Note: I wrote this post on a different platform (with almost no readers) upon reviewing the following article, which really upset me when I read it (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/21/new-study-says-trigger-warnings-are-useless-does-mean-they-should-be-abandoned ). I am moving it here (with some edits) because it fits this topic somewhat, although it isn't directly about the legal profession (it is about higher education). In the context of the legal profession, some of the same considerations could apply not only to trigger warnings (e.g., in law school) but also to any gentle measure that could be accused of being "coddling" or overly accommodating or whatever...
The utility of trigger warnings has come under fire recently. The study in the above-referenced article apparently purports 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. It bothered me, so I felt the need to write my own non-expert thoughts about it.
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 actually read the study, so I'm engaging more with the implications of how it's being presented and reported; and (3) I know very little
about the science of psychology so I'm by no means an expert on any of this.
So, with those caveats in mind, here is my
brief rant about why trigger warnings may still be not only good, but
also incredibly meaningful, despite the supposed absence of an immediately
measurable reduction in distress:
- Communicative Function: For many traumatic experiences (especially many interpersonal traumas), 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.
- Exercising-Kindness-and-Compassion Function: anything that helps remind not only those who may have suffered from trauma but also the other people in the room of the need for thoughtfulness and sensitivity in relation to difficult subject matter is a good thing in my view. Whether it's a trigger warning or something else, some sort of reminder that we all come from different backgrounds and some of us may very well be personally affected by difficult content is an important signal to the entire group to exercise kindness, compassion and sensitivity when addressing those topics. It doesn't mean censoring anyone's viewpoints but just prompting people to consider whether the manner in which they express their views might impact others. If we want a kinder profession and more compassionate world, then we need to take every opportunity to promote and practice empathy, whenever possible, in my view.
- Autonomy-Promoting Function: Far from being infantalizing (or "coddling"), in my opinion 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' and colleagues' 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.
As always, please note that I am a lawyer, not a mental health professional of any kind. I have no expertise in trauma or mental health. Also, please note that any opinions and views expressed in this blog are solely my own and are not intended to represent the views or opinions of my employer in any way. For more information about the purpose of this blog, please see here and for a bit more information about my personal perspective on this issue, please see "my story" here
I am very grateful to have received a "Clawbie" Award for this blog (which reflects the importance of this topic): https://www.clawbies.ca/2019-clawbies-canadian-law-blog-awards/
For some of my external writing on this topic, see:
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/a-more-inclusive-discussion-on-the-impact-of-trauma-on-lawyers-mental-health-is-needed/276166
- https://www.cbabc.org/BarTalk/Articles/2020/February/Features/Speaking-Up-About-Trauma-and-Mental-Health
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/changing-the-conversation/326240
No comments:
Post a Comment