safety of voice? In this journal, I explore the structural framework which enables safety within the architecture of intimacy by following the steps of theorists who had continued Gilligan's work on relational ontology.

Harm in Autonomy

To say that we want safety, we must talk about harm and understand our attitudes and strategies around it. Since the 19th century, in simpleton terms, one popular vision towards harm has been:

1. Do whatever you want, so long as it does NOT harm others.
2. Only intervene when someone is harmed.

This vision is rooted in liberalism—specifically Western, Euro-American liberal democracies—famously articulated by Stuart Mill in 1959 as Harm Principle. Its focus is on defending the autonomous individual by protecting their freedom from interference.

Certainly, there are flaws in this way of thinking. Firstly, what’s considered as "harm" is relational, dependent on context. Secondly, from a relational perspective, this non-interference principle legitimizes neglect and unresponsiveness (lack of care/relationship):

🧍‍♀️ Example situation: A person is about to commit suicide on a bridge with many bystanders. Even though their choice is harming themselves, no one has the moral or legal right to interfere unless their behavior begins to harm others.

This focus on freedom from interference (called negative liberty) dismisses the interdependent and relational aspect of self and human happiness. An extreme example, but not unreal, helps us realize the flaws and horror of such an ethic. In fact, historically and globally, many cases of so-called Neutrality further enable harm and violence. A real-life example is discussed below in What’s Love Got To Do With It?

Harm in Justice

Another popular vision towards harm is Justice which frames harm through a lens of rights, rules, and consequences. A justice-based system would:

• believe in fairness, equality (universality), and rational individualism (dichotomy of right vs wrong)
• believe wrongdoers deserve punishment as a way to restore moral order
• believe that pain is a necessary consequence for social deterrence

As mentioned before, the justice-perspective creates our framework for education, politics, law, the market etc.

🧍‍♀️ Example situation: A student keeps being late and refusing to sit still during class. In fairness: every student must follow the same rules to maintain order. The board of teachers assumes this student is choosing to misbehave, thus, receiving negative consequences should teach them a lesson.

This focus on same-for-all fairness neglects personal needs, acting from impartial rules instead of understanding and responsiveness. On the other hand, an adult who’s acting from the relational perspective would ask: Is something happening at home? Is the child anxious? Bored? What are their needs?

Justice x Autonomy

Justice framework, when coupled with liberal beliefs, legitimizes violence and the destruction of those seen as threats to order—whether in education, the home, or international politics. Take the Vietnam-American War, for example: Communism was framed as a threat to liberal democracy and the free market, therefore, seen as deserving mass bombings, chemical warfare (i.e. genocide), and the dehumanization of the Vietnamese people in global public discourse. Or the example of beating up a child, saying "it’s for your own good" (read more in Alice Miller’s book).

Plate with Wife Beating Husband, ca. 1480, Netherlands. The Met.

Note that I am not saying autonomy or justice are bad—doing so is reductive, and would only repeat the same logic of right-wrong, good-bad dichotomy from a separation perspective. In fact, critiques on the inadequacy within justice-based and liberal systems have been extensively explored in fields such as Crip Theory, Care Ethics, Decolonial Studies, and Relational Ontology.

For the purpose of our Architecture of Intimacy, however, my point is to find alternative visions of harm—ones that actively promote Intimacy by protecting:

• Epistemic Visibility (the conditions to be known and understood),
• Ontological Visibility (the conditions to exist as oneself), and
• Generational Visibility (the conditions to continuity, legacy, and integrative knowledge).

When we revisit the system introduced in Journal 16, it becomes clear that visions of harm from Justice and Autonomy traditions are insufficient because they operate in the following realm:

Note: I changed "Justice-Based Morality" from Journal 16 to "Right-Wrong Morality" only for clarification but the point stays the same.

In Starting At Home, Nel Noddings points out that, "from the relational perspective, the very distinction between autonomy and heteronomy becomes almost unnecessary. We may begin to wonder why autonomy has been so important to western philosophers […] (111, Starting At Home)."

Pattern Language for Safety of Voice

A space that is safe for people to voice themselves, where relationships thrive while enjoying the fruit of care and an ever-expanding understanding, approaches harm through a care-based perspective. In this vision:

• We encounter (harm) with a desire to understand, guide, and uplift.
• The goal is to reduce all harms and suffering.
• Pain is not seen as necessary, but is a signal for (often systemic) adjustment.
• Judgment is context-sensitive, instead of assuming universality.
• Any situation is always co-created, thus, responsibility is shared.
• Focus on building conditions for fulfillment to occur, not just individual rights.

This list is not exhaustive, and there are pathologies of care (e.g. narcissism) that will be discussed in later journals—yet, I believe that systems and projects that handle harm in this direction are not self-destructive, they are rooted in the awareness of web/interdependence and ensuring the possibility of Involution.