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.