Trigger warnings and what to do about them

This week's readings on trigger warnings have been strange for me. This is in part because I don't know entirely how to engage with blogs in an academic setting, but it's also because I find the whole conversation somewhat perplexing. Many of the authors spoke of trigger warnings as though they were impairing or impeding the sharing of knowledge. Many, too, used such fallacies as "the slippery slope argument" to make their points, or spoke in ways that were patronizing or condescending to their counterparts. Much of the conversation, from what we read, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the basic concept of trigger warnings. If we consider the ways that trigger warnings have been used and intended to be used, it is clear that their roots are in the protection of individuals from re-experiencing past trauma, which should be of dire importance to feminists. Rather than restricting content, as these bloggers argue, trigger warnings thus serve as a means by which people can keep themselves safe. This is of particular importance when it comes to policing who can and can not be a feminist, as the blogger The Factual Feminist does. In insisting that feminists are not fragile, she erases the reality of ongoing trauma, and subsequent fragility, experienced by many feminists, and discounts their contributions to feminism. This seems to me like one more instance of a long history of privileged women attempting to dictate what feminists, and thus feminism, look like, thereby negating the experiences and contributions of more marginalized women. Moreover, this discounts the experiences of trauma and pain in a way which is potentially very harmful, in order to make feminism more palatable, which is in no way okay.

However, this is not to say that the trigger warning argument is one which is straightforward, but rather, that the complexities of trigger warnings are not what many of the anti-trigger warning bloggers make them out to be. Triggers are in themselves tenuous and complex, and are not always as easily identifiable as their warnings make them out to be. Moreover, the experiential nature of triggers renders them necessarily subjective, and so the vast diversity of trauma and triggers becomes blurred and flattened by category of trigger warnings. In abolishing trigger warnings we cause people unnecessary and avoidable harm, while perpetuating myths about "good" feminists, and on a larger scale, "good" bodies. However, in including trigger warnings, we risk catering to what Halberstam calls, "sad feelings," or worse, excusing privileged people from engaging in meaningful political discourse because it makes them uncomfortable. In either case, those who are ignored or erased are those most in need of care. Thus, we can see how the argument of neoliberalism plays out in the controversy surrounding trigger warnings, in that triggers become individualized and responsiblized in such a way that obscures the institutional factors of harm. We should enable people to avoid harm whenever possible, and trigger warnings and the awareness they incite can certainly help. However, this is not enough. Perhaps instead of arguing about whether we ought to remove or rely on trigger warnings, we should instead focus on continuing to utilize them in conjuncture with larger critical discourse, and consideration as to the institutional causes of trauma.

The Continuum of Triggers

          “Hurt itself becomes framed as censoring: as requiring the removal of some offending thing.” While I remain undecided on the argument of trigger warnings, I strongly believe that a reasonable issue with them is who they are truly in place for: those who wish to keep themselves at arms reach from “an emotional breakdown.” One thing that Ahmed points out when she speaks of the women that were upset about their experiences with triggering topics is the fact that neither of them wanted the removal of the materials, just that they needed to be dealt with in a respectful manner.  I believe that this quote, and also what we spoke about today in our small groups, is relevant in the context of the “angry black woman” that Audre Lorde speaks of in her article, “The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism.” In this sense, the survivor is labeled as the hyper-emotional woman, and the trigger warning is in place for those around her to avoid her feelings of traumatization. Whether we are speaking in the context of a Sociology course on Colonialism, or an English course on the effects of sexual assault, there will always be someone who is portrayed as the “bad guy” (most often a white males), who really do not like to be made to feel guilty about their ancestors or others within a society that share their race/gender. This sense of guilt has no room in a place of discussion, as Lorde states “I have no creative use for guilt, yours or my own. Guilt is only another way of avoiding informed action.”

            Guilt however, is not only reason that certain individuals may feel apprehensive about not adding trigger warnings in class discussions, because lets be honest, who wants to witness yet another emotional breakdown of a woman. When it is a known fact that the majority of survivors of sexual assault are women, the wrongful assumption can be made that women will not be able to handle triggering topics in a classroom. What we talked about today, however, is that these trigger warnings add to the hierarchy of victims, again classifying what the appropriate response to instances of trauma should be, medicalizing the issue. This listing of triggers, therefore, excludes anything out of the “ordinary.”As Duggan points out in her Blog, “the only PTSD-like symptom [she] developed during [her] journey through childhood was the propensity to have a panic attack when [she] heard a barking dog. It is very very difficult to avoid the sound of barking dogs.”

We currently live in a society where everyone is offended by everything; yet, being offended by something is seen as an overreaction, where the individual is “taking it too personally.” This itself is problematic, due to the fact that there is no happy medium on the topic of trigger warnings. If everything is offensive, then we are in great need of trigger warnings. But if we need to toughen up, then why have them at all? When we only focus on the two extremities on the continuum of trigger warnings, the middle ground of allowing individuals the sensitivity that they need to deal with their trauma, while also allowing for a discussion on a controversial topic, is completely ignored.

I'm Being Triggered.

I have been back and forth about how I feel about trigger warnings. I still have not found a concrete answer. I do value them sometimes, I think that it is kind and thoughtful to let people know that there might be content in the video or post that is violent. Calling them trigger warnings is where I am conflicted. There is no way to now what will trigger someone, as we discussed in class.

The video that we watched in class about the two girls discussing the power bill was amusing but it was not an accurate portrayal of what being triggered is like. It is like the floor falls out beneath you and you can not breath and you are taken right back to that place where your trauma occurred. No one can prepare for it or predict it will happen. What we all have to do is be compassionate to those around us. To think before we speak. To acknowledge that people around us have not had the same experiences as we have. To not say that one trauma is more extreme than another and that one trigger is not more serious than another. Kindness and thoughtfulness is really what I am asking for.

I really like in Lisa Duggan's On Trauma and Trigger Warnings, in Three Parts, she addresses her own trigger is a barking dog and states that she has had to find a way to deal with the panic attacks. She knows that triggers are real and how they impact a persons daily life. This being said she is also critical of how they might be being used to protect instead of address. Lisa gives the example of anti-gay Christian students using the defense of trigger warnings to get out of broadening their mind with engaging in queer material. This is a great example of how 'trigger warnings' are being taken advantage of. If people continue to use them as a way to leave the room when they feel a bit uncomfortable then people will not overcome that feeling of discomfort and become a more accepting and informed individual.

I think that the conversation around trigger warning and the misuse of them tie back to the stigma around mental illness. There are still some psychologists that do not believe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a real disorder. Since there is still so much fear and ignorance around mental illness, the idea that a person could be 'set off' into a psychotic rage over a video or article is dismissed. We know a psychotic rage is not what would happen but to the larger population they have no idea.

Confused About Trigger Warnings

Our discussion about trigger warnings this week was insightful and interesting. I had previously thought a fair amount about trigger warnings because they have become a way for people opposing feminism to point to how sensitive and over dramatic feminists are. I believe this stems from a deep ignorance and misunderstanding about what trigger warnings are. I do generally support trigger warnings because it's just a small way to give someone a heads up that something could bring up a hurtful experience.
However, I have considered that there can be some downsides to trigger warnings. In no way is the following an end all for the idea of trigger warnings just a critical thought. "But to conceal the cause of hurt can make others the cause of their hurt" (Ahmed). This quote reflects a misgivings I have about trigger warnings. While, trigger warnings do not necessarily end the discussion, the people who are getting the benefit for trigger warnings are also the ones who have the most stake in the topic and will be able to give valuable information and the topic. In no way should someone be forced to talk about the circumstance that warranted a trigger warning but that person could have a good opportunity to educate others about their experience. I realize that this falls into neoliberalism and putting the responsibility of education on the individual and more specifically the individual who has had the most hurt done to them. But if institutions choose not to educate the "masses" then it does fall on the shoulders of the marginalized to push and insist on change. I still have trouble putting all that responsibility on the people who have been marginalized the most but I feel doubtful the dominant group will ever change their ways without some serious force.
"We have to work and struggle not so much to feel hurt, but to notice what causes hurt, which means unlearning what we have learnt not to notice" (Ahmed). This quote is why trigger warnings are important and useful. Trigger warnings point to 'unlearning what we have learnt not to notice.' By the presence of trigger warnings and people taking note of trigger warnings those that are not impacted may begin to realize that something in that content needs to be taken seriously for what effect it may have on people or what effect is has had.
Many people are critical about trigger warnings but if they are helping someone and not hurting those being critical of them then they are probably not as bad as people say.

List making and hierarchies of experiences

I feel like trigger warning create a safe space by naming and marking out unsafe things. What does it mean for one to be hurt by something that hasn’t been marked out, and is still in that safe space? If ‘all possible triggers’ in the content are named, I believe this has implications for the value of hurt that may be felt in relation to unnamed triggers. And to me, this has serious links to society’s ideas of what the ideal victim looks like.

I think the skit shown in class about the electricity bill is on point here. The things that are named, like associations with animals, were depicted as so specific and abstract to the context that they became ridiculous. On my Facebook feed, a couple of my friends were having a chat about love. One poster (in jest): “you’re triggering me!!” If in academia and the feminist blogosphere trigger warnings have become the source of a moral panic, in pop culture they’ve become a bit of a joke. There’s an idea that something so specific and seemingly random can’t truly be a trigger for anyone.

This week has left me utterly confused about trigger warnings, particularly as a neoliberal critique can be made both against and in favour of their use. What I’m left with is an alright feeling about trigger warnings in the right form.  Emotions can be put to good use, and by feeling them we are pushed to address and learn where they’re coming from. However I don’t think trigger warnings should attempt to name all possible triggers – everyone’s experience is unique and the list would never end. More to the point, I think the habit of list making has led to the above perception of the (lack of) utility of trigger warnings. I think what is most productive would be to alert the audience to a theme, and then create a safe space for any hurt to come out and dealt with. If someone is ready, their confrontation of their emotions and hurt should be encouraged. 

Valid emotions and Trigger warnings

Amongst the blog posts and classroom discussions I have noticed that Trigger warnings (TW) have become the opener to a number of issues. Most interestingly there has always been some form of discussion regarding censorship (most obviously), privilege, and validation of feelings. Amongst these topics a reoccurring topic in class discussions has been the way emotions (in this case negative emotions) are perceived as hindrance to learning and discussions. That an emotional response cannot be seen as forwarding our own intellectual development but instead as an obstacle for both the individual and those around them.

In their blog post Sara Ahmed openly claims that feminism was/is based in hurt feelings, in an emotional response to the injustice and inequality surrounding individuals. Similarly, as part of class discussion a few weeks ago, we were posed with the question: Do movements (e.g. Black Lives matter) need to be empowered by emotions? This question has plagued me throughout our course as we continue to encounter material that often creates emotional responses. Even within the context of our classroom, a space open to emotional and critical discussion of sexual assault, it is difficult to navigate between these lines. When is it appropriate to react emotionally in class?

In the video “What’s the deal with classroom Trigger warnings?” TW were depicted as discussion-openers not a form of censorship. But in Ahmed’s article it is not TW themselves that are the cause of censorship in classrooms but the emotions elicited. It is emotions which plague the objective rational University establishment. As has been said in class multiple times, TW openly question the knowledge, content, information we are taught as both natural and integral to a university education. Content that is graphic is seen to be a necessary component to higher learning. Yet this argument holds no weight for me. If professors and instructors do not openly acknowledge the graphic nature of the content they teach, how are they teaching students to destabilize naturalized notions of violence, racism, sexism etc?

Without repeating class discussion I think it is more productive to consider the TW debate from the perspective of emotions and which emotions are granted validity in the classroom. Ahemd points to the ways most individuals can be hurt and bring hurt into a room. It is this emotion that brings many to feminism, and I would argue to other forms of activism. TWs, in my mind, are not so much a debate on putting warning labels on content but on how individuals (in an academic setting at least) should be able to react objectively without emotion. That our education system relies on critical yet emotionless analysis is a large indicator of its faults. Therefore by reframing the debate I believe that TWs are helpful tools to create discussions which destabilize our notions of rationality without emotion as somehow proper. 

The Process of Learning and Triggering Language

In the “Ethics of Trigger Warnings in the Classroom” blog post, I found myself thinking a lot about what students might say during a discussion, rather than the class material itself. A quote from Brittney Cooper states:

“When students of color who have endured racism have to hear racially insensitive comments from other students who are in the process of learning, the classroom is unsafe. The classroom is unsafe for trans students who are often referred to by the wrong gender pronoun by both students and teachers. The classroom is unsafe for rape survivors who encounter students in the process of learning why getting drunk at a party does not mean a woman deserves to be raped.”

I agree that there is no such thing as a safe space, for the very reason that there is no way to truly control what others do or say within a space, nor do I think this level of policing is necessary or helpful. I’ve cringed in classrooms as students have misspoken, sometimes saying something unintentionally problematic, or sometimes making flat out offensive remarks. I’ve also been the person saying what I thought was a well-thought out opinion in class, only to be called out on whatever privilege or internalized prejudice allowed me to think something through in a closed-minded way. The thing is, although these situations are unavoidably awkward and uncomfortable, being on the receiving end of a call out has been where I’ve done some of my best learning, and I like to think that’s true for others as well.

Now, I understand that this opinion comes from a privileged place – I’ve never been triggered in the classroom, or even deeply hurt. I understand that not everyone can say that, and I don’t want to advocate for everyone making blatantly racist remarks, or throwing around transphobic slurs. But I do want to focus on Cooper’s emphasis on these problematic remarks coming from students who are “in the process of learning.” Both inside and outside of the classroom, I’ve witnessed a lot of different reactions to someone saying something unintentionally offensive, and I don’t think any reaction is flat out wrong, per se. I have been on the receiving end of justified anger when I’ve made a misstep, and it has helped me become more self-reflexive, and to either research things well before I come out with a strong opinion, or to just shut up and listen when it's necessary. That being said, intersectional feminism is important to me, so I want to learn as much as possible about how I can unlearn oppressive beliefs and language. For people who are less invested in this, I wonder if being shot down for making a mistake might discourage them from wanting to do better next time. Sometimes, I wonder if knowing the right way to speak about locations of oppression, and always being up to date about what words have become problematic, might be a privilege itself.

I guess what I’m struggling with is how we can foster a classroom setting that allows for students to mess up and learn from it, without completely shutting down conversations. However, I don’t want to make these learning processes more important than the safety of those who have lived through constant microaggressions and straight up violence, and are understandably fed up with having to teach people “How Not to Be an Asshole 101.” I also don’t want us to just stop calling people out because I really do believe that’s an essential part of learning. Am I privileging prejudice with my concern?