September 2014
Trigger warnings are used with the intention of warning readers about content
that might provoke anxiety or trauma — I have used them on occasion, for
example, to warn readers about graphic descriptions of sexual violence or
incest. But these warnings can veer into overuse in an attempt to protect
individuals from any and every imagined offence.
In February of this year, a student senate motion was passed at the University of California, asking professors to include warnings on course
content that could “trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder.” The resolution from the senate reads: “The current suggested list of
Trigger Warnings includes Rape, Sexual Assault, Abuse, Self-Injurious Behavior,
Suicide, Graphic Violence, Pornography, Kidnapping, and Graphic Depictions of
Gore.”
It’s reasonable to provide advanced warning of potentially disturbing content.
But it is also reasonable to be concerned that codifying this kind of thing into
university policy might muffle discussions of anything that is claimed to be
offensive.
Oberlin College in Ohio, for example, published an official document that
advises faculty to “be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism,
cissexism, able-ism, and other issues of privilege and oppression” and suggests
professors remove “triggering material” from the syllabus if “it doesn’t
directly contribute to learning goals.” An example used was Chinua Achebe’s
Things Fall Apart, a novel that (according to the document) might “trigger
readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution,
violence, suicide and more.”
Though the college did respond to faculty concerns that this kind of policy
would threaten academic freedom, students at other universities are pushing for
similar “warnings” on course material, arguing that they will help ensure a
“safe space.”
While certain kinds of material are more obviously controversial — extreme
violence, pornography, rape scenes — others are less obvious. There is
absolutely no way of knowing what might trigger an individual because it is
dependent on their own personal experiences.
As writer Jill Filipovic noted in The Guardian,in online forums, trigger
warnings are used for a bevy of potentially anxiety-inducing subject matter,
from swearing to calories in a food item to childbirth to spiders. When a person
has experienced trauma, any number of things can trigger powerful reactions or
anxiety.
The world is a triggering place. As a woman in a world rife with sexism, I am
consistently exposed to imagery and behaviour that I find insulting, offensive,
or upsetting. But I want to be able to discuss that reality and that imagery
within academic and public spaces, not be protected from it. In fact, these are
some of the few spaces where such issues can be discussed in a
challenging and nuanced way.
During the many months I spent in feminist film theory courses, I watched a
number of upsetting rape scenes on film, as well as engaging with pornographic
imagery and generally violent or upsetting material. Much of that imagery will
stick with me and trouble me forever. Yet I still consider it to have been a
valuable part of my learning experience. Taking that material out of the
curriculum isn’t going to protect marginalized people from it, nor will it
better enable us to critique that material.
Actress and activist Martha Plimpton came under fire a few months ago for
promoting a fundraising event to raise money for abortion funds called “A Night
of a Thousand Vaginas.” The offended parties claimed that the use of the word
“vagina” constituted “cissexism.” The fact that women have fought for decades in
order to be able to discuss their bodies openly and have only recently begun to
be able to name their body parts without shame was ignored by folks who felt
excluded by the campaign.
Will discussions of vaginas, for example, be removed from the curriculum on
account of “cissexism”? What about discussions of eating disorders or war or
suicide or racism? If
discussions of
women’s
bodies are deemed offensive,
should they be avoided? There are so many conversations that would never have
happened in my gender studies seminars had professors avoided discussions of
“racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, able-ism, and other issues
of privilege and oppression.” Beyond that, students would likely have felt even
more afraid to speak up about controversial topics than they already do, lest
they inadvertently “trigger” a classmate.
Universities are meant to be places to interrogate challenging subjects and
issues — particularly within Women’s Studies, where discussions include topics
like pornography, violence against women, gender, colonialism, and yes, vaginas.
It’s too easy to move from “this offends me” to “this offends me and therefore
it must not be discussed or must only be discussed in a way that doesn’t offend
me.” I see the way this has negatively impacted feminist discourse and I don’t
want to see the trend extend into academic institutions.
Meghan Murphy is a writer and journalist from Vancouver, B.C. Her website is
Feministcurrent.com.
National Post, May 12, 2014.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
