Trigger Warning: This blog is a possibly useful rant on Trigger Warnings.
The discussion about Trigger Warnings is not just a debate simply about a message in a book or a blog post found on Tumblr; it’s an argument based on whether people should respect the anxieties of those around them, or whether we should push our peers into facing their fears and conquering their anxieties.
I read Sara Munjack’s blog called “Trigger Warning: Trigger Warning” and it really made me think about the concept of her post as a whole. I agree with a lot of the points that she made, but I also agree with arguments made in favor of these warnings.
Sara points out that there are no trigger warnings in the “real world”. When out in society, no one is going to warn you if something cruel is about to occur. No one knows what is going to happen next; we have to be ready to anything when it comes. Sara also eloquently discusses the absence of trigger warnings in the classroom by saying, “…I do think it’s important that people challenge themselves and stigmas. Being upset can engender learning. We must try to step out of our comfort zone to peek our head out into reality” (Munjack). I agree that being passionate about something, even in a negative way, can inspire people to learn more about the subject at hand. Overall, it’s true that it’s not always good for people to be coddled or babied; it won’t help them prepare for the world they will be forced to face.
Although all the points that Sara made were valid, there are also some other aspects that I think equal out the anti-trigger warning argument. People often use literature, TV, or online blogging as an escape from reality. Entertainment, for some, puts people in a happier place and allows them to forget about the current hardships that they encounter daily. In addition, many agree that it is a person’s own individual right to decide at what pace and how much they want to challenge their anxieties or fears, or whether they are ready to face them at all. It will never help a person to keep them sheltered. But, It is also not anyone’s choice but our own to decide how we want to live our individual lives; including how often we want to be exposed to traumatic material.
I believe that there can be a way to try and ease people into facing the challenges of the world around them without forcing them to do so when they are unwilling. Something as simple as having publishing companies institute a rating system similar to those used for video games and movies could ensure that people are provided some level of protection from their anxieties. It’s understood that children’s books, teen literature, and adult novels vary greatly. Normally by the cover, and the summary on the jackets, people can assume which category a book belongs in. It is possible that it would be helpful to have a standardized rating system on books that can be placed on the cover. This way, the people that wish to be warned about what the book contains can look at the rating. Those who don’t can simply ignore it.
In the classroom, trigger warnings should be used but not excessively. Teachers should give warnings, but should also encourage students to understand that if they feel uncomfortable, they can always leave the room. Then, as time goes on, they can slowly help them face their inner fears and anxieties. By the time the students have grown, they will be ready to face the real world the way they individually choose to, with or without a trigger warning.
While the world does not provide trigger warnings, not everything in life needs to be so unforgiving. Trigger warnings should be used when it is appropriate; however, they should not be used excessively or to an extent that shelters youth from the world around them.
I think that in order for someone to dedicate themselves wholly and fully to interdisciplinarity, to learning anything and everything, then they must indeed ignore trigger warnings. And this brings up a similar debate discussed in my Native American history class…we talked about how the history of white/western culture impeding on native culture should be taught sooner, but is in many cases saved until some people are in late high school or even in college. The fact that this censorship occurs is slightly logical, but also against the ideal of interdisciplinarity.
Why should we keep people from knowing the truth sooner? Knowing the truth is necessary in order to base opinions and thoughts, even if the truth is difficult at times. However, there is an argument to be made against how old someone should be to learn this truthful information. So, in effect, our culture has imposed an age limit on how old you have to be in order to begin doing anything near the realm of interedisciplinarity. It’s interesting, isn’t it? How even the truths of knowledge are sacrificed in order to protect a young mind. Would children be smarter, more peaceful, more violent, etc if they knew the actual truth? Would this be a good idea? These are the questions that can always be asked, but will never be tested because what if it isn’t a good idea? This is the delicate balance of knowledge and truth.