Protective Action vs. Control: A Reflection on Risk, Presence, and Power

There was a time when “protecting” a space felt like it meant controlling the people in it.

Early on, I assumed good intentions and good boundaries meant authority — that naming risk required exercising power. But over many years in community settings, shared meals, and service spaces, something subtle began to shift in how I understand protection, risk, and presence.

The Difference Between Action and Control

When we talk about protective action, we often think of setting rules, outlining risks, and enforcing compliance.

But what I’ve come to see is this:

Naming risk is not the same thing as exercising power over people.

You can name what’s dangerous — what could harm people — without turning that into control. In fact, in healthy relational spaces, protective action lives alongside agency, not above it.

This isn’t abstract. It’s something I’ve learned slowly, through presence more than instruction.

Learning from Shared Tables

In disability and community spaces, and everyday encounters, people don’t respond to rules — they respond to how we hold them.

Naming risk with care isn’t about shutting down participation.

It’s about sharing what we see, without demanding obedience.

Authority in relational work isn’t about hierarchy.

It’s about responsiveness.

This was a lesson learned over years of simply being present — not directing, not controlling, but noticing:

• Noticing who feels unsafe
• Noticing how people read space
• Noticing how actions affect dignity
• Noticing what people need before they articulate it

Naming risk becomes a collaborative gesture — an offering rather than a command.

Protective Action as Presence

Protective action becomes relational when it is:

• grounded in shared reality — not fear

• communicated with respect — not instruction

• offered as care — not control

• oriented toward dignity — not compliance

That shift — from command to care — is something I only recognised by watching how people actually move in space, how they respond to being seen rather than managed.

What This Changed

This understanding reshaped:

• How I coordinate shared spaces
• How I name risk without stopping participation
• How I exercise authority without hierarchy
• How I cultivate trust instead of obedience

It reconfigured protective action from a tool of power into a gesture of relational presence.

Why This Matters

Because when we conflate control with protection, we:

• lose connection
• undermine agency
• create environments people perform in rather than belong to

But when we hold safety as relationship, not rule, we:

• invite participation
• honour autonomy
• strengthen trust
• make space humane

That’s a practice I carry with me — in singing hall’s, kitchens, gatherings, conversations, and shared work.

And it was learned not from conforming, but from listening and seeing over time.

Suggested reflections:

• The Giveaway Table
• Reflections: A Starting Point