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). 

Why The Drama Over Triggers?

The subject of triggers was not something that I thought much about.  To me it was a few lines at the beginning of something, that would let people know that there is some controversial or sensitive material coming up, to me that just seemed respectful and was warning the reader of what to potentially expect.  I had no idea that triggers themselves could cause such controversy.  But it seems that when talking about anything concerning feminism, there is always a lot of drama.  The video we saw on Monday, from the backlash feminist was so condescending and annoying.  She made the whole topic of triggers seem ridiculous and made people who believed in them sound weak and infant like.  And when she asked for comments and questions at the end, the only types of comments that would have been acceptable were ones that agreed with her viewpoint.  There was no room for any other opinion, I could feel how ridiculous she would have any comments that would have contradicted her viewpoint.  She does a great disservice for the people who would do well with some sort of warning or head up about the content.  She also does a great disservice to any kind of open dialogue about triggers; she does not seem to be interested in any opinion that contradict her own.
Some of the arguments against triggers seem to make sense.  When taken to extreme, it does seem like we do not give people enough credit to be strong enough to deal with their issues.  In "Triggering Me, Triggering You: Making Up is Hard To Do", we read that "neoliberalism also counsels us to suck it up in relation to harm and pain that we may feel".  I don't like that sentiment, of course we should deal with our issues in a productive manner, but for some, "sucking it up" is not an easy option.  This makes it seem as though everyone has access to amazing therapists that will help us deal with our problems.
The second video on Monday made a relevant point, we do have triggers in our daily lives even though we have never thought of them that way, I know I didn't; movie rating telling what to expect.  They let us know if the content if appropriate for certain people or not.  I wonder if all the drama about trigger warnings is because it started in the feminist blogosphere, I personally feel that this is the issue.  I know that some people take trigger warnings too far, and we can potentially close off meaningful discussion about serious and controversial subjects; but because this is a feminism related topic, many people seem to be up in arms over it.

Decidedly Undecided. I Think.

To be honest, the war on trigger warnings was unknown to me before this semester. Trigger warnings, single sentences used to caution readers, learners, watchers, etc. of potentially upsetting content, are being criticized, among other claims, as being unnecessary and a result of an oversensitive generation. Having read blogposts, critiques and watched videos which go both ways on this topic, I am decidedly undecided on my stance on this issue; I understand many of the points of view I’ve learnt about and cannot decide which is ‘correct’. For example, I can understand Jack Halberstam’s critique that trigger warnings bring with them a multitude of concerns, specifically that they require a decision to be made as to which subjects have the potential to trigger people and which do not; which subjects are valid triggers and which are not. On this topic, Halberstam asserts that “a rhetoric of harm and trauma” which is, according to him, a product of trigger warnings, “casts all social difference in terms of hurt feelings and … divides up politically allied subjects into hierarchies of woundedness.” Although his language is strong, his sentiment is reasonable: trauma is a difficult thing to categorize and perhaps attempting to do so can be damaging.

However, I also understand that it’s a logical fallacy (of relative privation, specifically) to suggest that acknowledging certain forms of trauma devalues other forms of trauma. For example, that people are outwardly mourning those hurt in the recent attacks in Paris does not suggest that other recent attacks in other countries mean less. Similarly, that topics such as sexual assault and racism regularly appear in trigger warnings doesn’t logically negate the validity of other upsetting topics, such as anxiety. If it can be accepted that trigger warnings don’t necessarily suggest that some forms of trauma are more significant than others, then what’s the harm in using them for their capacity as a safety measure? Like Julia Serano said in her critique of Halberstam’s blogpost, “activism can be messy and difficult but … the quarrels over language and feelings are ultimately worth the effort.” Because, if what results from trigger warnings is that some people will have warning that what they are about to read could be upsetting for them, then they are having a positive impact.

It seems to me that the most effective way to handle the difficulties that trigger warnings present is to be conscious that they have limitations; they may not be the best tool to protect every person from every type of trauma, but they can be useful for some and there’s value in that.  

How Can We Engage With Triggers?

The concept of trigger warnings is a simple one. Post a line or two about the material that individuals may be about to engage with, in order to prepare the reader of any topic that may be uncomfortable or triggering. Yet, this topic has become a largely debatable one, surrounding the legitimate need for trigger warnings, and potentially the effect it could have on the concept of censorship.

While trigger warnings started to occur in the feminist blog-sphere, they have begun to make their way into larger interactions, such as the classrooms and lecture halls. With this increase in their use, the need for trigger warnings has now been called into question. 

For many, there is belief that the use of trigger warnings in classrooms will cause a rise in censorship and silence teachers in their academic freedom. For those against trigger warnings, it is their belief that this will cause teachers to remove academic material because of the feeling that they may offend or trigger students who have experienced traumatic events. These critics believe this removes an element of learning, in which students are suppose to engage with material that makes them uncomfortable. However, does uncomfortable truly mean triggered? I am a firm believer  in the idea that to make change in this world we need to discuss things and engage with issues that make us uncomfortable, frustrated or sad, but I would never place this over the importance of the safety of an individual. 

One of the issues I find with trigger warnings is that they have seemed to make trauma a generalized condition. While I dislike how much neoliberalism privileges and encourages individualism as much as the next person, I do believe that mental health and lived experiences are aspects of our society that should focus on the individual. Everyone experiences life in their own way, and it is not for us to define how they have personally dealt with what they may have come up against in this life. While as a collective we should be concerned about how we can help those who struggle with mental health, or experience trauma, it is not for us to tell this individual how they feel about their lived experiences.

Trigger warnings do not encompass everyone's triggers, and they never will be able too. And while they are beneficial in the basic warnings about graphic material or content, or issues that will make us uncomfortable, they cannot be a way to tell survivors how to move through their life. While I see them as helpful, and in some cases have used them to avoid material I know may be painful for myself, I believe trigger warnings should not be the end all way of taking care of someone to prevent them from being triggered. There is more we can do to help, if we truly do want to take care of individuals who experience trauma from past life experiences. 

The Difference Between Safety and Comfort

In his blog post on trigger warnings, Jack Halberstam argues that when “LGBT communities make ‘safety’ into a top priority . . . and ground their quest for safety in competitive narratives about trauma, the fight against aggressive new forms of exploitation, global capitalism and corrupt political systems falls by the way side.” I think that what he says is partly true, especially in terms of making suffering a competition (that doesn’t get anyone anywhere), but I guess I’m wondering what he means when he talks about safety, especially considering he puts in it quotation marks that seem to assign it a certain (negative) meaning.

I know that safety is something that we can never really count on, especially not in society as it works right now. I know that it’s naïve to try to call a space safe when literally anything can be triggering and when we really don’t have any control over what anyone says or does to another person. Nobody is ever really safe from being triggered, which I think is part of Halberstam’s point. But what I don’t agree with is his idea that making safety into a top priority is preventing movements from making (productive progress). We discussed in class the neoliberalistic tones entrenched in this way of thinking, but I think Halberstam needs to rethink the idea of safety.

I think there is a difference between being safe and being comfortable and I don’t think that Halberstam takes that into account. Queer people live lives that are often both unsafe and uncomfortable. But I don’t think safety should be something you actively compromise on – comfort, however, is a different story.

To feel safe is different than to feel comfortable. You can feel safe and still feel uncomfortable and that is where I think trigger warnings are useful. They arm a person with a choice, with information, both of which they may have been denied if they experienced abuse or trauma. That person, if they feel confident enough to continue the conversation, will inevitably be uncomfortable, but they might, at least, feel safe enough to listen and maybe even to speak about their own experiences.

Basically, I think it is necessary that we be made to feel uncomfortable when we talk about trauma. But I don’t think safety is something that has to be compromised in order for that to happen.

Survivor Discourses.

A group of four university students performed a slam poem about rape. There were some very good points hit. They mentioned acquaintance rape as well as stranger rape. The commented on the way rules are controlling women as well as not solving the issue. The commented on rape culture and how it is a societal issue not an individual one. The lack of intersectionality was apparent in the slam poetry video. The girls commented that society might be rolling their collective eyes when they hear their poem. This might be true if I shared it on my timeline and the losers from my high school took the time to watch it but I do not feel like there would be anyone attending a slam poetry who would roll their eyes at “another poem about rape”. It goes back to when we were talking about spaces and where and when you perform a speak out is directly related to how it is accepted. People who enjoy slam poetry are, in general, socially aware and wanting to change social norms.

Oprah. I believe Oprah has raised awareness to hundreds of taboo topics. She made herself a household name and through the powers of daytime tv taught people about the world around them. Should someone be making a profit off of people’s sad/interesting or unique experiences, no but it might be better that there is less silence around issues. Issues such as Childhood Sexual Assault. Oprah is a great example of what Alcoff means by us needing an expert and there are many examples in this episode. 200 men were brought onto the Oprah show and praised for being brave before an ‘expert’ a psychologist, had a snippet of air time talking about the ‘sideffects’ of being sexualy assaulted as a child. Side effects include-depression, anxiety, sexual orientation confusion.. It was almost like a Cialis commercial, if you are being, have been or plan to be sexually assaulted, be aware that the following may occur.. Whenever trauma is experienced a person is changed forever, in a major way or a minor way, we do not need an expert to tell us that. Oprah also brought on Tyler Perry as a celebrity who also experienced childhood sexual assault. Even though Perry is not an academic expert, due to his fame he still is seen as one. Oprah says at the beginning of the interview to the 200 other men, “and Tyler knows exactly what all of you are going through”, every single experience is different and no one should tell you that you are in the same boat as someone else.  

Liberation and Self-care

Liberation and Self-care

       This week our class worked through Alcoff’s discussion of survivor discourse together and was introduced to the intriguing concept of recuperation. Alcoff states that using language to express things simultaneously “inscribe[s] them into hegemonic structures and produce docile, self-monitoring bodies who willingly submit themselves to (and thus help to create and legitimate) authoritative experts” (Alcoff). For me, and I’m sure many others in the class, this point really complicated the idea of “liberation” through “talking things out.”

       I believe that, in general, it is a widely held belief that speaking out and confession are meant to function as liberatory acts for the person who is carrying the “weight" of a heavy experience. As Professor Nixon mentioned in class today, there is a prevalent discourse around the “freeing” and “liberating” aspect of speaking out as a survivor of sexual assault. As mentioned in class, this was evident in Oprah’s interview with Tyler Perry as he stated that he felt “lighter” after confessing about his own childhood experience of sexual violence on her talk show.  

       I think that it’s important to note that this “liberation” is often connoted as a positive act because it frees the survivor from difficulties such as carrying the burden alone and suppressing the emotions in the aftermath. Confessing is supposed to function as an aid to the healing process by reclamation of voice and control over what has happened. The common narrative around liberation states that confession is good because it is centred on maximizing benefit of the individual who was victimized. However, we know that this statement may not be completely true. As Alcoff explains, there are many ways that bringing sexual assault experiences into discourse result in an undermining of survivors’ agency and voice through recuperation. 

       This lead me to think about the way that “self-care” complicates liberation and feminist trajectories. If speaking out is meant to primarily empower survivors and create visibility, how can we critique the shape that the discourse looks like around someone else’s individual experience? Furthermore, if speaking out truly is survivor centred and intended to help them reclaim power then it is evidently ironic for anyone to dictate what another’s self-care an self-healing is supposed to look and sound like. 

       As many of my classmates have already mentioned, the Chrissie Hynde article from today demonstrates this paradox that many feminists may find themselves in. Hynde, as a survivor of sexual assault, shared her story as well as conclusions about that story to the world and received a great deal of feminist backlash for victim blaming. On one hand, from a more general/theoretical point of view, Hynde’s statements may be viewed as highly problematic because they subscribe to/perpetuate the very rape myths that feminists aim to dismantle. However, on the other hand, Hynde had obviously found a way to come to terms with her own experience and although her self-care may not fit into the ideal feminist framework of healing, it functioned effectively for her personally. I found this very similar to the example from the Campbell article about the woman who pretended to enjoy her rape in order to take care of herself in the moment. 

I’ve actually struggled with this quite a bit and have no clear answer to any of the points I have raised so I would definitely love to hear any of the insights that others may have about this.