Feminist Standpoint Theory

A few weeks ago we learned about feminist standpoint theory, which understands subjugated experiences to be a foundation for knowledge.  It assumes the vantage point of marginalized groups and oppressed individuals to challenge hegemonic power structures and normative ways of thinking, rooted in traditional ideas of rationality and enlightenment thought.  These experiences produce a distinct epistemology of knowledge that can only be produced from their unique “standpoint”. How do trigger warnings help create conversations around these experiences and include these perspectives (which are often dismissed, silenced, or recuperated)? How might they simultaneously work to further marginalize these bodies and exclude them from dominant discourse? 

In our group discussions today we talked about the pros and cons of trigger warnings. The group consensus was that trigger warnings generally create space for conversation and further engagement because they draw attention to systemic social problems instead of normalizing or naturalizing experiences of trauma. Of course, only certain experiences of trauma are recognized by trigger warnings, and what counts as “traumatic” or “triggering” is different for everyone, depending on who does the defining. Thus, trigger warnings can be understood as preparing the audience for their exposure to sensitive or offensive content, while at the same time participating in the construction of what it means for content to be “sensitive” or “offensive”. Trigger warnings provide suggestions for what the easily offended, hypersensitive, traumatized body should do: exclude themselves entirely or precede forward at their own risk. While the systemic social problem is often labeled and addressed, this also stands to put the “risk” back onto the individual. We provide few tools within actual trigger warnings themselves about what the body should do with trauma, offense, or pain, should they choose to engage with the content and experience these responses.

Despite this, perhaps trigger warnings are an attempt to take up a feminist standpoint theory framework. They start with the assumption that experiences of trauma actually exist and therefore need to be addressed, even through a simple warning. In labeling them, we bring them into the realm of existence. It validates that these experiences and perspectives are real and that we accept them as “true”. The extent to which these warnings accurately reflect the lived realities of actual survivors may be limited, but there could be exciting potential if we continue to create space for the inclusion of a collection of stories and experiences. This would mean recognizing both the individualized and systemic implications of an experience to move beyond warnings that demand only “some” people should take caution or risk if they are overly sensitive or easily offended. I’m not sure what this would look like exactly, but I think trigger warnings are productive in that they force us to reexamine what is absolute or “true” knowledge, which might open up space for us to think about other standpoints.