Teen years can be the most difficult when it comes to emotional and physical development, and for many, literature is a coping mechanism. Books, especially ones covering darker subject matter, give teens characters and stories to relate to, and in turn tools with which to deal with their daily lives. But could dark literature also be harmful to some teens? Many teenagers, such as those suffering from mental illnesses or PTSD, can have those conditions triggered by reading explicit literature. For instance, reading a graphic depiction of rape could give a rape survivor solace, but it could also trigger horrible flashbacks and panic attacks. While banning books is never appropriate and academic integrity is important to preserve, trigger warnings should be implemented to maintain safety for all readers.
Although dark fiction can give teens something to relate to in times of crisis, they run the risk of being too accurate in their portrayal of teenagers' struggles, and can consequentially incite extremely strong and emotionally damaging responses from readers. An article on the nature of teen lit by author Tanith Carey mentions a book called "Red Tears". The book is about a British girl who self harms to deal with academic pressure, and has come to be viewed as a genre classic among self harmers. While this book has helped many readers, it has caused many others to relapse. Jess, a young reader, said that Red Tears was "too close to home for me to read. I'd finish reading and immediately reach for my blade". Indeed, when I was struggling with my own mental illnesses, books like 'Stick Figure' by Lori Gottlieb and 'Speak' by Laurie Halse Anderson provided catharsis, yet I wonder if immersing myself in stories of mental illness, I wasn't worsening my illnesses by inspiring me to behave worse and worse. Children, like me, who have not had critical discussions about the media they consume and are not warned before reading contetious literature are at risk for episodes, relapses, and worse.
Trigger alerts do not, in fact, jeopardize academic integrity. "Slapping a trigger warning on classic works of literature seems a short step away from book banning, a kind of censorship based on offenses to individual feelings." Says The Guardian's Jen Doll. First of all, why are individual feelings not the grounds for book banning? It's an individual feeling that Harry Potter is blasphemous due to its depiction of witchcraft, and yet it remains the most challeneged book series in the world. Second of all, trigger labels aren't censorship. Nothing is stopping anyone from, after reading the list of triggers, continuing on to read the book. In fact, nothing is forcing them to read the triggers in the first place. And really, the effort that it takes to put a trigger warning on a book is miniscule in proportion to the damage done by leaving them out. On the recent debate about trigger alerts in college curriculums, author Kat Stoffel says that "Oberlin students aren't trying to get out of reading 'Mrs. Dalloway' because they're special, sensitive snowflakes, or even get it removed from syllabi. They just want a three-word note on the syllabus giving them a heads-up that it addresses suicide. If that's all it takes for instructors to prevent the shock it could cause a student who has been suicidal, it is, to me, a no-brainer."
Critics of trigger warnings argue that young adults already deal with much of the subject matter that gets books banned. "When some cultural critics fret about the 'ever-more-appalling' YA books, they aren't trying to protect... the poor from poverty. Or victims from rapists." Argues author Sherman Alexie in his scathing rebuttal to Meghan Cox Gurden's tirade against contemporary teen lit. He's right, of course. People like Gurden are not trying to protect sufferers from illnesses, and so on. But should they be? While a depiction of rape could temporarily upset an un-traumatized reader, but for a survivor, the result could be a traumatic flashback or a panic attack. Those who argue against trigger warnings also make the point that people should be deciding for themselves what media is appropriate for their consumption. But how can they make decisions based on the content when the specifics of the content aren't readily available to them? Furthermore, how is it fair to place the burden of protecting themselves on the vulnerable?
Other detractors, such as NPR's Barbara J. King, say that "any decision rule for applying trugger warnings is inherently flawed since 'facutly cannot predict in advance what will be triggering for students.'" Except that supporters of trigger warnings aren't demanding detailed lists of anything and everything that could possibly be labeled offensive. They're only asking for five basic warnings: graphic/extensive description of abuse, especially sexual abuse and torture, depiction of self harm, disordered eating and suicide, psychologically realistic depictions of those suffering from mental illness, and discussion of eating disorders and body shaming, and discussions of homophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination. It's true that trauma is idiosyncratic enough that it's impossible to tell what exactly will trigger an episode, but instating these small changes can make a world of difference to students, because there is concrete evidence that reading about rape, for example, will give a sexual assault victim flashbacks. This isn't up for debate.
All in all, the payoff for implementing trigger warnings in teen literature is hugely disproportionate to the effort it requires. Trauma warnings cause little to no distress to those whom they do not affect, and worlds of it for those whom it does. A lot of the problem with the debate against trigger warnings is that those who argue against are not affected by mental illness or PTSD. They argue that sufferers are being too 'sensitive', and that books should not be 'censored' because they make students 'squirm'. When a mental illness is triggered, the consequences could even be life threatening. Are bogus academic integrity and privileged, neurotypical people's immediate convenience really worth inducing hazardous symptoms in already persecuted people?
No comments:
Post a Comment