Still unswayed on triggers

“You are wrong to be hurt” Ahmed, and it is wrong to intentionally antagonize anyone with the hooks their trauma might lead to them. But, it is equally disservice to paternalistically warn people of the realities which we face in the world. Especially when trigger warnings as a tool are mocked and misused so incessantly by the media.

The warnings as a tool are becoming something “imposed by management [more than the] radical feminists” (Ahmed). As it is used to “negate” and “obscure” the political contexts of what is being said, and the ultimate dissociate creators with the political ramifications of their ideas. When a film, or a topic warns users that they may be feel offended, or put at ill ease, then the burden of responsibility shifts to the ‘sensitive’ people who chose to continue watching/viewing/engaging. Furthermore, the warning itself instils a confirmation bias. When underlying narratives are inflated by the warning then they are more understood, and their value within the overarching work is exaggerated. I think of the film Tom Jones, the first rated R film ever released, my only purpose in pursuing this to understand what risqué acts could have merited this censorship. I looked to find salacious material because of the warning. This fundamentally skews the discourse stemming from media with warnings for the fact that the interpretation of the media is slanted towards ‘offensive’ or ‘risqué’ attributes.

The largest issue with the warnings is that the world around us will not warn victims of triggering stimuli. Furthermore, antagonist and non-allies to the cause who provide some of the more triggering material will certainly not include the warnings for the right reasons. To include warnings as an ally, especially in academic contexts, is an undervaluation of the safe space from which almost all academic forums pursue. If do not make use of the safe space whilst discussing these traumatic topics, then what use is the extra step of protection when it the outside world denies it to us. Was it not a safe space before the invention of these warnings? Were we not sympathetic to each other’s trauma’s before we had to warn each other of all potentially intense topics? While the warnings might mentally prepare people to discuss tense issues, I feel the overarching damaging nature and misuse of the warnings far outweighs this value.

I agree with Ahmed as she claims, “we should not be protected from what hurts.” We should use this pain to motivate us towards dismantling the structures that create this original pain. In reality, feeling the pain and trauma which motivated these unsettling feelings led many activists to ally themselves with feminist causes, however horrible it may be, hiding from the pain ultimately limits us. Sarah Ahmed ultimately alludes towards this by claiming that it “feelings are how structures become affective.”

I disagree with Ahmeds imagery of “shattered” women, or “shattered” emotion. Though I cannot speak from personal experience, the allusion to a structure which can never become whole again disgusts me, especially in the connotation to which she refers.

The warnings are part of a larger demand “for protection rather than resources and redress” (Duggan) Rather than “exposing, critiquing and confronting systematic violence” the warnings allow a “singling out of experience in a decontextualizing and ultimately depoliticizing way” (Duggan).