This is an article that I utterly disagree with, it has many problems: The suggestion is that warnings added to reading lists where the authors or the content is related to sexual abuse. It starts...
This is an article that I utterly disagree with, it has many problems:
The suggestion is that warnings added to reading lists where the authors or the content is related to sexual abuse.
It starts with a confession that it's hard to read at a critical distance two authors' work because they are alleged of harassment.
It generally suggests linking intellectual work tightly to the person of the intellectual.
It promotes a culture of excessive safety based on exaggerated vulnerability.
Students of humanities should be aware that they are going to deal with all sorts of human situations an stories, given that's their research topic. Students studying gender issues should already be aware of and interested in the fact that things like sexual abuse are part of what their study will be, and today there's no field in humanities that is not involved, regardless of how much, in gender studies. And I don't understand why sexual abuse is much worse than say murder or the death of a close family member. There aren't warnings for material that concerns death of a friend or a violent murder of some person, and nobody suggests them. There aren't warnings for the death of a parent in a story, and no request for warnings, albeit it's as difficult an experience as being a victim of sexual abuse, I can reassure you.
I'm totally against this exaltation and exaggeration of victimhood. Instead of teaching people how to stand strong and not give into sorrow and suffering, people push victims to identify with their past and their victimhood, and live with it whole their life. Anything that is even slightly offensive or hurtful should be avoided. The world should accomodate them (us, to be more exact). I don't think this helps the victims of anything. They (we) are taught to be weak and easily offended, and this reinforces that being a victim of something like sexual abuse makes our life fall apart, making it harder to start again and become even stronger.
You sound to me, and I admit I don't know and this is speculation, like someone who had a traumatic experience but did not suffer PTSD as a result. So, let's talk about what PTSD is....
Exemplary
You sound to me, and I admit I don't know and this is speculation, like someone who had a traumatic experience but did not suffer PTSD as a result. So, let's talk about what PTSD is.
Neurologically (and that's my area, I specialise in neurology and neuroendocrinology), PTSD is basically your brain's inability to process a memory that has a specific emotional load because its mechanisms for processing that packet of memories is "jammed". Your brain processes memories in part by running them BACK through your senses in smaller pieces, mostly overnight, and re-filing them into new categories and new boxes that need to be assessed, labelled, contextualised, and put into appropriate contexts with other memories and thoughts. Memory is an exceptionally, unbelievably, damn-near-impossibly complex process, and it's different in everyone because it develops from a total black box. This means that while we suspect that we understand the basic principles of how and why, we're not totally certain yet (we are pretty sure though).
When you have a painful but not "traumatic" (and this is a scientific term, in this context, not based on the colloquial meaning) memory, the pain becomes a part of the memory that is linked to it contextually. When your brain goes to process the memories, it has to process that pain's existence without feeling the pain itself, and provided it's a small or prolonged or non-traumatic kind of pain, it's going to be able to process it by analysing the pain itself. It ends up feeling those memories without feeling the pain itself, and simply remembering THAT there was pain, and it was bad. If it did feel the pain, the systems involve would quickly overload, preventing you from processing it.
Traumatic memories, particularly ones that affect our psyches very deeply such as rape or ones that are deeply emotionally scarring such as active combat, are different. The pain is such that, for whatever reason, we cannot "break it up". It's too deeply contextually tied in, which means it's impossible for the brain to appropriately process the memories without processing the whole thing, and that's too big for our systems to handle. You end up simply reliving the experience, and retraumatising yourself in the process because it's too much, too fast. This is why people with PTSD have recurrent nightmares - a nightmare is a manifestation OF that failure to process. But the brain doesn't know this, so it just keeps trying, like a printer that failed to print something so it just keeps sending it until the printer's buffer overflows. It ends up preventing people from moving past the memories at all, and it becomes impossible to move beyond them.
So our general process for moving past that is to try very, very, very hard to break the contextual links. Memory is virtually all context - when you remember something, you're not just remembering things directly linked to it, but things that are contextually linked as well. You might remember your last holiday, but also remember every other holiday, and your favourite foods, and your last partner, and that time you got bitten by a crab at the pet shop, all linked together. And it's a LOT deeper than that - it's insanely complex. And traumatic memories are a LOT deeper still, because the whole point is that the whole thing is too tightly bound to sever - when you remember one part, the whole thing comes rushing back and your brain suddenly can't handle the massive chunk of experience that's being forced into it, and you end up with flashbacks and panic attacks when the brain tries hard to cope. It's forcing a size 10 nail into a size 6 hole - it doesn't fit, and tears shit up as it tries to go in.
So the process we use involves very, very slowly and carefully breaking those contextual links up. But because they're contextual, it's extremely difficult to know for sure WHEN they're broken, and so any reminders of ONE part of the experience might drag everything back, because they're so closely tied together that we haven't severed them yet. And every time you drag that back, it solidifies those links due to a process called "synaptic potentiation" - basically, the more you use a neural connection, the "harder" it gets to break it. You HAVE to suppress its firing, by simply not thinking about it until you're able to. We absolutely DO think about it eventually, of course we do! It would be just as bad to NEVER confront those memories. But it has to be done at the right time, in the right place, in the right way, by the right person. If it's done all the time, constantly, without any planning... you end up solidifying the links harder than ever and it becomes even more difficult to break those links.
That's the thing about PTSD - when you don't have it, and don't understand what it is? It seems... well, stupid. It seems "coddling". But it's actually a REALLY carefully analysed neuropsychological technique that aims to try very, very hard to maximise what we know of the brain's methods of processing data and information, in order to allow people with PTSD to get past their problems. And if you didn't have PTSD, you probably won't "get" that.
Triggers - things that cause those memories to refire - are harmful because they fuck up the brain's processing of the memories and the decontextualisation process behind them. We avoid them because it makes everything a LOT more complex and it undoes a lot of work, and when we work with someone with PTSD we tell them to avoid their triggers for now so that when they do get through to that part, it's easier to break the link in the right way. Triggers aren't for life, is the thing. You have them until you don't, but nobody can tell you how long it will be. You act like this is "exaltation of victimhood" but really it's just acknowledging how the brain works.
This isn't "avoiding anything that's even slightly offensive or hurtful", and the people who talk about THAT aren't asking for trigger warnings, they're overreacting. They're also uncommon - the large majority of people who DO want some trigger warnings, think they're ALSO being ridiculous. But some trigger warnings, that prevent full immersion back within that traumatic experience, is often vital to the process of allowing your brain to get to a point where you no longer need those warnings yourself.
And for what it's worth? People absolutely DO ask for warnings about graphic depictions of death, because those can also be traumatic. I have worked with one woman who is so scarred by witnessing the violent death of a close friend that 8 years later she is still processing it. She had to drop out of her university degree specifically because people who felt similarly to you refused to tell her if a piece they were studying included violent deaths. That was "too much work" for them - all she wanted to know was "hey, is this book about violent death". If they had set it for class, they MUST know that! But no. That was "too much". It was people who espoused the views like the ones suggested in your piece that set her back, by my estimates, about 4 years of recovery time. I will absolutely campaign for what is best for the people who need help to learn how to grow past their abuse or traumas, because that's what our understanding of the science tells us is right.
Thanks a lot for your very informative comment! I do not have the time to return to this topic unfortunately, but WRT this bit I'll definitely read up on this and reflect on it. I haven't been...
Thanks a lot for your very informative comment! I do not have the time to return to this topic unfortunately, but WRT this bit
You sound to me, and I admit I don't know and this is speculation, like someone who had a traumatic experience but did not suffer PTSD as a result.
I'll definitely read up on this and reflect on it. I haven't been diagnosed PTSD or depression, but I'm sure I'd be of the latter in an instant if I visited a doctor throughout my adolescence, and I've had various experiences that I'd call traumatic, but IDK much about PTSD. I left that behind with the help of readings in philosophy, ancient and recent, spending many years reflecting and introspecting; finally I arrived at a world view and I feel deeply happy and in peace.
On the general topic, my thought is that it's better to allow persons to take a break to fix their problems if it's possible at all. My father passed away at the beginning of the 4th semester of my undergrad course; I somehow maintained success through the rest of the course and graduated with very good grades, but I was a ghost for almost two years. Personally, I'm very sensitive to obscene depictions of violence or filth (e.g. I could hardly read through the plot of Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma of Pasolini, let alone watching it) or disfigured/dismembered/deformed bodies, dead or alive, even in context of medicine or science in general. I know such strong disgust is not close to being a victim of rape, but still it's a weak side of me. In such case I think that I'm just ineligible for certain areas of science and humanities (medicine, forensics, certain research areas in humanities, especially film studies, off the top of my head), and my idea is that I should avoid those areas. In humanities, especially sociology, literature, history, etc., I do not think that someone who cannot deal with the stories of human filth, including sexual abuse, can be a functional researcher or theacher. One should either deal with their weaker sides or choose an area more apt for them should that be impossible. I will always hold the wellbeing of a discipline before the disciples. But I should admit that content warnings could be useful, especially just when people are signing up for the courses and starting their careers; and that maybe (but a rather weak maybe I think) the undergrad could be less strict. I don't think I can change my stance any further without contradicting myself and the basic premises of science.
I think it's a little sad, really, that you view pain as a weakness and that you view weakness as so shameful, it must be avoided at all costs. Here's the thing about trigger warnings for people...
Exemplary
One should either deal with their weaker sides or choose an area more apt for them should that be impossible.
I think it's a little sad, really, that you view pain as a weakness and that you view weakness as so shameful, it must be avoided at all costs.
Here's the thing about trigger warnings for people with traumatic stress: they help you become strong. Consider that perhaps trigger warnings are not always there to allow people to hide from the things that hurt them. They're also there to allow people to confront the things that hurt them, too. For example, say we're dealing with a soldier who came back from active combat with PTSD. This is a very common occurrence, particularly because PTSD becomes more common when you are exposed to constant stress. When our soldier comes home, they find that they are unable to easily cope with graphic descriptions of combat or death. It fires too many memories that they can't control, until they're flashing back to combat situations and they start to have delusional breaks. Neurobiologically, this is a very expected reaction - remember that our healthy processing of memories involves running memories through our senses in small chunks, things we can cope with, but that PTSD jams that breaking-up process so that ALL of the memory gets shunted through instead. This causes flashbacks: your brain is pushing SO MUCH memory through your senses that you stop being able to perceive anything else. It's like a hallucination but from the other side, it's a real memory that you're unable to stop seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling. And because PTSD prevents you from breaking memories up, being reminded of one part of the memory will inexorably drag the rest of the memory with it, because memories are linked together and PTSD stops you from breaking those links. But to get back to our scenario!
Our soldier, they want very much to get past this part of their life. They want to be able to use repeated exposure to slowly desensitise themselves to the situations that present them with difficulties. But... desensitisation isn't always the same. Some days are better than others. Some days you just know that you aren't really strong enough to deal with your triggers, and other days you feel ready to take on the world. So our soldier uses the trigger warnings to decide "OK, this story has some non-graphic mentions of combat. It's not going to go into detail about it, but it will mention it. I think this is a good starter for me!" They read the story, and they know in advance that the story will present them with something they find distressing - but they also know that it is a relatively mild case, and they know it's coming which allows them to prepare themselves for it. When it comes, it gives them a chance to practice dissociating "combat" from "my memories of combat". It lets them practice exposure.
If they didn't have that, they might be too anxious to risk it. They would avoid all books, because they don't know which are safe. They would avoid all movies, because they can't be certain which movies are harmful to them. This gives them a chance to explore things that they would otherwise be too scared to experiment with, and that exploration gives them tools to explore deeper. After all, when a book talks about combat, it's common for the main character to THEMSELVES struggle with it! And then the character learns how to cope, which could potentially help our soldier learn how to cope better themselves.
Perhaps a month later, when they see a warning that says that there's a fairly graphic description of violence, they think about how they feel, and go "...no, I think that today it would hurt me too much. But tomorrow, we will see". And the next day, they feel stronger. They feel less afraid, and so they read the story when they knew they could. It gives them a chance to confront their fears and traumas on THEIR OWN terms, not the terms of fate and fault.
I think it's actually a little sad, really, that you see this as something inside you yourself that's somehow broken. Pain doesn't make you weaker, it just makes you scared. But the only way to move past it is to fight it, and trigger warnings HELP you to fight it, so that one day you don't have to anymore. Nobody stays broken forever, unless they don't try to fix themselves, and you can only try to fix yourself through sensible, measured risk. Trigger warnings help us make those measurements.
That is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but a weakness was meant with regards to a certain type of activity, not in a general...
I think it's a little sad, really, that you view pain as a weakness and that you view weakness as so shameful, it must be avoided at all costs.
That is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but a weakness was meant with regards to a certain type of activity, not in a general sense. It's not shameful or bad if certain characteristics bars one from certain activities. I was talking about that sort of thing. What is sad and shameful is putting the above quoted words into my mouth. I never said anything that could even imply them. I'm truly disappointed with this whole interaction.
This idea that providing reasonable accommodations to people suffering from trauma is somehow coddling them, and that these people just need to "stand strong" instead, is incredibly frustrating...
Exemplary
It promotes a culture of excessive safety based on exaggerated vulnerability.
I'm totally against this exaltation and exaggeration of victimhood. Instead of teaching people how to stand strong and not give into sorrow and suffering, people push victims to identify with their past and their victimhood, and live with it whole their life.
This idea that providing reasonable accommodations to people suffering from trauma is somehow coddling them, and that these people just need to "stand strong" instead, is incredibly frustrating and harmful. It's used just about every time we talk about accommodations regardless of to whom, and it's a bad faith argument that doesn't actually help anyone. It approaches "Wow thanks I'm cured" levels of unhelpfulness.
We're not banning books or authors - the article and the people it quotes are strongly against that - we're just trying to discuss what we can do for students who are struggling with trauma in their lives so that they can continue to learn effectively. We're not telling students that they don't ever need to face their traumas, we're just trying to provide compassion and reasonable accommodations. Trauma is something to be faced and overcome with a therapist or a psychiatrist on the victim's own timeline, not in a classroom with fellow students.
I say all of this as someone who needs classroom accommodations herself. Let me give you two examples from my life to illustrate where I'm coming from. Pardon the wall of text.
First, regarding accommodations: I suffer depression and ADD, which can affect my ability to complete coursework and timed assignments like exams. My university helps me coordinate with professors to grant me reasonable accommodations, such as extended deadlines, extra time on exams, a low-distraction exam area if I need it, and flexibility on lecture and discussion attendance. I don't necessarily get all of these if they aren't appropriate or are too difficult to provide, and the implementation details are up to my professor and me to decide together. It's not about avoiding issues or not being stronger; it's about helping me to continue learning while still grappling with my mental health issues.
Second, regarding triggers: Because of depression I have a history of suicidal thoughts and have seriously considered suicide at multiple points in the last few years. I also suffer from OCD, which manifests for me in intrusive, unwanted thoughts regarding harming things or others and causes me extreme emotional distress.
A few days ago here on Tildes someone gave a two sentence summary of a disturbing suicide video posted on /r/WatchPeopleDie. It wasn't especially graphic and the details were high level - and hell, I didn't even watch the video - but it was enough to trigger unwanted thoughts and cause me serious distress. For the next few hours I couldn't stop fixating on the description and my mental image of the event. I could hardly focus on grocery shopping and I definitely couldn't do anything remotely intellectual. I'm dealing with it better now, but I'm also in a much better head space than I was when I read the description the first time.
If that had been an in-class discussion and I had classes afterwards, I wouldn't have gotten anything out of my later classes. This is the level of distress we're talking about here. It's something I need to get stronger about and overcome, yes, but that's something I need to work on with a therapist, not with my professor and my classmates.
There is a reason why I refrain from bringing personal experiences into a discussion like this: it makes it really taxing emotionally to present a counterargument. I've read and appreciate your...
There is a reason why I refrain from bringing personal experiences into a discussion like this: it makes it really taxing emotionally to present a counterargument. I've read and appreciate your comment, and really feel for you, but how can I express my disagreements and not feel like an asshole?
I bring up my personal experiences for two reasons: They provide context to my opinions and arguments, and Concrete examples are easier to grok emotionally than abstract, hypothetical situations....
I bring up my personal experiences for two reasons:
They provide context to my opinions and arguments, and
Concrete examples are easier to grok emotionally than abstract, hypothetical situations.
It's a little hard to have these kinds of discussions without bringing in personal experiences or examples.
how can I express my disagreements and not feel like an asshole?
I'm not sure, to be honest, because I don't know you very well or what your disagreements are, and I don't want to be presumptuous. But consider why it is that your argument makes you feel like an asshole. Is it lacking in compassion? I've found that a lot of the times when I feel like an asshole, it's because I'm ignoring or disregarding someone else's emotions and experiences.
Again, I don't want to be presumptuous, but it's really hard to guess what's wrong or difficult to present about your disagreements without knowing what they are in the first place. Other than the standard "maybe that's because you're an asshole" blanket statement, I don't know what to say.
I think you and @Lynndolynn are actually in alignment here, rather than in opposition. You expressed that you: a) avoid (or at least appreciate the absence of) specific elements that are b)...
I think you and @Lynndolynn are actually in alignment here, rather than in opposition. You expressed that you:
a) avoid (or at least appreciate the absence of) specific elements that are
b) emotionally taxing for you.
Which is exactly what she's doing too! Certainly you and she have different responses and different things you'd rather not encounter, but the basic mechanism is the same. It's pretty standard behavior for us to want avoid aversive stimuli.
Who are you to decide what level of safety is excessive, or that vulnerability is exaggerated? I lost my father when I was 17 and I couldn't more strongly disagree with you. What knowledge of PTSD...
It promotes a culture of excessive safety based on exaggerated vulnerability.
Who are you to decide what level of safety is excessive, or that vulnerability is exaggerated?
There aren't warnings for the death of a parent in a story, and no request for warnings, albeit it's as difficult an experience as being a victim of sexual abuse, I can reassure you.
I lost my father when I was 17 and I couldn't more strongly disagree with you.
They (we) are taught to be weak and easily offended, and this reinforces that being a victim of something like sexual abuse makes our life fall apart, making it harder to start again and become even stronger.
What knowledge of PTSD and PTSD treatment are you basing this statement on?
Everybody has their own personal experiences, bringing them into a conversation about university education is not really useful. I'm not going to put my experiences into a race with yours to just...
There aren't warnings for the death of a parent in a story, and no request for warnings, albeit it's as difficult an experience as being a victim of sexual abuse, I can reassure you.
I lost my father when I was 17 and I couldn't more strongly disagree with you.
Everybody has their own personal experiences, bringing them into a conversation about university education is not really useful. I'm not going to put my experiences into a race with yours to just prove a point.
Other than that, rhetorical questions do not change the fact that it's wrong to fiddle with history and curriculum in order to accomodate people. Giving them a break is better for them and for education in this case.
How is any of this "fiddling with history"? Just because we're adding a warning to the start of a book? That's fiddling is it? How? And... you'd rather cut them out of the education system...
How is any of this "fiddling with history"? Just because we're adding a warning to the start of a book? That's fiddling is it? How?
And... you'd rather cut them out of the education system entirely? Because that's what you're essentially advocating. It's saying "if you can't handle being confronted with something killed you emotionally, well then I guess you're not allowed to be here, fuck off". It's pushing out anyone who isn't "normal" and ensuring that they will never be able to access those parts of the world without pain.
Personal experiences are actually especially useful and important here, because we're talking about individual accommodations. What accommodations may be reasonable and sufficient for one student...
Everybody has their own personal experiences, bringing them into a conversation about university education is not really useful.
Personal experiences are actually especially useful and important here, because we're talking about individual accommodations. What accommodations may be reasonable and sufficient for one student may not be for another student.
I disagree. Personal experiences of interlocutors limit the breadth of a discussion because of mutual respect and sympathy. Thus the object of such discussion needs to be third parties. Otherwise...
I disagree. Personal experiences of interlocutors limit the breadth of a discussion because of mutual respect and sympathy. Thus the object of such discussion needs to be third parties. Otherwise objectivity becomes unachievable.
I've been thinking about this for a day or two. Are you saying that in these sorts of discussions, people with relevant experiences shouldn't mention them, and that we should all instead describe...
I've been thinking about this for a day or two. Are you saying that in these sorts of discussions, people with relevant experiences shouldn't mention them, and that we should all instead describe experiences of other people not invloved in the conversation?
That doesn't create objectivity, in my mind. It just creates a scenario where the people directly affected by this issue are unable to fully express their case.
There's a phrase commonly used in the disability community, "Nothing about us without us." Personal stories are powerful, and when they are stripped from conversations marginalized groups of people lose that power.
I think they are a bit too powerful. That's why I keep mine to myself and don't want to hear others' in this sort of discussion. While absence of personal experience does not guarantee...
I think they are a bit too powerful. That's why I keep mine to myself and don't want to hear others' in this sort of discussion. While absence of personal experience does not guarantee objectivity, presence of it definitely undermines that.
I see. (Obviously I disagree about personal experience undermining objectivity, but I don't think I need to belabor that point.) How do you think should we talk about these subjects? With research...
I see. (Obviously I disagree about personal experience undermining objectivity, but I don't think I need to belabor that point.) How do you think should we talk about these subjects? With research citations?
I'm not at all against the idea of actually researching the effectiveness of content warnings. But until there's a study of college-age students with mental illnesses/past traumatic events to see whether or not content warnings help them, we only have the experiences of people to go from.* And a lot of folks have offered up the ways that content warnings help them (in this thread, and elsewhere).
*There was a recent study on "trigger warnings," but it was pointed out by some researchers and a lot of people for whom content warnings help that: 1) people with PTSD were excluded from the research, 2) the warnings were nonspecific, simply saying "this may cause you anxiety if you read it" instead of describing the content so people could prepare themselves if they needed.
Why is "objectivity" the goal you want to work towards? This isn't in the context of a math or science class where there are objective right and wrong answers. These are reading lists for...
Why is "objectivity" the goal you want to work towards?
This isn't in the context of a math or science class where there are objective right and wrong answers. These are reading lists for literature classes and other humanities subjects. There's inherently no objective "right" answer in that sort of subject.
I'm curious what you're basing this statement on. Is it purely personal experience, or are there scientific studies on this that you can point to? Even if you have personal experience of both of...
There aren't warnings for the death of a parent in a story, and no request for warnings, albeit it's as difficult an experience as being a victim of sexual abuse, I can reassure you.
I'm curious what you're basing this statement on. Is it purely personal experience, or are there scientific studies on this that you can point to?
Even if you have personal experience of both of those things (sexual trauma and death of a close family member), what reason do you have to believe that your experience of those two events and their relative weight can be generalized to everyone else?
By way of comparison, I went through the death of one of my parents at a relatively young age (20). I've never experienced sexual abuse, but I know several people who have (my sister; my girlfriend; and my best friend - and those are just the people in my life who trust me enough to tell me what they went through). It would never occur to me to try to compare what I went through when my dad died to what they went through. Asking which one was "worse" is not a meaningful question. They cannot be compared in any meaningful way.
I'm not actually comparing anything, just that if one trauma is that big that we can warp the history for it, why the rest is never considered? War, death, illnesses, psychological or...
I'm not actually comparing anything, just that if one trauma is that big that we can warp the history for it, why the rest is never considered? War, death, illnesses, psychological or physiological, all of these, and more, are potentially associated with big traumas in many people's life. Why do we discriminate against them? The answer is we don't. They are part of human life, unfortunately, and need be studied. Why would say a person who lost people closest to them in Syria and just fled the country and picked up their studies at a uni somewhere else would be less vulnerable emotionally than someone who has experienced sexual abuse? It's not about comparison, it's just that either we act for all of these or none. And I say none, because first of all I don't think this is of any help, and secondly because between facts and scientific rigour and accomodating individuals I think that the former should be more important.
I have my personal experiences, if that makes that big of a difference I could hint at them, but I'd rather not, especially in a discussion like this. Suffice it to say that I'm no stranger to almost none of this stuff.
If you read the article it's not only content warnings, but also exclusion of authors and researchers that have problematic pasts (examples in the article inlcude Hemingway, Althusser and Warhol)....
If you read the article it's not only content warnings, but also exclusion of authors and researchers that have problematic pasts (examples in the article inlcude Hemingway, Althusser and Warhol). That latter thing is what I'm referring to there.
No. Next time make a proper and civil request instead of using an imperative. Edit: for anybody else looking at this discussion, the relevant parts are quoted elsewhere in the thread, I didn't do...
Quote me the text that says they should be excluded.
No. Next time make a proper and civil request instead of using an imperative.
Edit: for anybody else looking at this discussion, the relevant parts are quoted elsewhere in the thread, I didn't do it here because I didn't want to respond to this sort of unconstructive behaviour. I might well be misinterpreting what I'm reading, but this sort of interaction is not worthy of where we are, in my view.
Oh come on. You started this thread about a controversial topic, don't act surprised when the comments get heated. Would you please, if it's not too much trouble, please link to the comments...
No. Next time make a proper and civil request instead of using an imperative.
Oh come on. You started this thread about a controversial topic, don't act surprised when the comments get heated.
the relevant parts are quoted elsewhere in the thread
Would you please, if it's not too much trouble, please link to the comments elsewhere in this thread that you're referring to?
I believe that this is the comment they're referring to. Specific quotes: To be honest, I'm having difficulty reading this as "we should ban these authors." It reads more like a recognition of the...
I believe that this is the comment they're referring to. Specific quotes:
The allegations made discussion of the writers a minefield. To analyse their work with any critical distance so soon after the news felt impossible. Instead the seminars would frequently become an open forum on sexual assault, an exhausting and often upsetting ordeal for many women in the room.
Of course, this isn’t just a problem of 2018; it pervades literary history – and curriculums. Hemingway, a writer we romanticise today, verbally and physically abused women. JD Salinger had multiple affairs with women 30 years his junior, and subjected his wife to such emotional cruelty that she became physically ill. Many a lecture is devoted to the life of Louis Althusser and his contributions to critical theory, yet the fact that he murdered his wife is glossed over.
Several students raised the issue at my university, Sheffield, which offers a literature module on Woody Allen. As welfare officer on the women’s committee, I received several complaints that this sends a message to students that their abusers can get away with what they did, thrive in their careers and be honoured by the academy.
We know that more than 60% of students and graduates have experienced sexual violence. We know that one in 10 women students are raped while at university. And we know that, when they seek help, time and time again, their universities are failing them. What’s the message to these women when their curriculums are peppered with abusers’ names?
To be honest, I'm having difficulty reading this as "we should ban these authors." It reads more like a recognition of the standard problem of separating the art from the artist and a request for recognition of the awful things some of these artists did, rather than glossing over them to glorify their work and, implicitly, them.
I honestly don't see the big deal with content warnings. In the context of a university environment, it allows students to prepare for material that could upset them, whether that preparation...
I honestly don't see the big deal with content warnings. In the context of a university environment, it allows students to prepare for material that could upset them, whether that preparation involves something like making sure they get enough sleep the night before, scheduling a therapy session, or planning to spend time with friends afterwards.
In the wider world, people get to decide what movies they watch and what books they read. Too squeamish for horror films? No problem, skip over that category on Netflix and pick out a comedy. But in university the general expectation is that you have to engage with the material given (with some exceptions), so telling students what might be upsetting seems like a reasonable idea.
And while the mainstream conversation seems to be focused on sexual violence, I'd be totally fine with extending it to things like "death of a parent." Sure, not everything can be included in a warning, but there's a certain set of experiences that we understand as widely upsetting and for which a warning would be helpful for a large number of people.
Well, that's agreeable, I can say. But what I actually object to is tailoring the material for this, e.g. providing alternative readings and censuring certain people from the history of a...
Well, that's agreeable, I can say. But what I actually object to is tailoring the material for this, e.g. providing alternative readings and censuring certain people from the history of a discipline because of their crappy private lifes etc. That's terribly problematic.
Who suggested that? It's not in this article. The conclusion is pretty clear: A simple warning will let students properly prepare for difficult subject matter..
Who suggested that? It's not in this article. The conclusion is pretty clear:
A disclaimer email sent round before a seminar, a content warning on a reading list, a link to university counselling services – are these too much to ask?
“As a rape survivor, they would have made all the difference in the world in me,” Hayley says. “It would have made me feel visible, and believed, and would have enabled me to fully engage with the course that I otherwise love.”
A simple warning will let students properly prepare for difficult subject matter..
This part suggests the idea: I should do justice to the article given it provides opinions against this implication later on:
This part suggests the idea:
The allegations made discussion of the writers a minefield. To analyse their work with any critical distance so soon after the news felt impossible. Instead the seminars would frequently become an open forum on sexual assault, an exhausting and often upsetting ordeal for many women in the room.
Of course, this isn’t just a problem of 2018; it pervades literary history – and curriculums. Hemingway, a writer we romanticise today, verbally and physically abused women. JD Salinger had multiple affairs with women 30 years his junior, and subjected his wife to such emotional cruelty that she became physically ill. Many a lecture is devoted to the life of Louis Althusser and his contributions to critical theory, yet the fact that he murdered his wife is glossed over.
Several students raised the issue at my university, Sheffield, which offers a literature module on Woody Allen. As welfare officer on the women’s committee, I received several complaints that this sends a message to students that their abusers can get away with what they did, thrive in their careers and be honoured by the academy.
We know that more than 60% of students and graduates have experienced sexual violence. We know that one in 10 women students are raped while at university. And we know that, when they seek help, time and time again, their universities are failing them. What’s the message to these women when their curriculums are peppered with abusers’ names?
I should do justice to the article given it provides opinions against this implication later on:
For Sue Vice, a professor of English literature at Sheffield, the #MeToo movement has had a massive impact on the way she thinks about the curriculum, particularly “the importance of bringing abuses out into the open so that they are no longer a public secret, or knowledge unequally shared”. However, she doesn’t believe removing topics is the answer. “I’m not a great fan of banning anything, as long as it remains within legal limits and doesn’t amount to incitement to hatred, but I know not everyone agrees. It’s on everyone’s mind at the moment.” [emphasis mine]
Interesting article that I believe poses a very good question that honestly doesn't answer it in a satisfactory sense to me. First off, I feel they have meshed several issues together, which makes...
Interesting article that I believe poses a very good question that honestly doesn't answer it in a satisfactory sense to me.
First off, I feel they have meshed several issues together, which makes it hard to identify and thus resolve an issue. Personally I need to break it down a bit.
Should sensitive topics, possible triggers be included in the course outline? I think this is an easy thing to do and at least the university I went to had extremely detailed outlines, including what movie we were watching in class and what discussion/paper would be completed in response.
Should victims of abuse be given support in the classroom? I believe there is a huge lack of support for this is general. They need to be given a lot more support. However, this doesn't mean changing things specifically for them in the classroom. So, I would support alternate reading lists should be made available for individual students that may want the option.
Should the life of the artist be considered alongside their work? I think it has to be. The person delivering the message is just as important as the message. How this consideration looks depends on a variety of factors. I imagine in some cases, the life of the author can be discussed alongside and in other cases, their work should be out right rejected from the curriculum. A major reason a lot of stories are chosen are based on universal themes, so these themes need the context of the time they were written for sure, but ultimately need to fit and reflect the context of the classroom also.
Little off topic, but I believe as far as reading lists go, due to a general diversity issue in publishing in English, there is a lack of authentic choice that also needs to be addressed.
and That seems a bit paradoxical, though. How can a classroom can be on the same page if they read different resources? I do agree but that should not mean censuring certain authors and...
They need to be given a lot more support. However, this doesn't mean changing things specifically for them in the classroom.
and
So, I would support alternate reading lists should be made available for individual students that may want the option.
That seems a bit paradoxical, though. How can a classroom can be on the same page if they read different resources?
Should the life of the artist be considered alongside their work?
I do agree but that should not mean censuring certain authors and intellectuals whose role in the discipline is important. The article cites Hemingway and Althusser, for example. These peoples' work are very influential, and the latter is especially hard to ignore if one is studying literary theory. So, consider the artists life, but it should not mean censuring them.
A major reason a lot of stories are chosen are based on universal themes, so these themes need the context of the time they were written for sure, but ultimately need to fit and reflect the context of the classroom also.
The context of the classroom in such a setting is to transmit knowledge about an epoch's literature and related subjects, persons, etc. thus the context of it is more important. When studying the history of literary criticism, it's knowledge that's transmitted, not the ideals and cultural values ot the time. Otherwise it's not more different than ignoring Mozart's music because he was a controversial figure, or in a history class from censuring certain monarchs and historical events, or skipping relativity in physics because Einstein has written in some travel journals some stuff that can be considered racist. And because in doing so the transmission of intellectual history is tied to current situation of the society, there will be nothing that protects us from, in a hypothetical worsened world, the removal of Alan Turing and Grace Hopper from the history of computation or Socrates and Plato from that of philosophy because of their sex and sexual orientations.
If a university course cannot teach objectivity, it does not serve a purpose. This is totally backwards, would be a step back in intellectual development.
Specifically I'm suggesting that entire course curriculums shouldn't be written for exceptions, whenever we want to define that as. However, students that may need exceptions should have options....
That seems a bit paradoxical, though. How can a classroom can be on the same page if they read different resources?
Specifically I'm suggesting that entire course curriculums shouldn't be written for exceptions, whenever we want to define that as. However, students that may need exceptions should have options. And classrooms can definitely be on the same page. Alternative reading lists already exists. Two students can take the same course offered by two different professors with different reading list covering the same topics. Two courses from two different universities can already be evaluated as earning equivalent credits and they are likely to have different reading lists.
I do agree but that should not mean censuring certain authors and intellectuals whose role in the discipline is important.
I wouldn't say selecting another author's work is censoring at all. I believe the word is misused here.
Ideals and cultural values of the time definitely are part of the study. Literature does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.
WRT to second part, I was referring to the discussion on controversial figures cited in the article like Althusser who murdered his wife. We can condemn the person but still study their ideas. WRT...
WRT to second part, I was referring to the discussion on controversial figures cited in the article like Althusser who murdered his wife. We can condemn the person but still study their ideas.
WRT the first part, when discussing a certain book, I do not undertand how two persons who read different books can be "on the same page" when discussing it.
I never suggested (and neither did the article) suggest we shouldn't study the authors. The article was more specific about including more about the authors and to provide a trigger warning. My...
I never suggested (and neither did the article) suggest we shouldn't study the authors. The article was more specific about including more about the authors and to provide a trigger warning. My comment was about weighing an author's contributions to determine if they should be taught with more context or rejected completely.
I believe you misunderstood my other point. You cannot have two people read two different books and discuss the same book. I am suggesting a single concept can be covered and taught by more than one book.
Just to be clear, do you mean "censure" or "censor?" It's a common misspelling, and it makes all the difference here. versus It is my opinion that we should censure artists who commit acts of...
censuring certain authors and intellectuals
Just to be clear, do you mean "censure" or "censor?" It's a common misspelling, and it makes all the difference here.
censor: (Merriam-Webster)
v. To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
v. To suppress or delete as objectionable
It is my opinion that we should censure artists who commit acts of serious depravity, like the artists listed in the article, but that we should not censor their art.
This is an article that I utterly disagree with, it has many problems:
The suggestion is that warnings added to reading lists where the authors or the content is related to sexual abuse.
It starts with a confession that it's hard to read at a critical distance two authors' work because they are alleged of harassment.
It generally suggests linking intellectual work tightly to the person of the intellectual.
It promotes a culture of excessive safety based on exaggerated vulnerability.
Students of humanities should be aware that they are going to deal with all sorts of human situations an stories, given that's their research topic. Students studying gender issues should already be aware of and interested in the fact that things like sexual abuse are part of what their study will be, and today there's no field in humanities that is not involved, regardless of how much, in gender studies. And I don't understand why sexual abuse is much worse than say murder or the death of a close family member. There aren't warnings for material that concerns death of a friend or a violent murder of some person, and nobody suggests them. There aren't warnings for the death of a parent in a story, and no request for warnings, albeit it's as difficult an experience as being a victim of sexual abuse, I can reassure you.
I'm totally against this exaltation and exaggeration of victimhood. Instead of teaching people how to stand strong and not give into sorrow and suffering, people push victims to identify with their past and their victimhood, and live with it whole their life. Anything that is even slightly offensive or hurtful should be avoided. The world should accomodate them (us, to be more exact). I don't think this helps the victims of anything. They (we) are taught to be weak and easily offended, and this reinforces that being a victim of something like sexual abuse makes our life fall apart, making it harder to start again and become even stronger.
You sound to me, and I admit I don't know and this is speculation, like someone who had a traumatic experience but did not suffer PTSD as a result. So, let's talk about what PTSD is.
Neurologically (and that's my area, I specialise in neurology and neuroendocrinology), PTSD is basically your brain's inability to process a memory that has a specific emotional load because its mechanisms for processing that packet of memories is "jammed". Your brain processes memories in part by running them BACK through your senses in smaller pieces, mostly overnight, and re-filing them into new categories and new boxes that need to be assessed, labelled, contextualised, and put into appropriate contexts with other memories and thoughts. Memory is an exceptionally, unbelievably, damn-near-impossibly complex process, and it's different in everyone because it develops from a total black box. This means that while we suspect that we understand the basic principles of how and why, we're not totally certain yet (we are pretty sure though).
When you have a painful but not "traumatic" (and this is a scientific term, in this context, not based on the colloquial meaning) memory, the pain becomes a part of the memory that is linked to it contextually. When your brain goes to process the memories, it has to process that pain's existence without feeling the pain itself, and provided it's a small or prolonged or non-traumatic kind of pain, it's going to be able to process it by analysing the pain itself. It ends up feeling those memories without feeling the pain itself, and simply remembering THAT there was pain, and it was bad. If it did feel the pain, the systems involve would quickly overload, preventing you from processing it.
Traumatic memories, particularly ones that affect our psyches very deeply such as rape or ones that are deeply emotionally scarring such as active combat, are different. The pain is such that, for whatever reason, we cannot "break it up". It's too deeply contextually tied in, which means it's impossible for the brain to appropriately process the memories without processing the whole thing, and that's too big for our systems to handle. You end up simply reliving the experience, and retraumatising yourself in the process because it's too much, too fast. This is why people with PTSD have recurrent nightmares - a nightmare is a manifestation OF that failure to process. But the brain doesn't know this, so it just keeps trying, like a printer that failed to print something so it just keeps sending it until the printer's buffer overflows. It ends up preventing people from moving past the memories at all, and it becomes impossible to move beyond them.
So our general process for moving past that is to try very, very, very hard to break the contextual links. Memory is virtually all context - when you remember something, you're not just remembering things directly linked to it, but things that are contextually linked as well. You might remember your last holiday, but also remember every other holiday, and your favourite foods, and your last partner, and that time you got bitten by a crab at the pet shop, all linked together. And it's a LOT deeper than that - it's insanely complex. And traumatic memories are a LOT deeper still, because the whole point is that the whole thing is too tightly bound to sever - when you remember one part, the whole thing comes rushing back and your brain suddenly can't handle the massive chunk of experience that's being forced into it, and you end up with flashbacks and panic attacks when the brain tries hard to cope. It's forcing a size 10 nail into a size 6 hole - it doesn't fit, and tears shit up as it tries to go in.
So the process we use involves very, very slowly and carefully breaking those contextual links up. But because they're contextual, it's extremely difficult to know for sure WHEN they're broken, and so any reminders of ONE part of the experience might drag everything back, because they're so closely tied together that we haven't severed them yet. And every time you drag that back, it solidifies those links due to a process called "synaptic potentiation" - basically, the more you use a neural connection, the "harder" it gets to break it. You HAVE to suppress its firing, by simply not thinking about it until you're able to. We absolutely DO think about it eventually, of course we do! It would be just as bad to NEVER confront those memories. But it has to be done at the right time, in the right place, in the right way, by the right person. If it's done all the time, constantly, without any planning... you end up solidifying the links harder than ever and it becomes even more difficult to break those links.
That's the thing about PTSD - when you don't have it, and don't understand what it is? It seems... well, stupid. It seems "coddling". But it's actually a REALLY carefully analysed neuropsychological technique that aims to try very, very hard to maximise what we know of the brain's methods of processing data and information, in order to allow people with PTSD to get past their problems. And if you didn't have PTSD, you probably won't "get" that.
Triggers - things that cause those memories to refire - are harmful because they fuck up the brain's processing of the memories and the decontextualisation process behind them. We avoid them because it makes everything a LOT more complex and it undoes a lot of work, and when we work with someone with PTSD we tell them to avoid their triggers for now so that when they do get through to that part, it's easier to break the link in the right way. Triggers aren't for life, is the thing. You have them until you don't, but nobody can tell you how long it will be. You act like this is "exaltation of victimhood" but really it's just acknowledging how the brain works.
This isn't "avoiding anything that's even slightly offensive or hurtful", and the people who talk about THAT aren't asking for trigger warnings, they're overreacting. They're also uncommon - the large majority of people who DO want some trigger warnings, think they're ALSO being ridiculous. But some trigger warnings, that prevent full immersion back within that traumatic experience, is often vital to the process of allowing your brain to get to a point where you no longer need those warnings yourself.
And for what it's worth? People absolutely DO ask for warnings about graphic depictions of death, because those can also be traumatic. I have worked with one woman who is so scarred by witnessing the violent death of a close friend that 8 years later she is still processing it. She had to drop out of her university degree specifically because people who felt similarly to you refused to tell her if a piece they were studying included violent deaths. That was "too much work" for them - all she wanted to know was "hey, is this book about violent death". If they had set it for class, they MUST know that! But no. That was "too much". It was people who espoused the views like the ones suggested in your piece that set her back, by my estimates, about 4 years of recovery time. I will absolutely campaign for what is best for the people who need help to learn how to grow past their abuse or traumas, because that's what our understanding of the science tells us is right.
Thanks a lot for your very informative comment! I do not have the time to return to this topic unfortunately, but WRT this bit
I'll definitely read up on this and reflect on it. I haven't been diagnosed PTSD or depression, but I'm sure I'd be of the latter in an instant if I visited a doctor throughout my adolescence, and I've had various experiences that I'd call traumatic, but IDK much about PTSD. I left that behind with the help of readings in philosophy, ancient and recent, spending many years reflecting and introspecting; finally I arrived at a world view and I feel deeply happy and in peace.
On the general topic, my thought is that it's better to allow persons to take a break to fix their problems if it's possible at all. My father passed away at the beginning of the 4th semester of my undergrad course; I somehow maintained success through the rest of the course and graduated with very good grades, but I was a ghost for almost two years. Personally, I'm very sensitive to obscene depictions of violence or filth (e.g. I could hardly read through the plot of Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma of Pasolini, let alone watching it) or disfigured/dismembered/deformed bodies, dead or alive, even in context of medicine or science in general. I know such strong disgust is not close to being a victim of rape, but still it's a weak side of me. In such case I think that I'm just ineligible for certain areas of science and humanities (medicine, forensics, certain research areas in humanities, especially film studies, off the top of my head), and my idea is that I should avoid those areas. In humanities, especially sociology, literature, history, etc., I do not think that someone who cannot deal with the stories of human filth, including sexual abuse, can be a functional researcher or theacher. One should either deal with their weaker sides or choose an area more apt for them should that be impossible. I will always hold the wellbeing of a discipline before the disciples. But I should admit that content warnings could be useful, especially just when people are signing up for the courses and starting their careers; and that maybe (but a rather weak maybe I think) the undergrad could be less strict. I don't think I can change my stance any further without contradicting myself and the basic premises of science.
I think it's a little sad, really, that you view pain as a weakness and that you view weakness as so shameful, it must be avoided at all costs.
Here's the thing about trigger warnings for people with traumatic stress: they help you become strong. Consider that perhaps trigger warnings are not always there to allow people to hide from the things that hurt them. They're also there to allow people to confront the things that hurt them, too. For example, say we're dealing with a soldier who came back from active combat with PTSD. This is a very common occurrence, particularly because PTSD becomes more common when you are exposed to constant stress. When our soldier comes home, they find that they are unable to easily cope with graphic descriptions of combat or death. It fires too many memories that they can't control, until they're flashing back to combat situations and they start to have delusional breaks. Neurobiologically, this is a very expected reaction - remember that our healthy processing of memories involves running memories through our senses in small chunks, things we can cope with, but that PTSD jams that breaking-up process so that ALL of the memory gets shunted through instead. This causes flashbacks: your brain is pushing SO MUCH memory through your senses that you stop being able to perceive anything else. It's like a hallucination but from the other side, it's a real memory that you're unable to stop seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling. And because PTSD prevents you from breaking memories up, being reminded of one part of the memory will inexorably drag the rest of the memory with it, because memories are linked together and PTSD stops you from breaking those links. But to get back to our scenario!
Our soldier, they want very much to get past this part of their life. They want to be able to use repeated exposure to slowly desensitise themselves to the situations that present them with difficulties. But... desensitisation isn't always the same. Some days are better than others. Some days you just know that you aren't really strong enough to deal with your triggers, and other days you feel ready to take on the world. So our soldier uses the trigger warnings to decide "OK, this story has some non-graphic mentions of combat. It's not going to go into detail about it, but it will mention it. I think this is a good starter for me!" They read the story, and they know in advance that the story will present them with something they find distressing - but they also know that it is a relatively mild case, and they know it's coming which allows them to prepare themselves for it. When it comes, it gives them a chance to practice dissociating "combat" from "my memories of combat". It lets them practice exposure.
If they didn't have that, they might be too anxious to risk it. They would avoid all books, because they don't know which are safe. They would avoid all movies, because they can't be certain which movies are harmful to them. This gives them a chance to explore things that they would otherwise be too scared to experiment with, and that exploration gives them tools to explore deeper. After all, when a book talks about combat, it's common for the main character to THEMSELVES struggle with it! And then the character learns how to cope, which could potentially help our soldier learn how to cope better themselves.
Perhaps a month later, when they see a warning that says that there's a fairly graphic description of violence, they think about how they feel, and go "...no, I think that today it would hurt me too much. But tomorrow, we will see". And the next day, they feel stronger. They feel less afraid, and so they read the story when they knew they could. It gives them a chance to confront their fears and traumas on THEIR OWN terms, not the terms of fate and fault.
I think it's actually a little sad, really, that you see this as something inside you yourself that's somehow broken. Pain doesn't make you weaker, it just makes you scared. But the only way to move past it is to fight it, and trigger warnings HELP you to fight it, so that one day you don't have to anymore. Nobody stays broken forever, unless they don't try to fix themselves, and you can only try to fix yourself through sensible, measured risk. Trigger warnings help us make those measurements.
That is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. Maybe I chose the wrong word, but a weakness was meant with regards to a certain type of activity, not in a general sense. It's not shameful or bad if certain characteristics bars one from certain activities. I was talking about that sort of thing. What is sad and shameful is putting the above quoted words into my mouth. I never said anything that could even imply them. I'm truly disappointed with this whole interaction.
This idea that providing reasonable accommodations to people suffering from trauma is somehow coddling them, and that these people just need to "stand strong" instead, is incredibly frustrating and harmful. It's used just about every time we talk about accommodations regardless of to whom, and it's a bad faith argument that doesn't actually help anyone. It approaches "Wow thanks I'm cured" levels of unhelpfulness.
We're not banning books or authors - the article and the people it quotes are strongly against that - we're just trying to discuss what we can do for students who are struggling with trauma in their lives so that they can continue to learn effectively. We're not telling students that they don't ever need to face their traumas, we're just trying to provide compassion and reasonable accommodations. Trauma is something to be faced and overcome with a therapist or a psychiatrist on the victim's own timeline, not in a classroom with fellow students.
I say all of this as someone who needs classroom accommodations herself. Let me give you two examples from my life to illustrate where I'm coming from. Pardon the wall of text.
First, regarding accommodations: I suffer depression and ADD, which can affect my ability to complete coursework and timed assignments like exams. My university helps me coordinate with professors to grant me reasonable accommodations, such as extended deadlines, extra time on exams, a low-distraction exam area if I need it, and flexibility on lecture and discussion attendance. I don't necessarily get all of these if they aren't appropriate or are too difficult to provide, and the implementation details are up to my professor and me to decide together. It's not about avoiding issues or not being stronger; it's about helping me to continue learning while still grappling with my mental health issues.
Second, regarding triggers: Because of depression I have a history of suicidal thoughts and have seriously considered suicide at multiple points in the last few years. I also suffer from OCD, which manifests for me in intrusive, unwanted thoughts regarding harming things or others and causes me extreme emotional distress.
A few days ago here on Tildes someone gave a two sentence summary of a disturbing suicide video posted on /r/WatchPeopleDie. It wasn't especially graphic and the details were high level - and hell, I didn't even watch the video - but it was enough to trigger unwanted thoughts and cause me serious distress. For the next few hours I couldn't stop fixating on the description and my mental image of the event. I could hardly focus on grocery shopping and I definitely couldn't do anything remotely intellectual. I'm dealing with it better now, but I'm also in a much better head space than I was when I read the description the first time.
If that had been an in-class discussion and I had classes afterwards, I wouldn't have gotten anything out of my later classes. This is the level of distress we're talking about here. It's something I need to get stronger about and overcome, yes, but that's something I need to work on with a therapist, not with my professor and my classmates.
There is a reason why I refrain from bringing personal experiences into a discussion like this: it makes it really taxing emotionally to present a counterargument. I've read and appreciate your comment, and really feel for you, but how can I express my disagreements and not feel like an asshole?
I bring up my personal experiences for two reasons:
It's a little hard to have these kinds of discussions without bringing in personal experiences or examples.
I'm not sure, to be honest, because I don't know you very well or what your disagreements are, and I don't want to be presumptuous. But consider why it is that your argument makes you feel like an asshole. Is it lacking in compassion? I've found that a lot of the times when I feel like an asshole, it's because I'm ignoring or disregarding someone else's emotions and experiences.
Again, I don't want to be presumptuous, but it's really hard to guess what's wrong or difficult to present about your disagreements without knowing what they are in the first place. Other than the standard "maybe that's because you're an asshole" blanket statement, I don't know what to say.
I think you and @Lynndolynn are actually in alignment here, rather than in opposition. You expressed that you:
a) avoid (or at least appreciate the absence of) specific elements that are
b) emotionally taxing for you.
Which is exactly what she's doing too! Certainly you and she have different responses and different things you'd rather not encounter, but the basic mechanism is the same. It's pretty standard behavior for us to want avoid aversive stimuli.
Who are you to decide what level of safety is excessive, or that vulnerability is exaggerated?
I lost my father when I was 17 and I couldn't more strongly disagree with you.
What knowledge of PTSD and PTSD treatment are you basing this statement on?
Everybody has their own personal experiences, bringing them into a conversation about university education is not really useful. I'm not going to put my experiences into a race with yours to just prove a point.
Other than that, rhetorical questions do not change the fact that it's wrong to fiddle with history and curriculum in order to accomodate people. Giving them a break is better for them and for education in this case.
How is any of this "fiddling with history"? Just because we're adding a warning to the start of a book? That's fiddling is it? How?
And... you'd rather cut them out of the education system entirely? Because that's what you're essentially advocating. It's saying "if you can't handle being confronted with something killed you emotionally, well then I guess you're not allowed to be here, fuck off". It's pushing out anyone who isn't "normal" and ensuring that they will never be able to access those parts of the world without pain.
Personal experiences are actually especially useful and important here, because we're talking about individual accommodations. What accommodations may be reasonable and sufficient for one student may not be for another student.
I disagree. Personal experiences of interlocutors limit the breadth of a discussion because of mutual respect and sympathy. Thus the object of such discussion needs to be third parties. Otherwise objectivity becomes unachievable.
I've been thinking about this for a day or two. Are you saying that in these sorts of discussions, people with relevant experiences shouldn't mention them, and that we should all instead describe experiences of other people not invloved in the conversation?
That doesn't create objectivity, in my mind. It just creates a scenario where the people directly affected by this issue are unable to fully express their case.
There's a phrase commonly used in the disability community, "Nothing about us without us." Personal stories are powerful, and when they are stripped from conversations marginalized groups of people lose that power.
I think they are a bit too powerful. That's why I keep mine to myself and don't want to hear others' in this sort of discussion. While absence of personal experience does not guarantee objectivity, presence of it definitely undermines that.
How can we have a conversation about a very personal topic when we're not allowed to bring our own experiences in?
I see. (Obviously I disagree about personal experience undermining objectivity, but I don't think I need to belabor that point.) How do you think should we talk about these subjects? With research citations?
I'm not at all against the idea of actually researching the effectiveness of content warnings. But until there's a study of college-age students with mental illnesses/past traumatic events to see whether or not content warnings help them, we only have the experiences of people to go from.* And a lot of folks have offered up the ways that content warnings help them (in this thread, and elsewhere).
*There was a recent study on "trigger warnings," but it was pointed out by some researchers and a lot of people for whom content warnings help that: 1) people with PTSD were excluded from the research, 2) the warnings were nonspecific, simply saying "this may cause you anxiety if you read it" instead of describing the content so people could prepare themselves if they needed.
Why is "objectivity" the goal you want to work towards?
This isn't in the context of a math or science class where there are objective right and wrong answers. These are reading lists for literature classes and other humanities subjects. There's inherently no objective "right" answer in that sort of subject.
I'm curious what you're basing this statement on. Is it purely personal experience, or are there scientific studies on this that you can point to?
Even if you have personal experience of both of those things (sexual trauma and death of a close family member), what reason do you have to believe that your experience of those two events and their relative weight can be generalized to everyone else?
By way of comparison, I went through the death of one of my parents at a relatively young age (20). I've never experienced sexual abuse, but I know several people who have (my sister; my girlfriend; and my best friend - and those are just the people in my life who trust me enough to tell me what they went through). It would never occur to me to try to compare what I went through when my dad died to what they went through. Asking which one was "worse" is not a meaningful question. They cannot be compared in any meaningful way.
I'm not actually comparing anything, just that if one trauma is that big that we can warp the history for it, why the rest is never considered? War, death, illnesses, psychological or physiological, all of these, and more, are potentially associated with big traumas in many people's life. Why do we discriminate against them? The answer is we don't. They are part of human life, unfortunately, and need be studied. Why would say a person who lost people closest to them in Syria and just fled the country and picked up their studies at a uni somewhere else would be less vulnerable emotionally than someone who has experienced sexual abuse? It's not about comparison, it's just that either we act for all of these or none. And I say none, because first of all I don't think this is of any help, and secondly because between facts and scientific rigour and accomodating individuals I think that the former should be more important.
I have my personal experiences, if that makes that big of a difference I could hint at them, but I'd rather not, especially in a discussion like this. Suffice it to say that I'm no stranger to almost none of this stuff.
If you read the article it's not only content warnings, but also exclusion of authors and researchers that have problematic pasts (examples in the article inlcude Hemingway, Althusser and Warhol). That latter thing is what I'm referring to there.
No. Next time make a proper and civil request instead of using an imperative.
Edit: for anybody else looking at this discussion, the relevant parts are quoted elsewhere in the thread, I didn't do it here because I didn't want to respond to this sort of unconstructive behaviour. I might well be misinterpreting what I'm reading, but this sort of interaction is not worthy of where we are, in my view.
Oh come on. You started this thread about a controversial topic, don't act surprised when the comments get heated.
Would you please, if it's not too much trouble, please link to the comments elsewhere in this thread that you're referring to?
I believe that this is the comment they're referring to. Specific quotes:
To be honest, I'm having difficulty reading this as "we should ban these authors." It reads more like a recognition of the standard problem of separating the art from the artist and a request for recognition of the awful things some of these artists did, rather than glossing over them to glorify their work and, implicitly, them.
Where are you copying and pasting that from? It's not in the article or any comment here.
It's in OP's original comment (the parent of this thread).
Ahhh, the minimized comments thing got me again!
I honestly don't see the big deal with content warnings. In the context of a university environment, it allows students to prepare for material that could upset them, whether that preparation involves something like making sure they get enough sleep the night before, scheduling a therapy session, or planning to spend time with friends afterwards.
In the wider world, people get to decide what movies they watch and what books they read. Too squeamish for horror films? No problem, skip over that category on Netflix and pick out a comedy. But in university the general expectation is that you have to engage with the material given (with some exceptions), so telling students what might be upsetting seems like a reasonable idea.
And while the mainstream conversation seems to be focused on sexual violence, I'd be totally fine with extending it to things like "death of a parent." Sure, not everything can be included in a warning, but there's a certain set of experiences that we understand as widely upsetting and for which a warning would be helpful for a large number of people.
Well, that's agreeable, I can say. But what I actually object to is tailoring the material for this, e.g. providing alternative readings and censuring certain people from the history of a discipline because of their crappy private lifes etc. That's terribly problematic.
Who suggested that? It's not in this article. The conclusion is pretty clear:
A simple warning will let students properly prepare for difficult subject matter..
This part suggests the idea:
I should do justice to the article given it provides opinions against this implication later on:
Interesting article that I believe poses a very good question that honestly doesn't answer it in a satisfactory sense to me.
First off, I feel they have meshed several issues together, which makes it hard to identify and thus resolve an issue. Personally I need to break it down a bit.
Should sensitive topics, possible triggers be included in the course outline? I think this is an easy thing to do and at least the university I went to had extremely detailed outlines, including what movie we were watching in class and what discussion/paper would be completed in response.
Should victims of abuse be given support in the classroom? I believe there is a huge lack of support for this is general. They need to be given a lot more support. However, this doesn't mean changing things specifically for them in the classroom. So, I would support alternate reading lists should be made available for individual students that may want the option.
Should the life of the artist be considered alongside their work? I think it has to be. The person delivering the message is just as important as the message. How this consideration looks depends on a variety of factors. I imagine in some cases, the life of the author can be discussed alongside and in other cases, their work should be out right rejected from the curriculum. A major reason a lot of stories are chosen are based on universal themes, so these themes need the context of the time they were written for sure, but ultimately need to fit and reflect the context of the classroom also.
Little off topic, but I believe as far as reading lists go, due to a general diversity issue in publishing in English, there is a lack of authentic choice that also needs to be addressed.
and
That seems a bit paradoxical, though. How can a classroom can be on the same page if they read different resources?
I do agree but that should not mean censuring certain authors and intellectuals whose role in the discipline is important. The article cites Hemingway and Althusser, for example. These peoples' work are very influential, and the latter is especially hard to ignore if one is studying literary theory. So, consider the artists life, but it should not mean censuring them.
The context of the classroom in such a setting is to transmit knowledge about an epoch's literature and related subjects, persons, etc. thus the context of it is more important. When studying the history of literary criticism, it's knowledge that's transmitted, not the ideals and cultural values ot the time. Otherwise it's not more different than ignoring Mozart's music because he was a controversial figure, or in a history class from censuring certain monarchs and historical events, or skipping relativity in physics because Einstein has written in some travel journals some stuff that can be considered racist. And because in doing so the transmission of intellectual history is tied to current situation of the society, there will be nothing that protects us from, in a hypothetical worsened world, the removal of Alan Turing and Grace Hopper from the history of computation or Socrates and Plato from that of philosophy because of their sex and sexual orientations.
If a university course cannot teach objectivity, it does not serve a purpose. This is totally backwards, would be a step back in intellectual development.
Specifically I'm suggesting that entire course curriculums shouldn't be written for exceptions, whenever we want to define that as. However, students that may need exceptions should have options. And classrooms can definitely be on the same page. Alternative reading lists already exists. Two students can take the same course offered by two different professors with different reading list covering the same topics. Two courses from two different universities can already be evaluated as earning equivalent credits and they are likely to have different reading lists.
I wouldn't say selecting another author's work is censoring at all. I believe the word is misused here.
Ideals and cultural values of the time definitely are part of the study. Literature does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.
WRT to second part, I was referring to the discussion on controversial figures cited in the article like Althusser who murdered his wife. We can condemn the person but still study their ideas.
WRT the first part, when discussing a certain book, I do not undertand how two persons who read different books can be "on the same page" when discussing it.
I never suggested (and neither did the article) suggest we shouldn't study the authors. The article was more specific about including more about the authors and to provide a trigger warning. My comment was about weighing an author's contributions to determine if they should be taught with more context or rejected completely.
I believe you misunderstood my other point. You cannot have two people read two different books and discuss the same book. I am suggesting a single concept can be covered and taught by more than one book.
Just to be clear, do you mean "censure" or "censor?" It's a common misspelling, and it makes all the difference here.
versus
It is my opinion that we should censure artists who commit acts of serious depravity, like the artists listed in the article, but that we should not censor their art.
I meant "censor", thanks.