In this week’s workshop, we all outlined to the class what topic we had been given for Project Brief 4, our contention or focus in relation to this topic, and a source we found interesting and useful during our work on the annotated bibliography. It was interesting to see the very different sub topic that sprung from sometimes the same general topic – the other group that was given texts/narrative for in their essays have chosen to discuss how different cultures interpret narratives and texts, and how media can set audiences up to receive the information being present through that narrative or text in a specific way, while we are focusing on sequels and originality in cinema.
The most thought provoking aspect of this workshop in relation to the presentation of our PB4 focuses was when one of the groups mentioned that they were discussing trigger warnings, and how they are becoming more prominent, with requests for certain things to be tagged with a ‘trigger warning’ becoming more outlandish and authoritarian in their scope as time goes by. Their example was of a university in America having to place trigger warnings alongside literary works such as Lolita and The Great Gatsby – two amazing works, one which deals with sexual abuse and pedophilia and the other with murder and domestic disputes. For those who aren’t up to date on the new lingo, a ‘trigger warning’ is essentially a notice at the beginning of a film, post, song, speech that warns the audience of certain themes or topics included that some may find disturbing or ‘trigger’ a negative reaction – for example, victims of sexual abuse may be very sensitive to seeing similar abuse depicted on screen and this may cause them to respond negatively and have panic attacks or the like. The group’s angle was that while content/trigger warnings can be good in order to ensure all audience members remain safe and informed, there must be a line drawn between these warnings and censorship.
There is a growing number of occurrences of trigger warnings being included, or demanded, in all sorts of spaces – though more commonly on internet communities where often it is difficult to have the onus on oneself to avoid such content, as the internet is unpredictable and difficult to know when certain topics will come up. But it’s important to consider; is the use of trigger warnings and the prominence – now putting notices on literary works as is the case in the American university – going to lead to censorship? With the involvement now of institutions, it can run the risk of becoming more authoritarian as it is made official. While it’s important to protect the safety of audiences in terms of mental health, where does the line get drawn? What is considered too much, and is ‘too much’ based on what needs a warning, or where and when?
Nowadays some people want trigger warnings for food, dogs, slurs, and all sorts of things. Some people require trigger warnings for clowns. There has been a major backlash in regard to the topic as people complain – as they always do – that this will lead us to evolve into a nanny state, and in reality people cannot so easily find and demand these notices – if someone is being assaulted on the street, what would they do? It’s a complex topic as a whole. I personally believe that trigger warnings are necessary – the other week in the non-narrative lecture, there was a clip shown of a woman being choked, and it was very loud, graphic and distressing for me, to the point where I had to leave the lecture early just to calm down and regroup (not due to any personal experience – I’m just quite sensitive to graphic content as I am a very anxious person). There was no real warning, and to be perfectly honest it seemed gratuitous and unnecessary to me to show, but nonetheless I cannot stop certain content from being showed just to protect my sensibilities. But was it my responsibility to inform the lecturer of my triggers so that they could tell me when something was going to be shown or mentioned so I could remove myself from the situation? It seems like a moderate solution, but I don’t entirely subscribe to it. Firstly, lets remember that some lecturers can’t even remember our names, let alone remember our triggers (I’ve been called Rosie, and also had my name substituted with silence when my tutor forgot twice in an hour, bless her), and I personally have always believed that while, yes, we should be responsible for ourselves, if someone is not providing a warning that is not exactly my fault if I then am distressed by something. That would be victim blaming which I staunchly stand in opposition to. Though, I personally may in future tell lecturers that I find such content disturbing and hope for the best – then at least nobody can say I didn’t try to take my mental issues into my own hands.
Its a difficult topic to find a solution for, but I’m sure it will be discussed more in the public domain in months to come.
