Learning to Recognize Safety
We talk a lot about hypervigilance in trauma. The nervous system that scans the room. Reads the face. Notices the change in tone. Tracks the exits. Hears something slightly different in “fine” and immediately starts building a case file.
Fair enough.
A nervous system shaped by danger gets very good at looking for danger. That’s not a malfunction. It’s the nervous system doing exactly what it learned, and sometimes needed, to do to survive.
The problem is that trauma tends to carry that learning forward past its expiration date. A nervous system that learned vigilance in one place doesn’t necessarily leave it there. It starts scanning for the same shape of danger in other places, other relationships, other voices, other rooms, and other times. What once helped you recognize a very real threat quietly generalizes into an expectation that threat might be anywhere at any time.
The alarm hasn’t broken. If anything, it learned its lesson too well. It just isn’t always great at telling the house fire from the toast.
Much of what we understand about trauma reflects this: fight-flight-freeze, hyperarousal, triggers, avoidance, the brain and body staying braced for danger long after the danger itself has left the building.
All of that matters. But it may only be half the equation.
What if trauma recovery isn’t only about helping the nervous system get quieter about danger? What if we also have to help it get louder about safety?
Because “no danger” is not the same as safety.
This sounds like semantics until you clock it in your own body. You can know the door is locked and still check it again. You can know your partner is safe and still brace when their tone shifts half a register. You can leave the place where something terrible happened and still feel your body rehearsing for it somewhere else entirely. You can know, intellectually, in full possession of your faculties: I’m safe. While your nervous system replies, unconvinced: That’s nice. I’ll keep watch anyway.
Not one thing
Hyein Cho, Ekaterina Likhtik, and Tracy Dennis-Tiwary have argued that anxiety research has historically paid far more attention to how we learn fear than to how we learn safety.1 More importantly, they push back on the habit of defining safety as simply the absence of threat.
Because there isn’t a bear here and I recognize this place as safe are not the same thing.
One tells the nervous system that the expected danger didn’t show up. The other requires learning something about safety itself.
For a long time, much of the research treated these as opposite ends of the same process: learn what predicts danger, and learn what doesn’t. But Cho and colleagues argue that safety learning deserves to be understood in its own right. Fear and safety learning overlap, but the emerging research suggests that learning and recognizing safety may involve biological and neural processes that cannot be explained simply as fear switching off. [1]
And this is where it gets especially interesting for trauma.
Research by Tanja Jovanovic and colleagues found that people with PTSD had difficulty inhibiting fear even in the presence of learned safety signals. 2 In other words, information that should have signaled that this is not dangerous didn’t fully change the fear response.
Think about what that means.
A nervous system can become exceptionally good at learning and carrying forward information about danger while having more difficulty recognizing and using information that says, you’re safe here.
So perhaps trauma recovery involves two related kinds of learning: learning this is no longer dangerous and learning this is safe. Those processes interact. They are not completely separate systems. But strengthening one doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve strengthened the other.
We’ve gotten fairly good at talking about the first. We need to talk a lot more about the second.
Why fear gets the microphone
Fear announces itself. It panics, avoids, freezes, fights, scans the room, wakes you at 3 a.m. with a fully rehearsed presentation on everything that could go wrong. It’s loud and visible and comes with data attached: hyperarousal, avoidance, intrusive thoughts, catastrophic predictions. We can see it, measure it, work with it.
Safety rarely announces itself the same way. It’s quieter. Relational. Contextual. Often felt more than seen. In some ways, safety is more like the setting than the situation itself, a background condition we may not even notice until it disappears.
Think about something that makes you feel afraid and something that makes you feel safe. I imagine the fear is easier to identify, describe, and locate. Safety can be harder to put into words. Sometimes we recognize it only indirectly: I can exhale here. I don’t have to monitor this person. I can say what I think. I can leave if I want to. I don’t have to prepare for what comes next.
Safety doesn’t tend to make the 3 a.m. highlight reel. And perhaps that is part of why it has received less attention. Not because it matters less, but because fear demands our attention in ways safety often doesn’t.
But that’s the kicker.
If reducing threat and recognizing safety aren’t simply the same process, then working on one doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve fully addressed the other.
Helping the nervous system become less reactive to danger matters enormously. But perhaps recovery also means helping it become more capable of noticing when danger isn’t there and recognizing what safety feels like when it is.
So, what if we worked in both directions?
Not only reducing hypervigilance, but strengthening the ability to recognize cues of safety. Not only regulating activation, but learning that activation itself doesn’t always mean danger. Not only asking what your nervous system is afraid will happen, but also what tells your nervous system you’re safe enough right now. Not only helping people recognize what they need protection from, but helping them discover what they can trust in their environment, in other people, and increasingly, in themselves.
None of this replaces the work we already do around fear and threat. It just helps complete the picture.
One thing to notice this week
You don’t need a framework to start paying attention to this. You just need one question, asked in an ordinary moment, not a crisis one:
What just told my nervous system it was safe enough?
Because learning safety isn’t always about creating something that wasn’t there before; often it is about rediscovering what is already there.
Trauma understandably primes our attention toward threat. The nervous system learns what to watch for, what to listen for, what might mean trouble is coming. In a sense, our eyes become trained to find danger in the landscape. Safety can fade into the background. So part of learning safety is gently bringing it back into view.
Maybe it’s someone’s tone. A door you know you can walk out of. A boundary that held without a fight. The person you don’t have to monitor. A familiar room. Your dog asleep beside you. A song you’ve heard a hundred times. Morning light coming through the window.
Maybe it’s something even quieter: your shoulders dropping without you telling them to. A breath that suddenly gets a little deeper. Your jaw unclenching. The feeling of your feet on the ground. The moment you realize you aren’t bracing anymore.
Safety has a felt experience, too. Part of the practice may simply be staying with it long enough to notice: There it is.
Not to convince yourself you’re safe when you’re not. Not to talk yourself out of legitimate fear. Just to give your nervous system a chance to register the safety information that threat has become so good at crowding out.
Because perhaps trauma recovery isn’t only about helping the nervous system learn that the danger has passed. Maybe it’s also about helping it remember to look for safety and, little by little, recognize when it’s already there.
Thanks for reading The REAL™ | GritandGrace! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Photo credit: Lex Melony on Unsplash
We love to hear from you! Feel free to leave a comment.
Cho, H., Likhtik, E., & Dennis-Tiwary, T. A. (2021). Absence makes the mind grow fonder: Reconceptualizing studies of safety learning in translational research on anxiety. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00855-9
Jovanovic, T., Kazama, A., Bachevalier, J., & Davis, M. (2012). Impaired safety signal learning may be a biomarker of PTSD. Neuropharmacology, 62(2), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.02.023