Much of the debate surrounding trigger
warnings centres on the different perceptions of what they are, and the role
they should play. Critiques view them as a tool for censorship, one that
simultaneously coddles an over-sensitive generation and blocks them from
engaging with important ideas. Many advocates argue that trigger warning are
not an excuse to avoid topics, but rather a signal that the material contains
subject-matter that is often associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and
the reader should take care to prepare themselves in whatever ways they need
to, in order to maintain a feeling of safety and ensure their mental health. Consequently
providing a space to open up dialogue rather than restrict it.
Another source of contention relates to the
definition of trigger itself. Is a trigger something that makes the audience
member uncomfortable? Or rather is it the technical term for a psychological
process in which the reader/viewer is taken back to a traumatic experience. If
it is the latter, is it reasonable to provide trigger warnings, when something
as mundane as a smell, tone of voice or random physical object can have the
same effects as a explicit scene featuring sexual violence? Despite these
questions, I do not believe that the solution to the trigger warning debate
lies solely in a lexicon of clearly defined terms. Rather I think the debate is
a reflection of how we treat survivors in general: the tendency to diminish
experiences, to unconsciously allow only a certain type of healing within a
certain time frame and to expect survivors of sexual assault to pull themselves
up from their bootstraps and find a way to move one.
Therefore a key question to ask is: who is
critiquing trigger warnings and why? In most cases, and in the readings we have
done, it does not seem to be a criticism spurred on by survivors of sexual
assault. In my mind, the fact that trigger warnings were initially created and
made popular through blogs seeking to create spaces to speak about feminism in
accessible ways, lends them a certain level of credibility as it reflects a bottom-up
movement that has been increasingly adopted by educational institutions. This
does not mean, however, that we should not be aware of the implications of
adopting them in formal spaces.
I've thought a lot this week about some of the things you also bring up this post. It's hard to look at trigger warnings and see both sides equally, where they are productive and where they are simultaneously criticized. Right away, trigger warnings seem positive and a step in the right direction. They are mild warning signs to give a heads up so one can adequately prepare or avoid something entirely. What's the harm in that? But like countless times throughout the semester, this class has explored many political sides to many seemingly harmless topics and exposed any underlying problematic features. It's hard to form a concrete opinion, but like you mention in the last paragraph, even if one were to adopt the use of trigger warnings it is still important to keep in mind what other impacts they may hold.
ReplyDelete