“Trigger Warnings & Neoliberal Classrooms: Rethinking Pedagogy in Our Time of Precarity,” an interdisciplinary panel and discussion, will take place at the Stony Brook University Humanities Institute on Wednesday, February 18th at 4:00pm. We would like to begin the discussion here on the IJFAB site, so please feel free to comment below–before, or even well after, the panel. We’ve also set up a website where we are compiling a list of resources on these issues for instructors, so please email us via the site with links to add. The following is how Michelle Ho and I have conceived of the panel and discussion:
After months of death and rape threats protesting her work, feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian canceled her talk at Utah State University that was scheduled for October 15, 2014. Despite having received an email threatening a “shooting massacre” at the event, the institution could not prohibit the carrying of guns due to state law. The case of Sarkeesian, who challenges representations of women in video games, highlights the issue of safety in academia. As feminist speakers and teachers are increasingly feeling less safe in certain pedagogical spaces, students are demanding “trigger warnings.” They, too, want to feel safe—both physically and emotionally—in our time of precarity. As Tavia Nyong’o says, it is not that this networked generation is unfamiliar with violence—rather, its members have grown up with the ability to edit and delete images (and knowledge) with ease. Yet, Jack Halberstam argues that there is no one-to-one relationship between trauma and the material triggering it.
This panel aims to encourage pedagogical discussions among instructors whose courses challenge constructions of race, gender, sexuality, dis/ability, and nationality. At the wider institutional level, it also draws awareness to the issue of trigger warnings on course syllabi, such as at UC Santa Barbara, where student leaders pushed for them to be mandatory. We fear a dystopia of administrators who enforce neoliberal classroom policies, especially because classes that challenge the status quo would be precisely the ones policed and censored. We do not want to treat our students as consumer-citizens by avoiding hurt feelings and heated classroom debates, or by necessarily catering to their trigger warning requests. We want to create productive spaces that might allow students to begin working through, or to make connections that could lead to solidarity, instead of necessarily protecting students. At the same time, we want to advocate a “pedagogy of care” and a “safe enough” classroom, or as Ann Pellegrini defines it, “someplace safe and beautifully caring in our time of precarity.”
Stony Brook Professors Kadji Amin, Nerissa Balce, Lisa Diedrich and Michael Kimmel will offer their thoughts on the following:
The major advantage of kamagra is the jelly form formulated with sildenafil citrate, an FDA-approved cialis tablets in india amerikabulteni.com ingredient that works as a PDE-5 inhibitor. Men require to generally be tested for it right after any signs or symptoms are felt. sildenafil viagra generico It is made out of a dynamic fixing called sildenafil cialis 5mg price citrate which meets expectations by advertising the stream of blood to the penis, bringing about stronger erections and enhanced sexual execution. Dalchini relieves from the bad effects viagra sildenafil canada more info here of stress.
1. Are our Stony Brook classrooms “safe spaces”? What is a “safe space” anyway? What does a “safe enough” classroom feel like, and how might we define the “pedagogy of care and caring”?
2. Do trigger warnings have a place in the Stony Brook classroom? If so, what are the cases for trigger warnings, and what is an ethical approach to trigger warnings?
3. While the advent of “men’s rights” groups proves that power is indeed shifting, it is still deeply unsettling and sometimes leaves us fearing for our lives. Is there anything to be done about this issue?
4. In August, a top administrative officer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “unhired” Steven Salaita under the auspices of protecting “civility.” How might the idea of “civil” language in the classroom add to this discussion, especially in light of politically engaged affect theories positing that women and racial others are most often accused of being “angry” or overly emotional?
I think trigger warnings are rarely, if ever, appropriate. In fact I think they represent the political appropriation of the language of PTSD professionals and survivors and have resulted in a degradation of the word ‘trigger’ to mean ‘anything I claim may upset a theoretical person who has suffered any form of trauma’.
As Jack Halberstam seems to acknowledge, PTSD is far more complex than is suggested by trigger warnings. As any sufferer can tell you, triggers are usually innocuous to others and they are everywhere. In my own case it was the smell of petrol that for several years following a serious car accident gave me terrifying flashbacks and sometimes resulted in loss of control over my bodily functions. I am sure there are many other car wreck survivors who have similar experiences. Should service stations carry trigger warnings?
We live in a society where television screens depicting violence and sexual assault are ubiquitous (even in doctors’ waiting rooms). Where simply being in a public space can expose you to rape jokes and graphic descriptions of suffering. Where no-one thinks twice about discussing life-threatening illnesses with near strangers. To expect education officials to be able to anticipate even a large proportion of potential PTSD triggers and issue explicit warnings is simply unreasonable – especially as the lecturer may just happen to own a jacket of the same type worn by by a DV perpetrator.
Students should know what topics are likely to come up in a classroom for many reasons. But when officials feel they must anticipate possible PTSD triggers and issue patronising warnings about them it’s likely to exert a chilling effect on a wide range of educational subjects. And because anything can be a trigger, mandatory trigger warnings offer a powerful tool to passive-aggressive authoritarians who seek to control what is in the syllabus.
Trigger warnings may give a false illusion of safety to some people and a self-satisfied feeling to the acutely politically correct, but I doubt they are of much use to real PTSD sufferers.