In Defence of Trigger Warnings

Note: I haven't written on this blog in a long time and don't dare review my prior posts to see how embarrassing or poorly written they might be but upon reviewing the following article (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/21/new-study-says-trigger-warnings-are-useless-does-mean-they-should-be-abandoned ), I had a strong desire to say something about this issue and this is the only platform I have (albeit a long-abandoned and out-of-date one). There's a good chance I will delete this later but I wanted to write down my thoughts and share them for a short time.

The utility of trigger warnings has come under fire recently and this morning I came across an article referencing a study purporting to show that trigger warnings are effectively useless in reducing the psychological distress that may be experienced by those who are exposed to traumatic material.

A few caveats: (1) I'm not someone who avoids difficult and traumatic content. In fact, I am constantly exposed to such material as part of my career. I have never declined to hear something as a result of a trigger warning; (2) I didn't read the study; and (3) I know very little about the science of psychology; and (4) I'm assuming for the below that the concern implicated in the discussion is the audience's well-being, rather than engaging with the broader policy issue of whether trigger warnings belong in an academic environment even if they do benefit survivors of trauma.

As someone who has not avoided such material, this debate arguably has limited application to me. However, that doesn't mean I don't have a stake in this issue (which I will explain a bit below). So here is my brief rant about why trigger warnings may still be not only good, but also incredibly meaningful, despite the absence of an immediately measurable reduction in distress:

• Communicative Function: For many traumatic experiences (especially those that disproportionately affect women), a huge part of the harm caused is the sense of shame and stigma that accompanies the experiences, something you are not allowed to talk about, something that renders your experiences invisible. Even if trigger warnings don't actually eliminate or reduce the impact of the traumatic material in an immediately measurable way, I am not convinced that they don't serve a benefit in effectively telling the many survivors of trauma who may be listening that their suffering and vulnerabilities are being considered and cared about. Basically, it tells survivors "you are not alone in this" and "you are not invisible." Even if this doesn't reduce the immediate harm, I refuse to believe that this serves no purpose in promoting long-term healing. Perhaps it may not be a measurable benefit within any particular time frame. Perhaps on its own it may not even make much of a difference, but it is a measure that works towards creating a more trauma-informed world that acknowledges that survivors of trauma walk among us (at various stages of recovery) and may have unique concerns and vulnerabilities that deserve to be taken into account.
• Autonomy-Promoting Function: Far from being infantalizing (or "coddling"), in my view such warnings can be empowering. They provide the audience with information that equips members to make their own autonomous choices about how to proceed in view of their own understanding of their educational goals and well-being. This tells survivors that we trust them to make decisions about their own health and wellness. If there is more information relevant to that decision (e.g., that avoidance of such materials tends to impair rather than promote healing), then the non-infantilizing way to address the issue would be to also equip people with this information and give them the freedom to make a choice (where feasible given the educational objectives at play), not deprive them of the choice in the first place for paternalistic reasons. Moreover, the suggestion that such warnings should be discarded even though students and professors have expressed a desire to keep them is incredibly undermining of survivors' autonomy ("we know you feel they help you, but we know best what you need").
• Holistic Perspective: Studies like the one referenced (or at least the conclusions that seem to be drawn from them) strike me as incredibly reductionistic: looking only at an immediate after-effect of a potentially beneficial measure rather than a holistic consideration of the potential impact on a person's long-term healing and sense of belonging, either alone or in combination with other measures (perhaps including therapy for those who need it). Even if such measures don't actually fix the problem but just provide comfort by saying "we see you," "we care about you," and "you are not alone," my position is that this is a very good reason to keep them (an intangible benefit that studies like these can't seem to account for).
• #Metoo Lessons: The suggestion that the only people who would be served by trigger warnings are those who are actively suffering from PTSD and in dire need of therapy rings false to me. We all heard the discomfort in many of our friends' voices when they made very personal revelations further to #metoo. Whether they were actively suffering from PTSD or not, the pain was undeniably real and the long-term impact on many lives was palpable, even if it did not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder (something I don't need a psychologist to tell me since I have heard it directly from the people affected who are more than capable of speaking for themselves). 
• Accessibility for PTSD Sufferers: Also the fact that those who need trigger warnings may actually need PTSD therapy fails to address the issue: people who suffer from PTSD are perfectly entitled to be members of a classroom. People with this issue might make a legitimate choice to pursue therapy and attend class (especially considering that many people who are sexually assaulted are sexually assaulted in college and may not wish to discontinue their studies), or perhaps they may not be ready for therapy (or may have other barriers to pursuing that option) but would still like to be permitted to attend class and advance their education. The suggestion that they belong in therapy rather than the classroom is not an answer to the issue of whether those students deserve a very basic expression of kindness, compassion and consideration when they do in fact exist in such classrooms.

So those are my thoughts on the above, which I felt compelled to write down and share. At the end of the day, the only empirical evidence I have for the benefit of trigger warnings is the gratitude I feel as a woman when I hear such an acknowledgment of the differing perspectives and vulnerabilities that may exist in a shared space, even though I personally always make the autonomous decision to continue with the material and never decide to look away. In my view, if our goal is to create a trauma-informed world, that should be enough of a benefit to warrant  keeping the practice.