
Life Is “Triggering.” the Best Literature Should Be, Too - dnetesn
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121790/life-triggering-best-literature-should-be-too
======
pavlov
_Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the
Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes
student identities in the classroom. These texts, wrought with histories and
narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss
as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background._

Wow. That reads like something the Party in _1984_ would use to justify its
censorship:

"The Ministry of Truth works tirelessly to protect the oppressed from
narratives of exclusion and oppression."

Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.

~~~
Navarr
This article likens warnings to censoring. While "triggered" is commonly
misused by a large number of people, it did stem from people who suffer PTSD
like symptoms from traumatic events.

Giving such people a way to prepare themselves for these types of events, or
recuse themselves if absolutely necessary, shouldn't be considered the same as
censorship.

~~~
dmschulman
I think the underlying issue goes beyond a simple warning at the top of an
assignment containing triggering material. It's more so about the implications
of deeming something as "triggering" and how that classification can affect
the rest of the course/materials/students beyond the offended party.

Also there are implications for the professors and the future courses they'd
choose to offer in this situation. Maybe we won't have courses on the Greek
classics in a few years because the risk vs reward for the people electing to
teach those courses.

~~~
nmrm2
These both strike me as extraordinarily unlikely outcomes.

------
evan_
I was just listening to NPR this morning, and the announcer said they were
going to talk about last night's Mad Men finale- and if I was concerned about
spoilers, I should turn the radio off.

That's the level of concern that our society places on potentially ruining the
ending of a TV show. For some reason when we apply the same principle to being
respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived,
it's ridiculous.

~~~
exarch
>For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to
people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's
ridiculous.

Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when
you would be spoiling a show, _anything can be a trigger_. So it isn't even
possible to supply a meaningfully comprehensive "trigger warning".

~~~
kefka
Below you will find a list (in no particular order) of common trigger
warnings. If discussing one of these things, it is considered common courtesy
to put a simple “Trigger Warning: [Subject]” before a post.

Please note: This is a work in progress. If there are any triggers you feel
are missing, please feel free to drop us an ask.

    
    
        Swearing
        Rape
        Abuse (physical, mental, emotional, verbal, sexual)
        Child abuse/pedophilia
        Self-injurious behavior (self-harm, eating disorders, etc.)
        Talk of drug use (legal, illegal or psychiatric)
        Suicide
        Descriptions/pictures of medical procedures (even if they don’t contain blood or gore)
        Descriptions/pictures of violence or warfare (including instruments of violence, such as knives or guns)
        Corpses, skulls or skeletons
        Needles
        Discussions of -isms, shaming, or hatred of any kind (racism, classism, hatred of cultures/ethnicities that differ from your own, sexism, hatred of sexualities or genders that differ from your own, anti-multiple, non-vanilla shaming, sex positive shaming, fat shaming/body image shaming, neuroatypical shaming)
        Any time slurs are used (this includes words like “stupid” or “dumb”, which are still widely considered to be socially acceptable)
        Trans* degendering, or anti-trans* views of bodies
        Dismissal of lived oppressions, marginalization, illness or differences
        Kidnapping (forceful deprivation of/disregard for personal autonomy)
        Discussions of sex (even consensual)
        Death or dying
        Spiders
        Insects
        Snakes
        Vomit
        Pregnancy/childbirth
        Blood
        Serious injury
        Trypophobia (Link is safe.)
        Scarification
        Nazi paraphernalia
        Slimy things
        Anything that might inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD
    
    

Source:
[http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html](http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html)

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
Trigger Warning: The following post may contain something which might trigger
some reaction from someone. Descriptions of possible triggers can be
triggering, and are thus omitted here.

The more you need to warn against the less useful the warning becomes.
Eventually you either have a massive list like a drug side-effect label that
nobody reads or you have an extremely generic warning like the one above.

This post may contain swearing (depending on your choice of swear words) or
inspire intrusive thoughts in people with OCD. Belgium.

------
Vaskivo
I thinks everybody in the comments are forgetting one qute from the article:

>> I am sorry about the student who couldn’t abide the mention of sexual
assault, but she should be getting help for her triggering from a therapist,
not from a professor.

Shouldn't the students with a trauma be going through therapy to overcome that
trauma? I don't mean shoving depictions of rape onto them, unanounced, but
"trigger warnings" are just ways to go around the real problem: That person
hasn't overcome his trauma, and he is struggling with it in it's daily life.

~~~
ianbicking
My understanding of "trigger warnings" is that they are an acknowledgement
that _many_ people have trauma they haven't overcome, and college students
certainly among them – these are young people, overcoming the trauma of sexual
assault, for instance, is the work of years or decades, if it's even a thing.
These are classes full of diverse people and experiences, and if they bring
their full selves with them into the class then they'll be bringing some
trauma. Some points of literature will be deeply meaningful to some in ways it
is not to others. If the students don't bring their full selves, then they can
just approach it academically, abstractly; not an uncommon result, but it's
not a very ambitious outcome for an education.

That said, I'm not quite sure what the trigger warnings are supposed to
accomplish. That is, I see the problem trigger warnings are trying to address
– but I don't see how those warnings themselves accomplish much. Though they
could just be the preferred strawman when arguing against a whole category of
sensitivity advocacy.

------
wisty
Warning - comments like this will make you feel itchy. Try not to scratch.

I can't see how calling a content warning (not a bad thing) a "trigger
warning" is helpful.

The nocebo effect is real. If an authority figure is implying that something
is likely to be triggering, couldn't it cause people to be more likely to
consider such material to be triggering? And repeated exposure to this might
cause a serious condition to develop?

Let's not forget, there's virtually no research (at all) into "trigger
warnings" by actual psychologists. And the research that does exist is pretty
mixed (even leaning against using them).

~~~
ketralnis
> there's virtually no research (at all) into "trigger warnings" by actual
> psychologists

I assumed that these "warnings" were to alert a reader who may be "triggered"
to stop reading, lest they encounter their "trigger".

Is there some other intention?

~~~
DanBC
In theory they're to allow people to make informed choices and to put in place
safety mechanisms that allow them to access the material in a safe way.

Very few people need that level of support, but since all that's being asked
for is a simple (for example) "Watch out, this contains graphic scenes of
attempted suicide" it's a reasonable request.

The argument comes from two things:

1) People are policing content and preventing interesting content from being
taught. Thus, anything with a trigger warning is seen as being not suitable
for this campus and you're a monster for suggesting it should be taught here.
That's obviously sub-optimal.

2) Avoiding something that causes you mental distress may not be the best way
of overcoming that distress. I'm not recommending people just plough through
distressing material (because that's unlikely to help them either) but having
a warning and a bit of time to tackle the content in safe way is probably
useful.

------
moron4hire
I'm concerned about this phrasing "didn't feel safe". You see it all the time
as the justification for wanting "trigger" warnings.

Safe from what? What is the fear here? There is feeling uncomfortable, there
is trauma from being reminded of past events, I get all of that. But not
feeling safe means you feel there is an imminent, present danger. What is that
imminent danger?

The only thing that comes to mind is some fear that the classroom, now having
read the scenes of rape and sexual assault together, would turn into a rape
gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a scenario where the student would
rationally feel unsafe in the classroom.

~~~
nmrm2
> Safe from what?

From unintentionally re-living a traumatic experience (a rape). PTSD is real
and often effects rape victims. Warnings can help victims mentally prepare
themselves before difficult discussions. E.g. some soldiers with PTSD can
sometimes uncomfortably sit through fireworks displays, but will have a panic
attack if a firework goes of unexpectedly.

 _> ...would turn into a rape gang. I can't, for the life of me, imagine a
scenario where the student would rationally feel unsafe in the classroom._

Asking why someone with PTSD can't just not feel unsafe is like asking why
someone with autism can't just act normal.

~~~
moron4hire
To be clear, I understand that "it's all in your head" is not a valid response
to phobias, depression, PTSD, etc. I do know that they are real problems for
people and they don't just go away when someone says "walk it off".

But if there is no real danger, in the physical world, that defines it as an
irrational fear, a phobia. Are we going to put trigger warnings on anything
involving dogs, water, heights, spiders, narrow spaces, open spaces, or
clowns? Which phobias are the suffer's responsibility and which are societies?

We might, and should, choose to be considerate. But it should be in the realm
of social norms and manners, not codified regulation and law.

~~~
nmrm2
See my post in this thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565576](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565576)

------
a_c_s
On the one hand it increased sensitivity to people who have dealt with trauma
is admirable. On the other hand college should be a place to grapple with all
kinds of ideas and to learn how to deal with vastly different experiences and
points of view (including those that are offensive).

Once we add a trigger warning, where do we go from there? It is one thing if
the expectation is for the student to use the warning as an opportunity to
brace themselves for the challenge and, if necessary, seek help in dealing
with the material.

However, I think the fear of many who are skeptical of the warnings is that
they would result in students being excused entirely from having to deal with
any material that might trigger them. Over time this would actually diminish
students' ability to deal with challenging material, which is the opposite of
what students should be learning.

This already happens in lower-stakes contexts. For example, a friend of mine
is a religious studies professor: he has religious students ask to be excused
from learning about secular approaches, like the biblical documentary
hypothesis, on the basis that it challenges their beliefs. His response, as it
should be, is that being able to understand and apply something they don't
believe in or even vehemently disagree with is part of what you are supposed
to be learning.

~~~
darkmighty
I believe the "lower-stakes contexts" you mention are qualitatively different.

Rape, Violence, or War are related to _traumatic experiences_. You might not
find it so controversial if it they were visceral descriptions of
Arachnophobia, Acrophobia or fear of drowning.

Religion or Politics, on the other hand, are related to _controversial ideas_.

Discussing controversial ideas should never be shielded: at best it leads to
enlightenment and new points of view and opinions; at worse it is a waste of
time (perhaps because some ideas are poorly fundamented). So for example, the
visceral passages in those books might have been safely replaced by an
explanation of the results (for the students who find it traumatic only)
without much loss. Of course, ideally one would separate himself from the
situation and not be affected, instead focusing on understanding objectively
the social and historical context for the book, or maybe the prose, and so on;
but it's completely understandable some may find those _experiences_ too
traumatic.

~~~
a_c_s
Yes, that is indeed a distinction that can be made, but in practice I don't
think it is - which is my fear.

Quoting from the article: "However, the student said her professor focused on
the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on
the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class
discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the
class."

For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the
triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with
the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite
reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would
still not be able to see anything but the rape.

This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and
examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an
important life skill.

------
ianbicking
I recently listened to this debate:
[http://www.npr.org/2015/03/03/390254974/debate-do-
liberals-s...](http://www.npr.org/2015/03/03/390254974/debate-do-liberals-
stifle-intellectual-diversity-on-the-college-campus) "Do Liberals Stifle
Intellectual Diversity On The College Campus?"

I found the arguments quite compelling that "liberal censorship" was largely a
figment of imagination. (In large part because the people who are supposedly
censoring have no coercive power and are themselves engaging in a argument
they have a right to make.)

The audience did not agree with me, so obviously it wasn't a slam dunk.

------
peterwwillis
This is a sad example of a lack of empathy leading to a bad argument.

You can't acknowledge that a course should have a warning about sexual assault
themes and then say anyone affected needs therapy. If you have to give a
warning, you are implicitly stating you agree that some people may be harmed.
And the potential for real harm - not to mention the more basic problem of not
being able to complete the course work - should be dealt with appropriately,
not dismissed as unnecessary or stifling.

There is a balance that can be struck between caring about people and not
baby-proofing the world. But to say people should just suck it up when they're
hurt and take it as a character-building exercise is just an attempt to ignore
the person's pain.

The best literature doesn't need triggering shock tactics. Certainly they can
be a useful tool, but it's the writing that makes it useful, not the subject
matter.

Finally, consider what actually happens to a person when they get triggered.
Quick shallow breathing, the heart races, pupils dilate, adrenaline spikes,
and a feeling of imminent death freezes you in place until your brain can cope
with what's going on. Until you've experienced this for yourself, you should
really reconsider your opinions about how you'd like to be treated in such
situations, or whether you should be given a warning. You may not be able to
fully comprehend the gravity of how this can affect an individual's life.

------
tzs
Trigger warnings likely do more harm than good. Avoiding reminders of trauma
actually reinforces PTSD. Trigger warnings help make and keep being a victim
of trauma a central part of the survivor's identity.

Here is a comment from an earlier discussion with cites to a couple of article
covering the harmful to victims aspects of trigger warnings:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8801995)

------
hashmap
Slamming something that causes no one inconvenience but can save some people a
lot of pain is so weird.

------
kefka
There seems to be quite a few levels of problems here.

1\. Weak people needing warnings of things they feel 'trigger' them.

Triggers exist. They are an artifact of PTSD, and are a very real phenomenon.
However, just like "gluten sensitivity" and newer fads, 'trigger warnings' are
the artifacts from new-age feminists and SJW (social justice warrior) types.
They have no basis in medical fact, nor are many of them being actively
treated for PTSD. It just happens to be the current cudgel one can smack
others against the head to do their bidding.

2\. Professor who dismisses said "feels".

Professors, and schools, are expected to be bastions of safety and security
when exploring oneself. Or at least, that's the current understanding of one
of the aspects of a university. Anyone who goes against that idea, including
telling weak people they are wrong, is "evil". And the worst one can do is
dismiss someone's "feels", mainly towards women, and some men.

The 'Other' way to read this is :

Patriarchy Professor tells PTSD feminist sufferer that Your Rape is Invalid

One must understand the other side, the view from the new wave feminists
(16-30). It's an ugly, bleak, mild world similar to that of the fainting women
of Victorian times. And it's one I have no respect for.

3\. Degree that requires class that may or not pertain to said curriculum.

This view will be fought here at HN. This challenge is the fight over
curriculum and what University degree is for. Is it for the well-roundedness
of your education, or is it to be employable in a field that makes you more
money?

If it is to be a better citizen, then absolutely the Classics should be
included in every education. It is the foundation of the ancient Greeks and
Romans that our society is based upon. Where our Senate came from is directly
from the Roman Senate.

But, what if you attended college to obtain a better job and easier life? Then
surely, Classics mean little. They do nothing to further your goals, nor do
they put direct skills in your pocket for the next position you take. They
__might __have auxiliary skills taught via Socratic dialectic, but most of
these classes are for naught.

With a final nail in its coffin, school costs raising much higher than
inflation, one must be money conscious. Those costs translate into less
classes in your chosen major, and more time in school. And that leads to lost
opportunity and extra uncancellable debt.

4\. University for harboring political correctness to the extremes.

With the plight of the universities and un- and underreported rapes and
assaults, they are showing to be astute to the ills of college life. With
this, universities are convening kangaroo courts to find "guilty" all sorts of
college crimes, like rape, even when there is no founding. This whole
atmosphere feeds upon itself even more with higher and higher political
correctness. And this is where the professor, even though believes he is
justified in ignoring such 'trigger claims', may still be punished by loss of
tenure or not given grants.

Does the Uni require a modicum of protection for its students, staff, and
faculty? Of course! But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the
hardness of life, and harsh words and powerful critiques. Instead, the idea of
shielding assault has migrated downward to 'he said a bad word', ala
kindergarten.

~~~
peterwwillis
I agree that 'trigger warning' is a leftist slogan that's bandied out mainly
by social justice warriors, but just because the people pushing it are
annoying doesn't invalidate the idea in itself.

But what's with this classification of "weak" people?

 _" Anyone who goes against that idea, including telling weak people they are
wrong, is "evil"."_

 _" But one does not need to shield 'weak minds' from the hardness of life,"_

Is this a paraphrase from the story, or are you actually claiming PTSD-
afflicted people are 'weak', and that weak people should be ignored? Did I
miss something?

~~~
kefka
PTSD is a real medical disorder, as set forth by the DSM-5. Triggers are a
well known phenomenon regarding PTSD. Usually, treatment revolves around
either psychological sessions or drugs.

The feminists and some liberals who use "trigger warning" do not have PTSD, or
are _not_ working with professionals to assist with psychological disorders
that have triggers (like PTSD).

Instead, they have latched on this language from a legitimate disorder and are
coopting it for making their world tame and easy. This is what I am calling
weak: people who want the world around them to bring the hardness to that of a
kindergartner.

Life is not all happiness and candy. Life also has hardships, disagreements
and harsh criticism, and death. And these "kids" are demanding to be treated
like children.

"Your argument is triggering me, so shut the fuck up with your criticism."

"Clapping is triggering me, so everyone do jazz hands."

"Ancient Greek works trigger me, so I can't participate in class."

~~~
peterwwillis
Oh, okay. I know what you're talking about now. I've dealt with the same
people before: people who mis-use the phrase and apply it to things it doesn't
actually apply to.

I had one person tell me "You can't call me a bitch! That's a violation of my
consent, and is triggering." Which, it's not, and, it's not. As uncouth and
sexist as it may be, the use of the word is so widespread (and has so many
uses in our modern American culture) that it can't be legitimately claimed
that this word will cause an anxiety attack. And I certainly don't need (or
care for) someone's consent when I am intentionally trying to insult them.
There's lots of other examples of these phrases being misused or
misunderstood, of course.

But these aren't the people we should be concerned with, or even talking
about. The people we should be talking about are the few but very real people
who really do suffer attacks and re-live traumas when certain subjects
_unexpectedly_ come up in daily life.

Do you have the money for them to get therapy? I don't know if you realize
this, but trauma therapy is usually not free, nor widely available in every
community. There are _some_ not-for-profits that provide free counseling to
specific groups, but they don't exist everywhere, and not everyone qualifies.
It's a bit like homeless shelters: they're there to help, but they sure as
hell don't "fix" people from being homeless.

And more importantly, _therapy does not cure PTSD_. You can't just go to a
doctor, talk about your feelings and suddenly you're trauma-free. Regardless
of any therapy taking place, there is still a potential for harm, and so we
still need to actually care about not harming people whenever it is reasonable
to do so. Sometimes it will be reasonable, and other times not. I think it's
important to recognize we need to have a multi-colored approach to issues that
negatively affect people's lives, rather than a black & white approach.

~~~
kefka
You have a good point about the costs of therapy and medication. This is just
a bit of my anger seeping through.

My wife has a trigger. I'm one of 2 who know about it. She was beaten by an
old boyfriend years ago with a certain type of belt.

I found out about this because I was taking off the belt from my pants, and
she suddenly got quiet and started to shake. Then I realized that she couldn't
speak. She would do things, like "Go over there" and likewise. She was
expecting me to hit her with the belt, and was nigh catatonic from it.

She was also "raped", when she was with a guy who I am friends with (before I
was dating her). He didn't know about that belt thing. He takes his pants off,
and she's triggered. She didn't want to have sex with him, but did so because
of the belt. Was this rape, considering she took off her clothes and made
herself compliant? Well, not really. But it wasn't consensual.

That's what I'm used to when they say they are triggered.

~~~
peterwwillis
I've known many people who are similarly afflicted. It's very unfortunate and
scary and sad. It's also the thing that makes me super pissed off when certain
people claim consent is dead simple, or that triggers are unimportant to
consider.

My hope is that the more these stories are told, the more they will be
investigated as serious topics to consider for their potential to negatively
affect people's lives. We don't have a good system to deal with them now, but
hopefully someday soon we can.

------
whiteboarder
Oh no! I am a poor professor who is being censored, because a few students
want a 1 sentence warning about potentially traumatic experiences! Look at how
my rights are being infringed on, because of a 1 sentence warning that I am
being "Forced" to include!

Warnings are the same as censorship! Students should do exactly as I tell them
to do, and have no right to ask me for any accommodations at all, no matter
how trivially easy it is for me to include them.

Censorship! First Amendment rights! Big Brother!

/s

~~~
jtbigwoo
It seemed to me that the problem is an out-of-touch professor rather than the
material. Who discusses Persephone and glosses over the rape part? Especially
in an introductory course? At least half the class was probably wondering what
the hell was going on.

The author of the article seems to willfully miss the point. He pats himself
on the back for reading Mein Kampf. What do you think would happen if a
professor assigned Mein Kampf and then didn't talk about anti-Semitism? Would
the author be telling the students to keep quiet?

The student in the example read the material. Despite being "triggered", the
student came to class to discuss the material. She's probably thinking, "that
was tough to get through; I hope we have a good discussion of the issues in
the text." She gets to class and the professor spends most of the time talking
about style rather than substance and then brushes her off after class. I'd be
frustrated, too.

------
eli_gottlieb
Ah. So of course we should expect "the best literature" to inflict
psychological pain and violence upon us. Apparently, if trauma victims want
_not_ to be kicked in the bruised portion of their minds, that's Literally
Stalin.

Silly me. Here I'd thought the _best_ literature was for lifting us _up_ out
of the daily small traumas and dirt of our daily lives to show us something
larger, finer, and more beautiful.

Silly me.

~~~
eruditely
No, literature is obviously not your narrow definition, it can be whatever it
wants (the set of good literature) and not anything else.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Wow, we're being really incredibly anal on this board today, aren't we?

"Good" literature is obviously a matter of taste, ie: rather than a matter of
what internet commenters or the New Republic like to say.

