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had a strong desire to say something about this issue and this is the only platform I have (albeit a long-abandoned and out-of-date one).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. 

New Addition

Still considering names....

So long, old friend (Persephone July 30, 1995- August 30, 2011)

It's the first day in more than 16 years without my oldest and dearest friend. There are no words..... 

Rest in Peace, Lilly

One year ago today, we said goodbye.

Xoxo.

Why Give a Home to a Dying Animal?

Through my volunteer work at the Toronto Humane Society, I have encountered a number of animals who still had a good quality of life (and were therefore adoptable), but were geriatric and/or afflicted with a terminal illness. For those willing to take these animals into their homes, there is little doubt that their time together will be very limited and that grief and sorrow will be an inevitable consequence in the not too distant future. So why do it? Here are some of my thoughts:

1) Because it makes us feel less helpless. For those of us who love animals and feel despair when faced with the abandonment and abuse that so many endure, it can be a crippling feeling to realize how little we can do to curb the problem. Yet by taking in one of these special animals in its hour of greatest need, we can affirm for ourselves that, yes, we really can make a difference. By taking in animals that otherwise would have no hope for life whatsoever, we can really know that we are part of the solution;






2) Because we can witness something beautiful: animals who have spent any amount of time in a shelter know the score. They know that they have been abandoned. They sense that their lives could be at risk. Geriatric and dying animals feel especially vulnerable in these strange environments. In my experience, many of them shut down and appear far more decrepit and lifeless than they really are, or they act out in an attempt to appear less weak in the eyes of others who could harm them. But when you get them home and make them feel safe and loved, they begin to blossom in a most extraordinary way. Suddenly that dull-eyed, dying old dog that appeared comatose on the concrete floor of a shelter is prancing around like a puppy with new light in her eyes. It is indescribable how great a privilege this is to experience.



3) Because the bond is unlike any other: Having gone from a state of extreme vulnerability into a stable, loving environment, these animals express their gratitude through a bond that has no comparison. People often wonder if an older animal might be less inclined to bond with a new family than a younger one would be, but the reality is that vulnerable animals are much more aware of the gift that you are giving them. It doesn't take long before they are gazing at you with sheer adoration, knowing that you lifted them out from a terrible fate for no other reason than that you wanted to protect them.





4) Because we can be part of an inspirational story: It's okay to admit that we like to feel good about ourselves. When you rescue an animal in extreme need in circumstances where most other people would have turned away, you get to feel like you have done something really amazing. It's okay to enjoy that because you earned it. When you tell people the story of how you came to adopt or foster your new companion, not only will people appreciate what you have done, but for many it will be a source of inspiration that moves them to see animals in a more compassionate way. This feels good.





5) Because we can learn something important: Death is scary. Yet we all have to face it sometime. Animals are incredibly wise and dignified in how they face death. As painful as the loss of our beloved companion will be, it is a privilege to be able to learn from the strength and character that they display when facing down their own mortality. Moreover, we are freer to learn this lesson when we take in an animal that we know is dying because there is no shock or surprise. We know it is coming from the moment we take them in. We are therefore ready to be part of this journey and open to learning from it.


6) Because we will never forget: Let's not fool ourselves. It's still going to hurt like hell when we lose them, even though we know what we are getting into right from the beginning and think we can steel ourselves against it. Yet, when it is over, we have a poignant and beautiful memory--a tale of how a lost soul found us and enriched our lives just in the nick of time. And what persists the most, beyond the sadness, is our gratitude that we were able to take them in, rather than having them suffer some anonymous death on a cold shelter table, never having had the opportunity to show us what a privilege it is to love them.




Rest in Peace, Lilly

Animal Welfare Post: Why No-Kill? (Updated)

There are many justifications for preferring a "No-Kill" approach to animal sheltering. First, there is the utilitarian argument based on numbers that it simply isn't true that "you can't save them all." If in fact you can save them all through the application of No-Kill principles, then the numbers will weigh heavily in favour of No-Kill, since countless many more will be saved in a no-kill shelter vs. kill shelters which needlessly destroy saveable animals. I adhere to this view. You can read more about it here:

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/

The more difficult question which perhaps remains academic given my stance with respect to the above justification is where we should fall if it really were true in any given community that not every animal could be saved. Would it then be justified to kill the less marketable ones so that a higher number of animals could be spared?

In my view, even in those circumstances a "No-Kill" approach would be mandated. The fundamental purpose which should guide the governance of any animal shelter should be to serve as an exemplary guadianship relationship between the guiding forces of the shelter (staff, board, volunteers) and the animals it takes under its protection. What I mean by this is that to serve any meaningful purpose, an animal shelter should be a place that truly sets an example of what the human-animal bond can and should be. The basis of such guardianship is a genuine relationship, involving love, trust and respect. Animals are not numbers. They are companions under our protection whom we love and have a very personal sense of connection to.

The reason why I feel this is so important is that it is the only real way that we are going to have any hope of changing widespread attitudes about the role of animals in our lives, regardless of how the numbers currently fall: by actually providing a living example to inspire and instruct the public about what the human-animal bond can be like.

How can we expect society's utilitarian attitudes towards companion animals to ever change if those of us who dedicate our lives to the protection of such animals fall back on the same excuses as the public does in discarding animls? How can we expect the public to be inspired to experience meaningful relationships to their animal companions if we cannot inspire them by the way we regard the animals for whom we care?

For instance, we criticize people for abandoning their pets due to behavioural issues rather than working with them. So what message does it send when shelters (who purport to love animals more than the average citizen does) do precisely the same thing by euthanizing the animals who are not immediately adoptable for behaviour reasons rather than lovingly working to rehabilitate them, with patience and understanding concerning the origins of their lack of trust in the failings of humans to have guided them? We are incensed and horrified when people abandon their pets because it is too much trouble to care for them when their pets age or suffer from medical issues. Yet what message does it send when senior and special needs animals are weeded out in shelters in favour of the more marketable, younger and healthier animals?

It is unacceptable for shelters simply to become thrift shops for discarded animals. That does nothing to address the real issue. What must be done is transformative. Shelters must not passively hold unwanted pets in the hope that someone might want them, thereby saving the lucky ones and regretfully saying goodbye to those who could not capture the imagination of a member of the public to take them in. Rather they must generate something that was not there before: an exemplary relationship which can serve as a source of inspiration and education for members of the public who might not otherwise feel this connection.

When I took my special needs dog Lilly home with me, everywhere I went I encountered people who would NEVER have dreamed of considering an older dog (with cancer no less). Yet by observing my example (and the example of the shelter which gave her a chance), they became inspired to think about animal guardianship in a different way. Suddenly the beauty of saving a life as precious as hers so obviously was planted a seed inside their imagination, which I have no doubt will lead to more compassionate choices in at least some of them. This is what shelters must do if we are ever to have hope not only in maximizing the number of animals that can find their way into homes but also in transforming the attitudes that lead them to be abandoned and overlooked in the first place.

Most importantly, it's just the right thing to do if we truly love animals. Betrayal of the trust of those whom we love is simply not an option. What we need to do is to find a way to transmit this vision to others and inspire them to share in it. This can't be done in an environment where the killing of those whom we purport to protect is a routine occurrence. We will never inspire anyone that way. On the contrary, people will exercise their option of simply turning away, feeling defeated, because what we are showing them is too ugly to face. Instead we need to show them the beauty in the true bond between animals who would not otherwise have a chance, and the people who love them. Only in that fashion will we inspire and transform rather than simply reshuffle.

***Addendum May 22: Another point is that when kill practices are employed, so much creative energy that could otherwise go to saving animals is lost. Staff and volunteers become depressed and traumatized by seeing the animals with whom they have formed a bond be destroyed. They therefore disengage or leave altogether. The shelter becomes a depressing place that people don't want to visit or think about. If they do attend there to save an animal or assist in some way, they will not be inclined to linger. A No-Kill approach changes this dynamic by cherishing each life within the shelter walls and nourishing the bond that forms between the animals and staff, volunteers, and members of the public, thereby creating a positive energy that can be harnessed to save more animals. The shelter becomes a positive place, full of inspirational stories that people want to be a part of. This is the kind of shelter that people want to visit and where people want to linger. The compassion fatigue that characterizes so many shelter workers and volunteers (and members of the public who visit shelters) is replaced with a positive energy, nourished by the successes that are enjoyed and celebrated. This then equips participants with greater emotional capacity to expand the shelter's ability to help more and more animals.