*Trigger warning – Discussion About Trigger Warnings

Why trigger warnings may hurt more than they help.

You’ve probably seen it: the “*TW” (Trigger Warning) preceding articles and news stories in social media feeds and news sites. This warning frequently accompanies stories about rape, abuse, sexual harassment, stalking, or domestic violence – topics that could potentially trigger a physiological or emotional reaction in readers who have experienced similar situations.

I follow a lot of feminist organizations and blogs, and since feminism exists because specific categories of people experience physical and organizational violence, that’s what people write about. Subsequently, I see this warning (*TW) multiple times per day. Systemic oppression and sexual violence are huge obstacles in women reaching social and economic parity, and these issues are compounded by preexisting social inequities for people who aren’t white, able-bodied, cisgendered, and straight. Feminist issues are inextricably linked with issues of violence and oppression, and therefore the subject matter is frequently distressing.

It’s vital that we continue to address these issues in any way possible – in blogs, news articles, art installations, videos, protests, auctions, film, poetry, fiction, memoirs, etc. – but the haphazard (or, worse, universal) application of the term “Trigger Warning” does little for those we desire to help, and can actually be harmful/hurtful to the most vulnerable among us.

How people process trauma varies as greatly as it is experienced. When more and more articles that address these forms of violence are preceded with “Trigger Warning” the cumulative effect becomes disheartening and useless. The very term “Trigger Warning” can make that resource suddenly undesirable to those who probably need it most. Why subject oneself to the possibility of reliving a trauma?

But here’s the thing: What about any particular article is a psychological, physiological, or emotional trigger – what specific phrase or paragraph in that story is “supposed” to cause a reaction?

My own triggers are mundane, everyday things: sirens, burning dust, slamming doors, unknown numbers on the caller ID, garbage in the road – almost all are unavoidable and very rarely do I get a heads-up before I encounter them. Driving on the interstate used to be a horrific experience for me, and because it was an unpleasant experience that I could prevent, I did go out of my way to avoid highway driving – to the detriment of my own mental health. Survivors of trauma often avoid situations that may cause them to relive traumatic experiences – it’s simply self-preservation.

When a person is sexually assaulted near a grocery store or robbed at gunpoint during a holiday, their triggers may include an Albertsons sign or Halloween decorations. Are we going to place trigger warnings everywhere? Who determines what content is ‘trigger-worthy’ and what is not? Placing “*TW” in the headline of an article creates the false belief that we can label all the potential triggers of trauma.

But in reality we can’t label everything, and the inability to do so invalidates those whose triggers/experiences aren’t identified. Individuals who experience physical or sexual violence may suffer further as they seek justice or reparations; the most significant trauma may not actually be the violent event itself but rather their experience with law enforcement or the criminal justice system in seeking that justice. Yet we still seek to limit recognition of the ways in which individuals suffer by attaching trigger warnings to very specific situations. By labeling some stories as “Trigger Warnings,” but not all of them, we diminish all potentially traumatic experiences that aren’t identified. Obviously, attaching universal trigger warnings would have a similarly nullifying effect – much the way labeling potentially carcinogenic substances in California has led to the labeling of almost everything in sight. Life is carcinogenic. Life is traumatic.

I recognize that the intention comes from a good place. I also recognize that for some, these warnings serve as a valuable indicator of content that should be avoided. But I would argue that those who have suffered some form of sexual or physical violence are intelligent enough to recognize a news article headline that may remind them of a past experience without needing to include a potentially invalidating or harmful “*TW” as well. And considering the innumerable ways in which people experience and process trauma, it’s quite possible that the term “Trigger warning” is itself becoming a trigger.

2 thoughts on “*Trigger warning – Discussion About Trigger Warnings

  1. The other day, a feminist Facebook page posted an article about an abuse survivor’s complicated relationship with her abusive father and the culture that perpetuated the abuse. I’m closely paraphrasing the title there. One of the first comments was a cry for a trigger warning because the article disturbed the commenter. I was thinking, “Really? Is ‘abuse’ in the title really not enough for you?” Are we really at the point where just TALKING about a subject can trigger someone?

    And then I realized, based on the majority of the other comments, that people really hated this article, for a completely separate reason. It had nothing to do with the fact that the article contained discussion of abuse; rather, it was that most of the commenters disagreed with the author of the article (essentially). The commenter was “disturbed” because they were judging the author’s approach to her abuse, not because the discussion was about abuse in general. And actually, that happens fairly often, I find. We’ve moved past the “viewer discretion advised” purpose of trigger warnings and “I don’t like this please label it as disturbing” territory. It’s about as effective as putting a rating on a movie: completely arbitrary standards that categorize certain topics or presentations of those topics as off-limits or scandalous or salacious.

    If we throw out “TW” every time we bring up hard topics, it inevitably slows down or even halts conversation. Yes, articles about (for example) abuse or mental illness or discrimination are hard to read. But those topics are shrouded in so much silence ALREADY. Do they need to be locked behind trigger warnings or dragged out in the open where everyone is forced to confront their ugliness? Of COURSE we should make every effort to protect the interests of those who are directly affected and being talked about, but maybe let those people make their own decisions about how they interact rather than saying, “Oh, you probably don’t want to read this.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s