Trigger warnings - what are they really for?

[mahagonny]

Here is my "trigger warning" from last semester's Comparative Slavery course:

Note about content and vocabulary: This is a course that examines different systems of human beings' buying and selling other human beings while denying their humanity. Slavery was based on  violence and torture, including sexual violence. Slavery was based on and justified by racism. If you are not able to explore and discuss these subjects with maturity and sensitivity, or you find these subjects too uncomfortable, please do not take the course. As will be discussed in the course, there is no consensus among scholars and others about how to refer to certain people, places, and phenomena we will be examining; in addition, we will encounter vocabulary that (by today's standards and perhaps by contemporary standards) appears insensitive or just plain wrong. Again, if you are not able to discuss these topics with [i]maturity and sensitivity, [/i]please do not take this class.

I do not spend much time on this.  I do not think I have had students drop the class because of this instead, of say, the heavy reading schedule. (Although they don't have to tell me why they drop.) I do not have warnings on individual sessions. In part this "warning" was designed to allow me to talk about various subjects without having to put a warning each time I get near something awful. It serves as sort of an eruv, covering the entire course.

Seems reasonable enough in today's climate.  Part of the solution would seem to be, when giving content warnings of this sort, to avoid using the term "trigger warning."  Since that term seems to have become "triggering" in its own right.

Now it's getting confusing. Avoiding the class because either (1) one does not want to be exposed to things that are either too upsetting to get a vivid account of or (2) too emotionally charged in today's environment for one to risk exposing their thoughts in discussion, would be a decision involving self-awareness and maturity.

[dismalist]

Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.

[marshwiggle]

Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.

Given the obvious infinite regression this leads to, how do they resolve this paradox?

[mahagonny]

Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.

Well, you know...Massachusetts.

[onthefringe]

Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.

Given the obvious infinite regression this leads to, how do they resolve this paradox?

Via the fact that this story relates to a simple student generated suggestion that "content note" might be a preferable phrase to trigger warning. And their reasoning lines up with several of the concerns raised on this thread, namely that it is more appropriate to share details about content that might be encountered, rather than "warn" people that something negative is going to happen.

Importantly, this is not a college mandate, and the student maintained list indicates clearly that "This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about language usage. Use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy. As shared in Brandeis University's Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression, the language you choose to use or not use is entirely up to you."

[dismalist]

https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories

[Puget]

https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories

Remember, these are students working on their own to make suggestions, it isn't a university policy document in any way. Some of the ones under "violent language" really are silly (I doubt too many people honestly have a problem with "killing it" or "give it a shot"), but the rest of the categories have what I would think are pretty sensible suggestions for the most part.

And per the topic of the thread, their reasons for preferring "content note" to "trigger warning" are well-founded based on the research and in line with what many have suggested here.

[jimbogumbo]

https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories

From the About This Project section:

"This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about language usage. Use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy. As shared in Brandeis University's Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression, the language you choose to use or not use is entirely up to you."

[dismalist]

https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories

Remember, these are students working on their own to make suggestions, it isn't a university policy document in any way. Some of the ones under "violent language" really are silly (I doubt too many people honestly have a problem with "killing it" or "give it a shot"), but the rest of the categories have what I would think are pretty sensible suggestions for the most part.

And per the topic of the thread, their reasons for preferring "content note" to "trigger warning" are well-founded based on the research and in line with what many have suggested here.

Strangely, I tend to agree in some ways. While many word suggestions are downright silly, use of others is general good manners.

I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling  example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American.  Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.

The good sense of posters here who wish to point to content is easily fulfilled by writing a proper syllabus. No need for any new terms at all. Thus, the terms must be doing something different from or in addition to informing students about content.

That the suggestions  are not official university policy is beside the point. The lists well reflect the temper of the times.

[Puget]

I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling  example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American.  Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.

Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.

[dismalist]

I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling  example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American.  Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.

Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.

I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.

[mamselle]

Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.

Well, you know...Massachusetts.

Watch it.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling  example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American.  Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.

Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.

I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.

Note: do not pull content.

[ergative]

I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling  example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American.  Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.

Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.

I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.

Sometimes words have the same denotative meaning, but vastly different connotative meanings. The term 'trigger warning' has picked up a dismissive connotation because so many people have dismissed the perfectly valid concern that some content deserves a note of some sort, and so now that same concern is looking for a new label. Linguists call it the euphemism treadmill: words pick up connotations, and people who want to refer to the same concept without that connotation must find a new word to express it.

This is why terms for racial groups change so much: Whatever term is in current use, racists are going to taint it, and so the group must find themselves a new word that doesn't carry the taint. It's not fickleness and it's not fashion. It is not because these people "can't make up their mind" or whatever criticism is lobbed at them whenever they ask to be called by a new name. This treadmill is how language works because it is how bigotry works; and it makes me desperately sad to see words for useful concepts get poisoned by people who don't want to engage with those concepts in good faith.

[Hegemony]

No, the objection against the term "trigger warning" is that it is a metaphor founded on gun violence. The thought is that in some cases it may even produce the kind of trauma that such warnings are meant to forestall. The objection is not to do with the phrase losing denotative force.

Now, I don't agree with trigger warnings or content warnings, whatever you call them. Nevertheless that is the now current widespread objection to the term "trigger warning."