#trigger_warnings

La liberté académique aux prises avec de nouvelles #menaces

https://images.theconversation.com/files/432827/original/file-20211119-27-3yc30f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C0%2C1196%2C785&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip#.jpg

Colloques, séminaires, publications (Duclos et Fjeld, Frangville et alii) : depuis quelques années, et avec une accélération notoire ces derniers mois, le thème de la liberté académique est de plus en plus exploré comme objet scientifique. La liberté académique suscite d’autant plus l’intérêt des chercheurs qu’elle est aujourd’hui, en de nombreux endroits du monde, fragilisée.

La création en 2021 par l’#Open_Society_University_Network (un partenariat entre la Central European University et le Bard College à New York) d’un #Observatoire_mondial_des_libertés_académiques atteste d’une inquiétante réalité. C’est en effet au moment où des libertés sont fragilisées qu’advient le besoin d’en analyser les fondements, d’en explorer les définitions, de les ériger en objets de recherche, mais aussi de mettre en œuvre un système de veille pour les protéger.

S’il est évident que les #régimes_autoritaires sont par définition des ennemis des libertés académiques, ce qui arrive aujourd’hui dans des #pays_démocratiques témoigne de pratiques qui transcendent les frontières entre #régime_autoritaire et #régime_démocratique, frontières qui elles-mêmes tendent à se brouiller.

La liberté académique menacée dans les pays autoritaires…

S’appuyant sur une régulation par les pairs (la « communauté des compétents ») et une indépendance structurelle par rapport aux pouvoirs, la liberté de recherche, d’enseignement et d’opinion favorise la critique autant qu’elle en est l’expression et l’émanation. Elle est la condition d’une pensée féconde qui progresse par le débat, la confrontation d’idées, de paradigmes, d’axiomes, d’expériences.

Cette liberté dérange en contextes autoritaires, où tout un répertoire d’actions s’offre aux gouvernements pour museler les académiques : outre l’emprisonnement pur et simple, dont sont victimes des collègues – on pense notamment à #Fariba_Adelkhah, prisonnière scientifique en #Iran ; à #Ahmadreza_Djalali, condamné à mort en Iran ; à #Ilham_Tohti, dont on est sans nouvelles depuis sa condamnation à perpétuité en# Chine, et à des dizaines d’autres académiques ouïghours disparus ou emprisonnés sans procès ; à #Iouri_Dmitriev, condamné à treize ans de détention en #Russie –, les régimes autoritaires mettent en œuvre #poursuites_judiciaires et #criminalisation, #licenciements_abusifs, #harcèlement, #surveillance et #intimidation.

https://i.imgur.com/w1C5dfO.png

▻https://twitter.com/AnkyraWitch/status/1359630006993977348

L’historien turc Candan Badem parlait en 2017 d’#académicide pour qualifier la vague de #répression qui s’abattait dans son pays sur les « universitaires pour la paix », criminalisés pour avoir signé une pétition pour la paix dans les régions kurdes. La notion de « #crime_contre_l’histoire », forgée par l’historien Antoon de Baets, a été reprise en 2021 par la FIDH et l’historien Grigori Vaïpan) pour qualifier les atteintes portées à l’histoire et aux historiens en Russie. Ce crime contre l’histoire en Russie s’amplifie avec les attaques récentes contre l’ONG #Memorial menacée de dissolution.

En effet, loin d’être l’apanage des institutions académiques officielles, la liberté académique et de recherche, d’une grande rigueur, se déploie parfois de façon plus inventive et courageuse dans des structures de la #société_civile. En #Biélorussie, le sort de #Tatiana_Kuzina, comme celui d’#Artiom_Boyarski, jeune chimiste talentueux emprisonné pour avoir refusé publiquement une bourse du nom du président Loukachenko, ne sont que deux exemples parmi des dizaines et des dizaines de chercheurs menacés, dont une grande partie a déjà pris le chemin de l’exil depuis l’intensification des répressions après les élections d’août 2020 et la mobilisation qui s’en est suivie.

La liste ci-dessus n’est bien sûr pas exhaustive, les cas étant nombreux dans bien des pays – on pense, par exemple, à celui de #Saïd_Djabelkhir en #Algérie.

… mais aussi dans les #démocraties

Les #régressions que l’on observe au sein même de l’Union européenne – le cas du déménagement forcé de la #Central_European_University de Budapest vers Vienne, sous la pression du gouvernement de Viktor Orban, en est un exemple criant – montrent que les dérives anti-démocratiques se déclinent dans le champ académique, après que d’autres libertés – liberté de la presse, autonomie de la société civile – ont été atteintes.

Les pays considérés comme démocratiques ne sont pas épargnés non plus par les tentatives des autorités politiques de peser sur les recherches académiques. Récemment, en #France, les ministres de l’Éducation nationale et de l’Enseignement supérieur ont affirmé que le monde académique serait « ravagé par l’#islamo-gauchisme » et irrespectueux des « #valeurs_de_la_République » – des attaques qui ont provoqué un concert de protestations au sein de la communauté des chercheurs. En France toujours, de nombreux historiens se sont mobilisés en 2020 contre les modalités d’application d’une instruction interministérielle restreignant l’accès à des fonds d’#archives sur l’#histoire_coloniale, en contradiction avec une loi de 2008.

https://i.imgur.com/oi5FTkS.png

▻https://twitter.com/VivementLundi/status/1355564397314387972

Au #Danemark, en juin 2021, plus de 260 universitaires spécialistes des questions migratoires et de genre rapportaient quant à eux dans un communiqué public les intimidations croissantes subies pour leurs recherches qualifiées de « #gauchisme_identitaire » et de « #pseudo-science » par des députés les accusant de « déguiser la politique en science ».

D’autres offensives peuvent être menées de façon plus sournoise, à la faveur de #politiques_néolibérales assumées et de mise en #concurrence des universités et donc du champ du savoir et de la pensée. La conjonction de #logiques_libérales sur le plan économique et autoritaires sur le plan politique conduit à la multiplication de politiques souvent largement assumées par les États eux-mêmes : accréditations sélectives, retrait de #financements à des universités ou à certains programmes – les objets plus récents et fragiles comme les #études_de_genre ou études sur les #migrations se trouvant souvent en première ligne.

Ce brouillage entre régimes politiques, conjugué à la #marchandisation_du_savoir, trouve également à s’incarner dans la façon dont des acteurs issus de régimes autoritaires viennent s’installer au sein du monde démocratique : c’est le cas notamment de la Chine avec l’implantation d’#Instituts_Confucius au cœur même des universités, qui conduisent, dans certains cas, à des logiques d’#autocensure ; ou de l’afflux d’étudiants fortunés en provenance de pays autoritaires, qui par leurs frais d’inscriptions très élevés renflouent les caisses d’universités désargentées, comme en Australie.

Ces logiques de #dépendance_financière obèrent l’essence et la condition même de la #recherche_académique : son #indépendance. Plus généralement, la #marchandisation de l’#enseignement_supérieur, conséquence de son #sous-financement public, menace l’#intégrité_scientifique de chercheurs et d’universités de plus en plus poussées à se tourner vers des fonds privés.

La mobilisation de la communauté universitaire

Il y a donc là une combinaison d’attaques protéiformes, à l’aune des changements politiques, technologiques, économiques et financiers qui modifient en profondeur les modalités du travail. La mise en place de programmes de solidarité à destination de chercheurs en danger (#PAUSE, #bourses_Philipp_Schwartz en Allemagne, #bourses de solidarité à l’Université libre de Bruxelles), l’existence d’organisations visant à documenter les attaques exercées sur des chercheurs #Scholars_at_Risk, #International_Rescue_Fund, #CARA et la création de ce tout nouvel observatoire mondial des libertés académiques évoqué plus haut montrent que la communauté académique a pris conscience du danger. Puissent du fond de sa prison résonner les mots de l’historien Iouri Dmitriev : « Les libertés académiques, jamais, ne deviendront une notion abstraite. »

▻https://theconversation.com/la-liberte-academique-aux-prises-avec-de-nouvelles-menaces-171682

« #Wokisme » : un « #front_républicain » contre l’éveil aux #injustices

CHRONIQUE DE LA #BATAILLE_CULTURELLE. L’usage du mot « wokisme » vise à disqualifier son adversaire, mais aussi à entretenir un #déni : l’absence de volonté politique à prendre au sérieux les demandes d’#égalité, de #justice, de respect des #droits_humains.

Invoqué ad nauseam, le « wokisme » a fait irruption dans un débat public déjà singulièrement dégradé. Il a fait florès à l’ère du buzz et des clashs, rejoignant l’« #islamogauchisme » au registre de ces fameux mots fourre-tout dont la principale fonction est de dénigrer et disqualifier son adversaire, tout en réduisant les maux de la société à quelques syllabes magiques. Sur la scène politique et intellectuelle, le « wokisme » a même réussi là où la menace de l’#extrême_droite a échoué : la formation d’un « front républicain ». Mais pas n’importe quel front républicain…

Formellement, les racines du « wokisme » renvoient à l’idée d’« #éveil » aux #injustices, aux #inégalités et autres #discriminations subies par les minorités, qu’elles soient sexuelles, ethniques ou religieuses. Comment cet « éveil » a-t-il mué en une sorte d’#injure_publique constitutive d’une #menace existentielle pour la République ?

Si le terme « woke » est historiquement lié à la lutte des #Afro-Américains pour les #droits_civiques, il se trouve désormais au cœur de mobilisations d’une jeunesse militante animée par les causes féministes et antiracistes. Ces mobilisations traduisent en acte l’#intersectionnalité théorisée par #Kimberlé_Williams_Crenshaw*, mais le recours à certains procédés ou techniques est perçu comme une atteinte à la #liberté_d’expression (avec les appels à la #censure d’une œuvre, à l’annulation d’une exposition ou d’une représentation, au déboulonnage d’une statue, etc.) ou à l’égalité (avec les « réunions non mixtes choisies et temporaires » restreignant l’accès à celles-ci à certaines catégories de personnes partageant un même problème, une même discrimination). Le débat autour de ces pratiques est complexe et légitime. Mais parler en France du développement d’une « cancel culture » qu’elles sont censées symboliser est abusif, tant elles demeurent extrêmement marginales dans les sphères universitaires et artistiques. Leur nombre comme leur diffusion sont inversement proportionnels à leur écho politico-médiatique. D’où provient ce contraste ou décalage ?

Une rupture du contrat social

En réalité, au-delà de la critique/condamnation du phénomène « woke », la crispation radicale qu’il suscite dans l’hexagone puise ses racines dans une absence de volonté politique à prendre au sérieux les demandes d’égalité, de justice, de respect des droits humains. Un défaut d’écoute et de volonté qui se nourrit lui-même d’un mécanisme de déni, à savoir un mécanisme de défense face à une réalité insupportable, difficile à assumer intellectuellement et politiquement.

D’un côté, une série de rapports publics et d’études universitaires** pointent la prégnance des inégalités et des discriminations à l’embauche, au logement, au contrôle policier ou même à l’école. Non seulement les discriminations sapent le sentiment d’appartenance à la communauté nationale, mais la reproduction des inégalités est en partie liée à la reproduction des discriminations.

De l’autre, le déni et l’#inaction perdurent face à ces problèmes systémiques. Il n’existe pas de véritable politique publique de lutte contre les discriminations à l’échelle nationale. L’État n’a pas engagé de programme spécifique qui ciblerait des axes prioritaires et se déclinerait aux différents niveaux de l’action publique.

L’appel à l’« éveil » est un appel à la prise de conscience d’une rupture consommée de notre contrat social. La réalité implacable d’inégalités et de discriminations criantes nourrit en effet une #citoyenneté à plusieurs vitesses qui contredit les termes du récit/#pacte_républicain, celui d’une promesse d’égalité et d’#émancipation.

Que l’objet si mal identifié que représente le « wokisme » soit fustigé par la droite et l’extrême-droite n’a rien de surprenant : la lutte contre les #logiques_de_domination ne fait partie ni de leur corpus idéologique ni de leur agenda programmatique. En revanche, il est plus significatif qu’une large partie de la gauche se détourne des questions de l’égalité et de la #lutte_contre_les_discriminations, pour mieux se mobiliser contre tout ce qui peut apparaître comme une menace contre un « #universalisme_républicain » aussi abstrait que déconnecté des réalités vécues par cette jeunesse française engagée en faveur de ces causes.

Les polémiques autour du « wokisme » contribuent ainsi à forger cet arc politique et intellectuel qui atteste la convergence, voire la jonction de deux blocs conservateurs, « de droite » et « de gauche », unis dans un même « front républicain », dans un même déni des maux d’une société d’inégaux.

▻https://www.nouvelobs.com/idees/20210928.OBS49202/wokisme-un-front-republicain-contre-l-eveil-aux-injustices.html

#récit_républicain

« Le mot “#woke” a été transformé en instrument d’occultation des discriminations raciales »

Pour le sociologue #Alain_Policar, le « wokisme » désigne désormais péjorativement ceux qui sont engagés dans des courants politiques qui se réclament pourtant de l’approfondissement des principes démocratiques.

Faut-il rompre avec le principe de « #color_blindness » (« indifférence à la couleur ») au fondement de l’#égalitarisme_libéral ? Ce principe, rappelons-le, accompagne la philosophie individualiste et contractualiste à laquelle adhèrent les #démocraties. Or, en prenant en considération des pratiques par lesquelles des catégories fondées sur des étiquettes « raciales » subsistent dans les sociétés postcolonialistes, on affirme l’existence d’un ordre politico-juridique au sein duquel la « #race » reste un principe de vision et de division du monde social.

Comme l’écrit #Stéphane_Troussel, président du conseil départemental de Seine-Saint-Denis, « la République a un problème avec le #corps des individus, elle ne sait que faire de ces #différences_physiques, de ces couleurs multiples, de ces #orientations diverses, parce qu’elle a affirmé que pour traiter chacun et chacune également elle devait être #aveugle » ( Le Monde du 7 avril).

Dès lors, ignorer cette #réalité, rester indifférent à la #couleur, n’est-ce pas consentir à la perpétuation des injustices ? C’est ce consentement qui s’exprime dans l’opération idéologique d’appropriation d’un mot, « woke », pour le transformer en instrument d’occultation de la réalité des discriminations fondées sur la couleur de peau. Désormais le wokisme désigne péjorativement ceux qui sont engagés dans les luttes antiracistes, féministes, LGBT ou même écologistes. Il ne se caractérise pas par son contenu, mais par sa fonction, à savoir, selon un article récent de l’agrégé de philosophie Valentin Denis sur le site AOC , « stigmatiser des courants politiques souvent incommensurables tout en évitant de se demander ce qu’ils ont à dire . Ces courants politiques, pourtant, ne réclament-ils pas en définitive l’approfondissement des #principes_démocratiques ?

Une #justice_corrective

Parmi les moyens de cet approfondissement, l’ affirmative action (« #action_compensatoire »), en tant qu’expression d’une justice corrective fondée sur la #reconnaissance des #torts subis par le passé et, bien souvent, qui restent encore vifs dans le présent, est suspectée de substituer le #multiculturalisme_normatif au #modèle_républicain d’#intégration. Ces mesures correctives seraient, lit-on souvent, une remise en cause radicale du #mérite_individuel. Mais cet argument est extrêmement faible : est-il cohérent d’invoquer la #justice_sociale (dont les antiwokedisent se préoccuper) et, en même temps, de valoriser le #mérite ? L’appréciation de celui-ci n’est-elle pas liée à l’#utilité_sociale accordée à un ensemble de #performances dont la réalisation dépend d’#atouts (en particulier, un milieu familial favorable) distribués de façon moralement arbitraire ? La justice sociale exige, en réalité, que ce qui dépend des circonstances, et non des choix, soit compensé.

Percevoir et dénoncer les mécanismes qui maintiennent les hiérarchies héritées de l’#ordre_colonial constitue l’étape nécessaire à la reconnaissance du lien entre cet ordre et la persistance d’un #racisme_quotidien. Il est important (même si le concept de « #racisme_systémique », appliqué à nos sociétés contemporaines, est décrit comme une « fable » par certains auteurs, égarés par les passions idéologiques qu’ils dénoncent chez leurs adversaires) d’admettre l’idée que, même si les agents sont dépourvus de #préjugés_racistes, la discrimination fonctionne. En quelque sorte, on peut avoir du #racisme_sans_racistes, comme l’a montré Eduardo Bonilla-Silva dans son livre de 2003, Racism without Racists [Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, non traduit] . Cet auteur avait, en 1997, publié un article canonique sur le #racisme_institutionnel dans lequel il rejetait, en se réclamant du psychiatre et essayiste Frantz Fanon [1925-1961], les approches du racisme « comme une #bizarrerie_mentale, comme une #faille_psychologique » .

Le reflet de pratiques structurelles

En fait, les institutions peuvent être racialement oppressives, même sans qu’aucun individu ou aucun groupe ne puisse être tenu pour responsable du tort subi. Cette importante idée avait déjà été exprimée par William E. B. Du Bois dans Pénombre de l’aube. Essai d’autobiographie d’un concept de race (1940, traduit chez Vendémiaire, 2020), ouvrage dans lequel il décrivait le racisme comme un #ordre_structurel, intériorisé par les individus et ne dépendant pas seulement de la mauvaise volonté de quelques-uns. On a pu reprocher à ces analyses d’essentialiser les Blancs, de leur attribuer une sorte de #racisme_ontologique, alors qu’elles mettent au jour les #préjugés produits par l’ignorance ou le déni historique.

On comprend, par conséquent, qu’il est essentiel de ne pas confondre, d’une part, l’expression des #émotions, de la #colère, du #ressentiment, et, d’autre part, les discriminations, par exemple à l’embauche ou au logement, lesquelles sont le reflet de #pratiques_structurelles concrètes. Le racisme est avant tout un rapport social, un #système_de_domination qui s’exerce sur des groupes racisés par le groupe racisant. Il doit être appréhendé du point de vue de ses effets sur l’ensemble de la société, et non seulement à travers ses expressions les plus violentes.

#Alexis_de_Tocqueville avait parfaitement décrit cette réalité [dans De la démocratie en Amérique, 1835 et 1840] en évoquant la nécessaire destruction, une fois l’esclavage aboli, de trois préjugés, qu’il disait être « bien plus insaisissables et plus tenaces que lui : le préjugé du maître, le préjugé de race, et enfin le préjugé du Blanc . Et il ajoutait : « J’aperçois l’#esclavage qui recule ; le préjugé qu’il a fait naître est immobile. » Ce #préjugé_de_race était, écrivait-il encore, « plus fort dans les Etats qui ont aboli l’esclavage que dans ceux où il existe encore, et nulle part il ne se montre aussi intolérant que dans les Etats où la servitude a toujours été inconnue . Tocqueville serait-il un militant woke ?

Note(s) :

Alain Policar est sociologue au Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po (Cevipof). Dernier livre paru : « L’Universalisme en procès » (Le Bord de l’eau, 160p., 16 euros)

►https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/12/28/alain-policar-le-mot-woke-a-ete-transforme-en-instrument-d-occultation-des-d

#WEB_Du_Bois

signalé par @colporteur ici :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/941602

L’agitation de la chimère « wokisme » ou l’empêchement du débat

Wokisme est un néologisme malin : employé comme nom, il suggère l’existence d’un mouvement homogène et cohérent, constitué autour d’une prétendue « idéologie woke ». Ou comment stigmatiser des courants politiques progressistes pour mieux détourner le regard des discriminations que ceux-ci dénoncent. D’un point de vue rhétorique, le terme produit une version totalement caricaturée d’un adversaire fantasmé.

(#paywall)
▻https://aoc.media/opinion/2021/11/25/lagitation-de-la-chimere-wokisme-ou-lempechement-du-debat

Derrière le débat sur le « wokisme », les trois mutations du racisme : biologique, culturel, systémique
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/943324

Le WOKISME, #Béligh_Nabli

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtQXTG8LAR0

Europe’s War on Woke

Why elites across the Atlantic are freaking out about the concept of structural racism.

https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Robinson-McAuley_Woke-illo_img.jpg

On my 32nd birthday, I agreed to appear on Répliques, a popular show on the France Culture radio channel hosted by the illustrious Alain Finkielkraut. Now 72 and a household name in France, Finkielkraut is a public intellectual of the variety that exists only on the Left Bank: a child of 1968 who now wears Loro Piana blazers and rails against “la cancel culture.” The other guest that day—January 9, less than 72 hours after the US Capitol insurrection—was Pascal Bruckner, 72, another well-known French writer who’d just published “The Almost Perfect Culprit: The Construction of the White Scapegoat,” his latest of many essays on this theme. Happy birthday to me.

The topic of our discussion was the only one that interested the French elite in January 2021: not the raging pandemic but “the Franco-American divide,” the Huntington-esque clash of two apparently great civilizations and their respective social models—one “universalist,” one “communitarian”—on the question of race and identity politics. To Finkielkraut, Bruckner, and the establishment they still represent, American writers like me seek to impose a “woke” agenda on an otherwise harmonious, egalitarian society. Americans who argue for social justice are guilty of “cultural imperialism,” of ideological projection—even of bad faith.

This has become a refrain not merely in France but across Europe. To be sure, the terms of this social-media-fueled debate are unmistakably American; “woke” and “cancel culture” could emerge from no other context. But in the United States, these terms have a particular valence that mostly has to do with the push for racial equality and against systemic racism. In Europe, what is labeled “woke” is often whatever social movement a particular country’s establishment fears the most. This turns out to be an ideal way of discrediting those movements: To call them “woke” is to call them American, and to call them American is to say they don’t apply to Europe.

In France, “wokeism” came to the fore in response to a recent slew of terror attacks, most notably the gruesome beheading in October 2020 of the schoolteacher Samuel Paty. After years of similar Islamist attacks—notably the massacre at the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January 2015 and the ISIS-inspired assaults on the Hypercacher kosher supermarket and the Bataclan concert hall in November 2015—the reaction in France reached a tipping point. Emmanuel Macron’s government had already launched a campaign against what it calls “Islamist separatism,” but Paty’s killing saw a conversation about understandable trauma degenerate into public hysteria. The government launched a full-scale culture war, fomenting its own American-style psychodrama while purporting to do the opposite. Soon its ministers began railing against “islamo-gauchisme” (Islamo-leftism) in universities, Muslim mothers in hijabs chaperoning school field trips, and halal meats in supermarkets.

But most of all, they began railing against the ideas that, in their view, somehow augmented and abetted these divisions: American-inspired anti-racism and “wokeness.” Macron said it himself in a speech that was widely praised by the French establishment for its alleged nuance: “We have left the intellectual debate to others, to those outside of the Republic, by ideologizing it, sometimes yielding to other academic traditions…. I see certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States.” In October, the French government inaugurated a think tank, the Laboratoire de la République, designed to combat these “woke” theories, which, according to the think tank’s founder, Jean-Michel Blanquer, Macron’s education minister, “led to the rise of Donald Trump.”

As the apparent emissaries of this pernicious “Anglo-Saxon” identitarian agenda, US journalists covering this moment in France have come under the spotlight, especially when we ask, for instance, what islamo-gauchisme actually means—if indeed it means anything at all. Macron himself has lashed out at foreign journalists, even sending a letter to the editor of the Financial Times rebutting what he saw as an error-ridden op-ed that took a stance he could not bear. “I will not allow anybody to claim that France, or its government, is fostering racism against Muslims,” he wrote. Hence my own invitation to appear on France Culture, a kind of voir dire before the entire nation.

Finkielkraut began the segment with a tirade against The New York Times and then began discussing US “campus culture,” mentioning Yale’s Tim Barringer and an art history syllabus that no longer includes as many “dead white males.” Eventually I asked how, three days after January 6, we could discuss the United States without mentioning the violent insurrection that had just taken place at the seat of American democracy. Finkielkraut became agitated. “And for you also, [what about] the fact that in the American Congress, Emanuel Cleaver, representative of Missouri, presiding over a new inauguration ceremony, finished by saying the words ‘amen and a-women’?” he asked. “Ça vous dérangez pas?” I said it didn’t bother me in the least, and he got even more agitated. “I don’t understand what you say, James McAuley, because cancel culture exists! It exists!”

The man knew what he was talking about: Three days after our conversation, Finkielkraut was dropped from a regular gig at France’s LCI television for defending his old pal Olivier Duhamel of Sciences Po, who was embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that had taken France by storm. Duhamel was accused by his stepdaughter, Camille Kouchener, of raping her twin brother when the two were in their early teens. Finkielkraut speculated that there may have been consent between the two parties, and, in any case, a 14-year-old was “not the same thing” as a child.

I tell this story because it is a useful encapsulation of France’s—and Europe’s—war on woke, a conflict that has assumed various forms in different national contexts but that still grips the continent. On one level, there is a certain comedy to it: The self-professed classical liberal turns out to be an apologist for child molestation. In fact, the anti-woke comedy is now quite literally being written and directed by actual comedians who, on this one issue, seem incapable of anything but earnestness. John Cleese, 81, the face of Monty Python and a public supporter of Brexit, has announced that he will be directing a forthcoming documentary series on Britain’s Channel 4 titled Cancel Me, which will feature extensive interviews with people who have been “canceled”—although no one connected with the show has specified what exactly the word means.

Indeed, the terms of this debate are an insult to collective intelligence. But if we must use them, we need to understand an important distinction between what is called “cancel culture” and what is called “woke.” The former has been around much longer and refers to tactics that are used across the political spectrum, but historically by those on the right. “Cancel culture” is not the result of an increased awareness of racial disparities or a greater commitment to social justice broadly conceived—both of which are more urgent than ever—but rather a terrible and inevitable consequence of life with the Internet. Hardly anyone can support “cancel culture” in good faith, and yet it is never sufficiently condemned, because people call out such tactics only when their political opponents use them, never when their allies do. “Woke,” on the other hand, does not necessarily imply public shaming; it merely signifies a shift in perspective and perhaps a change in behavior. Carelessly equating the two is a convenient way to brand social justice activism as inherently illiberal—and to silence long-overdue conversations about race and inequality that far too many otherwise reasonable people find personally threatening.

But Europe is not America, and in Europe there have been far fewer incidents that could be construed as “cancellations”—again, I feel stupid even using the word—than in the United States. “Wokeism” is really a phenomenon of the Anglosphere, and with the exception of the United Kingdom, the social justice movement has gained far less traction in Europe than it has in US cultural institutions—newspapers, universities, museums, and foundations. In terms of race and identity, many European cultural institutions would have been seen as woefully behind the times by their US counterparts even before the so-called “great awokening.” Yet Europe has gone fully anti-woke, even without much wokeness to fight.

So much of Europe’s anti-woke movement has focused on opposing and attempting to refute allegations of “institutional” or “structural” racism. Yet despite the 20th-century continental origins of structuralism (especially in France) as a mode of social analysis—not to mention the Francophone writers who have shaped the way American thinkers conceive of race—many European elites dismiss these critiques as unwelcome intrusions into the public discourse that project the preoccupations of a nation built on slavery (and thus understandably obsessed with race) onto societies that are vastly different. Europe, they insist, has a different history, one in which race—especially in the form of the simple binary opposition of Black and white—plays a less central role. There is, of course, some truth to this rejoinder: Different countries do indeed have different histories and different debates. But when Europeans accuse their American critics of projection, they do so not to point out the very real divergences in the US and European discussions and even conceptions of race and racism. Rather, the charge is typically meant to stifle the discussion altogether—even when that discussion is being led by European citizens describing their own lived experiences.

France, where I reside, proudly sees itself as a “universalist” republic of equal citizens that officially recognizes no differences among them. Indeed, since 1978, it has been illegal to collect statistics on race, ethnicity, or religion—a policy that is largely a response to what happened during the Second World War, when authorities singled out Jewish citizens to be deported to Nazi concentration camps. The French view is that such categories should play no role in public life, that the only community that counts is the national community. To be anti-woke, then, is to be seen as a discerning thinker, one who can rise above crude, reductive identity categories.

The reality of daily life in France is anything but universalist. The French state does indeed make racial distinctions among citizens, particularly in the realm of policing. The prevalence of police identity checks in France, which stem from a 1993 law intended to curb illegal immigration, is a perennial source of controversy. They disproportionately target Black and Arab men, which is one reason the killing of George Floyd resonated so strongly here. Last summer I spoke to Jacques Toubon, a former conservative politician who was then serving as the French government’s civil liberties ombudsman (he is now retired). Toubon was honest in his assessment: “Our thesis, our values, our rules—constitutional, etc.—they are universalist,” he said. “They do not recognize difference. But there is a tension between this and the reality.”

One of the most jarring examples of this tension came in November 2020, when Sarah El Haïry, Macron’s youth minister, traveled to Poitiers to discuss the question of religion in society at a local high school. By and large, the students—many of whom were people of color—asked very thoughtful questions. One of them, Emilie, 16, said that she didn’t see the recognition of religious or ethnic differences as divisive. “Just because you are a Christian or a Muslim does not represent a threat to society,” she said. “For me, diversity is an opportunity.” These and similar remarks did not sit well with El Haïry, who nonetheless kept her cool until another student asked about police brutality. At that point, El Haïry got up from her chair and interrupted the student. “You have to love the police, because they are there to protect us on a daily basis,” she said. “They cannot be racist because they are republican!”

For El Haïry, to question such assumptions would be to question something foundational and profound about the way France understands itself. The problem is that more and more French citizens are doing just that, especially young people like the students in Poitiers, and the government seems utterly incapable of responding.

Although there is no official data to this effect—again, because of universalist ideology—France is estimated to be the most ethnically diverse society in Western Europe. It is home to large North African, West African, Southeast Asian, and Caribbean populations, and it has the largest Muslim and Jewish communities on the continent. By any objective measure, that makes France a multicultural society—but this reality apparently cannot be admitted or understood.

Macron, who has done far more than any previous French president to recognize the lived experiences and historical traumas of various minority groups, seems to be aware of this blind spot, but he stops short of acknowledging it. Earlier this year, I attended a roundtable discussion with Macron and a small group of other Anglophone correspondents. One thing he said during that interview has stuck with me: “Universalism is not, in my eyes, a doctrine of assimilation—not at all. It is not the negation of differences…. I believe in plurality in universalism, but that is to say, whatever our differences, our citizenship makes us build a universal together.” This is simply the definition of a multicultural society, an outline of the Anglo-Saxon social model otherwise so despised in France.

Europe’s reaction to the brutal killing of George Floyd in may 2020 was fascinating to observe. The initial shock at the terrifyingly mundane horrors of US life quickly gave way to protest movements that decried police brutality and the unaddressed legacy of Europe’s colonial past. This was when the question of structural racism entered the conversation. In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded to the massive protests throughout the country by establishing the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, an independent group charged with investigating the reality of discrimination and coming up with proposals for rectifying racial disparities in public institutions. The commission’s report, published in April 2021, heralded Britain as “a model for other White-majority countries” on racial issues and devoted three pages to the problems with the language of “structural racism.”

One big problem with this language, the report implied, is that “structural racism” is a feeling, and feelings are not facts. “References to ‘systemic’, ‘institutional’ or ‘structural racism’ may relate to specific processes which can be identified, but they can also relate to the feeling described by many ethnic minorities of ‘not belonging,’” the report said. “There is certainly a class of actions, behaviours and incidents at the organisational level which cause ethnic minorities to lack a sense of belonging. This is often informally expressed as feeling ‘othered.’” But even that modest concession was immediately qualified. “However, as with hate incidents, this can have a highly subjective dimension for those tasked with investigating the claim.” Finally, the report concluded, the terms in question were inherently extreme. “Terms like ‘structural racism’ have roots in a critique of capitalism, which states that racism is inextricably linked to capitalism. So by that definition, until that system is abolished racism will flourish.”

The effect of these language games is simply to limit the terms available to describe a phenomenon that indeed exists. Because structural racism is not some progressive shibboleth: It kills people, which need not be controversial or even political to admit. For one recent example in the UK, look no further than Covid-19 deaths. The nation’s Office for National Statistics concluded that Black citizens were more than four times as likely to die of Covid as white citizens, while British citizens of Bangladeshi and Pakistani heritage were more than three times as likely to die. These disparities were present even among health workers directly employed by the state: Of the National Health Service clinical staff who succumbed to the virus, a staggering 60 percent were “BAME”—Black, Asian, or minority ethnic, a term that the government’s report deemed “no longer helpful” and “demeaning.” Beyond Covid-19, reports show that Black British women are more than four times as likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth as their white counterparts; British women of an Asian ethnic background die at twice the rate of white women.

In the countries of Europe as in the United States, the battle over “woke” ideas is also a battle over each nation’s history—how it is written, how it is taught, how it is understood.

Perhaps nowhere is this more acutely felt than in Britain, where the inescapable legacy of empire has become the center of an increasingly acrimonious public debate. Of particular note has been the furor over how to think about Winston Churchill, who remains something of a national avatar. In September, the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust renamed itself the Churchill Fellowship, removed certain pictures of the former prime minister from its website, and seemed to distance itself from its namesake. “Many of his views on race are widely seen as unacceptable today, a view that we share,” the Churchill Fellowship declared. This followed the November 2020 decision by Britain’s beloved National Trust, which operates an extensive network of stately homes throughout the country, to demarcate about 100 properties with explicit ties to slavery and colonialism.

These moves elicited the ire of many conservatives, including the prime minister. “We need to focus on addressing the present and not attempt to rewrite the past and get sucked into the never-ending debate about which well-known historical figures are sufficiently pure or politically correct to remain in public view,” Johnson’s spokesman said in response to the Churchill brouhaha. But for Hilary McGrady, the head of the National Trust, “the genie is out of the bottle in terms of people wanting to understand where wealth came from,” she told London’s Evening Standard. McGrady justified the trust’s decision by saying that as public sensibilities change, so too must institutions. “One thing that possibly has changed is there may be things people find offensive, and we have to be sensitive about that.”

A fierce countermovement to these institutional changes has already emerged. In the words of David Abulafia, 71, an acclaimed historian of the Mediterranean at Cambridge University and one of the principal architects of this countermovement, “We can never surrender to the woke witch hunt against our island story.”

This was the actual title of an op-ed by Abulafia that the Daily Mail published in early September, which attacked “today’s woke zealots” who “exploit history as an instrument of propaganda—and as a means of bullying the rest of us.” The piece also announced the History Reclaimed initiative, of which Abulafia is a cofounder: a new online platform run by a board of frustrated British historians who seek to “provide context, explanation and balance in a debate in which condemnation is too often preferred to understanding.” As a historian myself, I should say that I greatly admire Abulafia’s work, particularly its wide-ranging synthesis and its literary quality, neither of which is easy to achieve and both of which have been models for me in my own work. Which is why I was surprised to find a piece by him in the Daily Mail, a right-wing tabloid not exactly known for academic rigor. When I spoke with Abulafia about it, he seemed a little embarrassed. “It’s basically an interview that they turn into text and then send back to you,” he told me. “Some of the sentences have been generated by the Daily Mail.”

As in the United States, the UK’s Black Lives Matter protests led to the toppling of statues, including the one in downtown Bristol of Edward Colston, a 17th-century merchant whose wealth derived in part from his active involvement in the slave trade. Abulafia told me he prefers a “retain and explain” approach, which means keeping such statues in place but adding context to them when necessary. I asked him about the public presentation of statues and whether by their very prominence they command an implicit honor and respect. He seemed unconvinced. “You look at statues and you’re not particularly aware of what they show,” he said.

“What do you do about Simon de Montfort?” Abulafia continued. “He is commemorated at Parliament, and he did manage to rein in the power of monarchy. But he was also responsible for some horrific pogroms against the Jews. Everyone has a different perspective on these people. It seems to me that what we have to say is that human beings are complex; we often have contradictory ideas, mishmash that goes in any number of different directions. Churchill defeated the Nazis, but lower down the page one might mention that he held views on race that are not our own. Maintaining that sense of proportion is important.”

All of these are reasonable points, but what I still don’t understand is why history as it was understood by a previous generation must be the history understood by future generations. Statues are not history; they are interpretations of history created at a certain moment in time. Historians rebuke previous interpretations of the past on the page all the time; we rewrite accounts of well-known events according to our own contemporary perspectives and biases. What is so sacred about a statue?

I asked Abulafia why all of this felt so personal to him, because it doesn’t feel that way to me. He replied, “I think there’s an element of this: There is a feeling that younger scholars might be disadvantaged if they don’t support particular views of the past. I can think of examples of younger scholars who’ve been very careful on this issue, who are not really taking sides on that issue.” But I am exactly such a younger scholar, and no one has ever forced me to uphold a certain opinion, either at Harvard or at Oxford. For Abulafia, however, this is a terrifying moment. “One of the things that really worries me about this whole business is the lack of opportunities for debate.”

Whatever one thinks of “woke” purity tests, it cannot be argued in good faith that the loudest European voices on the anti-woke side of the argument are really interested in “debate.” In France especially, the anti-woke moment has become particularly toxic because its culture warriors—on both the right and the left—have succeeded in associating “le wokeisme” with defenses of Islamist terrorism. Without question, France has faced the brunt of terrorist violence in Europe in recent years: Since 2015, more than 260 people have been killed in a series of attacks, shaking the confidence of all of us who live here. The worst year was 2015, flanked as it was by the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan concert hall attacks. But something changed after Paty’s brutal murder in 2020. After a long, miserable year of Covid lockdowns, the French elite—politicians and press alike—began looking for something to blame. And so “wokeness” was denounced as an apology for terrorist violence; in the view of the French establishment, to emphasize identity politics was to sow the social fractures that led to Paty’s beheading. “Wokeness” became complicit in the crime, while freedom of expression was reserved for supporters of the French establishment.

The irony is fairly clear: Those who purported to detest American psychodramas about race and social justice had to rely on—and, in fact, to import—the tools of an American culture war to battle what they felt threatened by in their own country. In the case of Paty’s murder and its aftermath, there was another glaring irony, this time about the values so allegedly dear to the anti-woke contingent. The middle school teacher, who was targeted by a Chechen asylum seeker because he had shown cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as part of a civics lesson about free speech, was immediately lionized as an avatar for the freedom of expression, which the French government quite rightly championed as a value it would always protect. “I will always defend in my country the freedom to speak, to write, to think, to draw,” Macron told Al Jazeera shortly after Paty’s killing. This would have been reassuring had it not been completely disingenuous: Shortly thereafter, Macron presided over a crackdown on “islamo-gauchisme” in French universities, a term his ministers used with an entirely straight face. If there is a single paradox that describes French cultural life in 2021, it is this: “Islamophobia” is a word one is supposed to avoid, but “Islamo-leftism” is a phenomenon one is expected to condemn.

Hundreds of academics—including at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France’s most prestigious research body—attacked the government’s crusade against an undefined set of ideas that were somehow complicit in the Islamist terror attacks that had rocked the country. Newspapers like Le Monde came out against the targeting of “islamo-gauchisme,” and there were weeks of tedious newspaper polemics about whether the term harks back to the “Judeo-Bolshevism” of the 1930s (of course it does) or whether it describes a real phenomenon. In any case, the Macron government backtracked in the face of prolonged ridicule. But the trauma of the terror attacks and the emotional hysteria they unleashed will linger: France has also reconfigured its commitment to laïcité, the secularism that the French treat as an unknowable philosophical ideal but that is actually just the freedom to believe or not to believe as each citizen sees fit. Laïcité has become a weapon in the culture war, instrumentalized in the fight against an enemy that the French government assures its critics is radical Islamism but increasingly looks like ordinary Islam.

The issue of the veil is infamously one of the most polarizing and violent in French public debate. The dominant French view is a function of universalist ideology, which holds that the veil is a symbol of religious oppression; it cannot be worn by choice. A law passed in 2004 prohibits the veil from being worn in high schools, and a separate 2010 law bans the face-covering niqab from being worn anywhere in public, on the grounds that “in free and democratic societies…o exchange between people, no social life is possible, in public space, without reciprocity of look and visibility: people meet and establish relationships with their faces uncovered.” (Needless to say, this republican value was more than slightly complicated by the imposition of a mask mandate during the 2020 pandemic.)

In any case, when Muslim women wear the veil in public, which is their legal right and in no way a violation of laïcité, they come under attack. In 2019, for instance, then–Health Minister Agnès Buzyn—who is now being investigated for mismanaging the early days of the pandemic—decried the marketing of a runner’s hijab by the French sportswear brand Decathlon, because of the “communitarian” threat it apparently posed to universalism. “I would have preferred a French brand not to promote the veil,” Buzyn said. Likewise, Jean-Michel Blanquer, France’s education minister, conceded that although it was technically legal for mothers to wear head scarves, he wanted to avoid allowing them to chaperone school trips “as much as possible.”

Nicolas Cadène, the former head of France’s national Observatory of Secularism—a laïcité watchdog, in other words—was constantly criticized by members of the French government for being too “soft” on Muslim communal organizations, with whose leaders he regularly met. Earlier this year, the observatory that Cadène ran was overhauled and replaced with a new commission that took a harder line. He remarked to me, “You have political elites and intellectuals who belong to a closed society—it’s very homogeneous—and who are not well-informed about the reality of society. These are people who in their daily lives are not in contact with those who come from diverse backgrounds. There is a lack of diversity in that elite. France is not the white man—there is a false vision [among] our elites about what France is—but they are afraid of this diversity. They see it as a threat to their reality.”

As in the United States, there is a certain pathos in the European war on woke, especially in the battalion of crusaders who belong to Cleese and Finkielkraut’s generation. For them, “wokeism” —a term that has no clear meaning and that each would probably define differently—is a personal affront. They see the debate as being somehow about them. The British politician Enoch Powell famously said that all political lives end in failure. A corollary might be that all cultural careers end in irrelevance, a reality that so many of these characters refuse to accept, but that eventually comes for us all—if we are lucky. For many on both sides of the Atlantic, being aggressively anti-woke is a last-ditch attempt at mattering, which is the genuinely pathetic part. But it is difficult to feel pity for those in that camp, because their reflex is, inescapably, an outgrowth of entitlement: To resent new voices taking over is to believe that you always deserve a microphone. The truth is that no one does.

▻https://www.thenation.com/article/world/woke-europe-structural-racism

Trigger Warnings | Centre for Teaching Excellence

A trigger warning is a statement made prior to sharing potentially disturbing content. That content might include graphic references to topics such as #sexual_abuse, #self-harm, #violence, #eating_disorders, and so on, and can take the form of an #image, #video_clip, #audio_clip, or piece of #text. In an #academic_context, the #instructor delivers these messages in order to allow students to prepare emotionally for the content or to decide to forgo interacting with the content.

Proponents of trigger warnings contend that certain course content can impact the #wellbeing and #academic_performance of students who have experienced corresponding #traumas in their own lives. Such students might not yet be ready to confront a personal #trauma in an academic context. They choose to #avoid it now so that they can deal with it more effectively at a later date – perhaps after they have set up necessary #resources, #supports, or #counselling. Other students might indeed be ready to #confront a personal trauma in an academic context but will benefit from a #forewarning of certain topics so that they can brace themselves prior to (for example) participating in a #classroom discussion about it. Considered from this perspective, trigger warnings give students increased #autonomy over their learning, and are an affirmation that the instructor #cares about their wellbeing.

However, not everyone agrees that trigger warnings are #necessary or #helpful. For example, some fear that trigger warnings unnecessarily #insulate students from the often harsh #realities of the world with which academics need to engage. Others are concerned that trigger warnings establish a precedent of making instructors or universities legally #responsible for protecting students from #emotional_trauma. Still others argue that it is impossible to anticipate all the topics that might be potentially triggering for students.

Trigger warnings do not mean that students can exempt themselves from completing parts of the coursework. Ideally, a student who is genuinely concerned about being #re-traumatized by forthcoming course content would privately inform the instructor of this concern. The instructor would then accommodate the student by proposing #alternative_content or an alternative learning activity, as with an accommodation necessitated by a learning disability or physical disability.

The decision to preface potentially disturbing content with a trigger warning is ultimately up to the instructor. An instructor who does so might want to include in the course syllabus a preliminary statement (also known as a “#content_note”), such as the following:

Our classroom provides an open space for the critical and civil exchange of ideas. Some readings and other content in this course will include topics that some students may find offensive and/or traumatizing. I’ll aim to #forewarn students about potentially disturbing content and I ask all students to help to create an #atmosphere of #mutual_respect and #sensitivity.

Prior to introducing a potentially disturbing topic in class, an instructor might articulate a #verbal_trigger_warning such as the following:

Next class our discussion will probably touch on the sexual assault that is depicted in the second last chapter of The White Hotel. This content is disturbing, so I encourage you to prepare yourself emotionally beforehand. If you believe that you will find the discussion to be traumatizing, you may choose to not participate in the discussion or to leave the classroom. You will still, however, be responsible for material that you miss, so if you leave the room for a significant time, please arrange to get notes from another student or see me individually.

A version of the foregoing trigger warning might also preface written materials:

The following reading includes a discussion of the harsh treatment experienced by First Nations children in residential schools in the 1950s. This content is disturbing, so I encourage everyone to prepare themselves emotionally before proceeding. If you believe that the reading will be traumatizing for you, then you may choose to forgo it. You will still, however, be responsible for material that you miss, so please arrange to get notes from another student or see me individually.

Trigger warnings, of course, are not the only answer to disturbing content. Instructional #strategies such as the following can also help students approach challenging material:

– Give your students as much #advance_notice as possible about potentially disturbing content. A day’s notice might not be enough for a student to prepare emotionally, but two weeks might be.

– Try to “scaffold” a disturbing topic to students. For example, when beginning a history unit on the Holocaust, don’t start with graphic photographs from Auschwitz. Instead, begin by explaining the historical context, then verbally describe the conditions within the concentration camps, and then introduce the photographic record as needed. Whenever possible, allow students to progress through upsetting material at their own pace.

– Allow students to interact with disturbing material outside of class. A student might feel more vulnerable watching a documentary about sexual assault while in a classroom than in the security of his or her #home.

– Provide captions when using video materials: some content is easier to watch while reading captions than while listening to the audio.

– When necessary, provide written descriptions of graphic images as a substitute for the actual visual content.

– When disturbing content is under discussion, check in with your students from time to time: #ask them how they are doing, whether they need a #break, and so on. Let them know that you are aware that the material in question is emotionally challenging.

– Advise students to be #sensitive to their classmates’ #vulnerabilities when they are preparing class presentations.

– Help your students understand the difference between emotional trauma and #intellectual_discomfort: the former is harmful, as is triggering it in the wrong context (such as in a classroom rather than in therapy); the latter is fundamental to a university education – it means our ideas are being challenged as we struggle to resolve cognitive dissonance.

▻https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/trigger

Why Trigger Warnings Don’t Work

Because trauma #survivors’ #memories are so specific, increasingly used “trigger warnings” are largely #ineffective.

https://i1.wp.com/www.stirjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/trigger.png?resize=740%2C493

Fair warning labels at the beginning of movie and book reviews alert the reader that continuing may reveal critical plot points that spoil the story. The acronym NSFW alerts those reading emails or social media posts that the material is not suitable for work. The Motion Picture Association of America provides film ratings to advise about content so that moviegoers can make informed entertainment choices for themselves and their children.

Enter stage right: Trigger warning.

A trigger warning, most often found on #social_media and internet sites, alerts the reader that potentially upsetting information may follow. The words trigger warning are often followed by a subtitle such as *Trigger warning: This may be triggering to those who have struggled with _________. Fill in the blank. #Domestic_abuse. #Rape. #Body_image. #Needles. #Pregnancy.

Trigger warnings have become prevalent online since about 2012. Victim advocate Gayle Crabtree reports that they were in use as early as 1996 in chat rooms she moderated. “We used the words ‘trigger warning,’ ‘#tw,’ ‘#TW,’ and ‘trigger’ early on. …This meant the survivor could see the warning and then decide if she or he wanted to scroll down for the message or not.” Eventually, trigger warnings spread to social media sites including #Tumblr, #Twitter, and #Facebook.

The term seems to have originated from the use of the word “trigger” to indicate something that cues a #physiological_response, the way pollen may trigger an allergy attack. A trigger in a firearm is a lever that activates the sequence of firing a gun, so it is not surprising that the word was commandeered by those working in the field of #psychology to indicate objects and sensations that cause neurological firing in the brain, which in turn cause #feelings and #thoughts to occur.

Spoiler alerts allow us to enjoy the movie or book as it unfolds without being influenced by knowledge about what comes next. The NSFW label helps employees comply with workplace policies that prohibit viewing sexually explicit or profane material. Motion picture ratings enable viewers to select movies they are most likely to find entertaining. Trigger warnings, on the other hand, are “designed to prevent people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response… to certain subjects from encountering them unaware.”

Say what?

Say hogwash!

Discussions about trigger warnings have made headlines in the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the New Republic, and various other online and print publications. Erin Dean writes that a trigger “is not something that offends one, troubles one, or angers one; it is something that causes an extreme involuntary reaction in which the individual re-experiences past trauma.”

For those individuals, it is probably true that coming across material that reminds them of a traumatic event is going to be disturbing. Dean’s definition refers to involuntary fear and stress responses common in individuals with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder characterized by intrusive memories, thoughts, or dreams; intense distress at cues that remind the individual of the event; and reactivity to situations, people, or objects that symbolize the event. PTSD can result from personal victimization, accidents, incarceration, natural disasters, or any unexpected injury or threat of injury or death. Research suggests that it results from a combination of genetic predisposition, fear conditioning, and neural and physiological responses that incorporate the body systems and immunological responses. Current theories suggest that PTSD represents “the failure to recover from the normal effects of trauma.” In other words, anyone would be adversely affected by trauma, but natural mechanisms for healing take place in the majority of individuals. The prevalence of PTSD ranges from 1.9 percent in Europe to 3.5 percent in the United States.

The notion that trigger warnings should be generalized to all social media sites, online journals, and discussion boards is erroneous.

Some discussions have asserted that because between one in four and one in five women have been sexually abused, trigger warnings are necessary to protect vast numbers of victims from being re-traumatized. However, research shows that the majority of trauma-exposed persons do not develop PTSD. This does not mean they aren’t affected by trauma, but that they do not develop clinically significant symptoms, distress, or impairment in daily functioning. The notion that trigger warnings should be generalized to all social media sites, online journals, and discussion boards is erroneous. Now some students are pushing for trigger warnings on college class syllabi and reading lists.

But what?

Balderdash!

But wait, before people get all riled up, I’d like to say that yes, I have experienced trauma in my life.

I wore a skirt the first time George hit me. I know this because I remember scrunching my skirt around my waist and balancing in heels while I squatted over a hole in the concrete floor to take a piss. We were in Tijuana. The stench of excrement made my stomach queasy with too much tequila. I wanted to retch.

We returned to our hotel room. I slid out of my blouse and skirt. He stripped to nothing and lay on the double bed. He was drinking Rompope from the bottle, a kind of Mexican eggnog: strong, sweet, and marketed for its excellent spunk. It’s a thick yellow rum concoction with eggs, sugar, and almond side notes. George wanted to have sex. We bickered and argued as drunks sometimes do. I said something — I know this because I always said something — and he hit me. He grabbed me by the hair and hit me again. “We’re going dancing,” he said.

“I don’t feel like dancing — “

“Fine. Stay.”

The world was tilting at an angle I didn’t recognize. The mathematician Matt Tweed writes that atoms are made up of almost completely empty space. To grasp the vast nothingness, he asks the reader to imagine a cat twirling a bumblebee on the end of a half-mile long string. That’s how much emptiness there is between the nucleus and the electron. There was more space than that between George and me. I remember thinking: I am in a foreign country. I don’t speak Spanish. I have no money. We went dancing.

Labeling a topic or theme is useless because of the way our brains work. The labels that we give trauma (assault, sexual abuse, rape) are not the primary source of triggers. Memories are, and not just memories, but very specific, insidious, and personally individualized details lodged in our brain at the time of the trauma encoded as memory. Details can include faces, places, sounds, smells, tastes, voices, body positions, time of day, or any other sensate qualities that were present during a traumatic incident.

If I see a particular shade of yellow or smell a sickly sweet rum drink, I’m reminded of my head being yanked by someone who held a handful of my hair in his fist. A forest green Plymouth Duster (the car we drove) will too. The word assault does not. The words domestic violence don’t either. The specificity of details seared in my mind invokes memory.

Last year a driver slammed into the back of my car on the freeway. The word tailgate is not a trigger. Nor is the word accident. The flash of another car suddenly encroaching in my rearview mirror is. In my mid-20s, I drove my younger sister (sobbing, wrapped in a bed sheet) to the hospital where two male officers explained they were going to pluck her pubic hair for a rape kit. When I see tweezers in a hospital, I flash back to that awful moment. For my sister, other things may be triggers: the moonlight shining on the edge of a knife. The shadow of a person back lit in a doorway. An Hispanic man’s accent. If we were going to insist on trigger warnings that work, they would need to look something like this:

Trigger warning: Rompope.

Trigger warning: a woman wrapped in a bed sheet.

Trigger warning: the blade of a knife.

The variability of human #perception and traumatic recall makes it impossible to provide the necessary specificity for trigger warnings to be effective. The nature of specificity is, in part, one reason that treatment for traumatic memories involves safely re-engaging with the images that populate the survivor’s memory of the event. According to Dr. Mark Beuger, an addiction psychiatrist at Deerfield Behavioral Health of Warren (PA), the goal of PTSD treatment is “to allow for processing of the traumatic experience without becoming so emotional that processing is impossible.” By creating a coherent narrative of the past event through telling and retelling the story to a clinician, survivors confront their fears and gain mastery over their thoughts and feelings.

If a survivor has had adequate clinical support, they could engage online with thoughts or ideas that previously had been avoided.

According to the National Center for Health, “#Avoidance is a maladaptive #control_strategy… resulting in maintenance of perceived current threat. In line with this, trauma-focused treatments stress the role of avoidance in the maintenance of PTSD. Prolonged exposure to safe but anxiety-provoking trauma-related stimuli is considered a treatment of choice for PTSD.” Avoidance involves distancing oneself from cues, reminders, or situations that remind one of the event that can result in increased #social_withdrawal. Trigger warnings increase social withdrawal, which contributes to feelings of #isolation. If a survivor who suffers from PTSD has had adequate clinical support, they could engage online with thoughts or ideas that previously had been avoided. The individual is in charge of each word he or she reads. At any time, one may close a book or click a screen shut on the computer. What is safer than that? Conversely, trigger warnings perpetuate avoidance. Because the intrusive memories and thoughts are internal, trigger warnings suggest, “Wait! Don’t go here. I need to protect you from yourself.”

The argument that trigger warnings help to protect those who have suffered trauma is false. Most people who have experienced trauma do not require preemptive protection. Some may argue that it would be kind to avoid causing others distress with upsetting language and images. But is it? Doesn’t it sometimes take facing the horrific images encountered in trauma to effect change in ourselves and in the world?

A few weeks ago, I came across a video about Boko Haram’s treatment of a kidnapped schoolgirl. The girl was blindfolded. A man was digging a hole in dry soil. It quickly became evident, as he ushered the girl into the hole, that this would not end well. I felt anxious as several men began shoveling soil in around her while she spoke to them in a language I could not understand. I considered clicking away as my unease and horror grew. But I also felt compelled to know what happened to this girl. In the 11-minute video, she is buried up to her neck.

All the while, she speaks to her captors, who eventually move out of the frame of the scene. Rocks begin pelting the girl’s head. One after the other strikes her as I stared, horrified, until finally, her head lay motionless at an angle that could only imply death. That video (now confirmed to be a stoning in Somalia rather than by Boko Haram) forever changed my level of concern about young girls kidnapped in other countries.

We are changed by what we #witness. Had the video contained a trigger warning about gruesome death, I would not have watched it. Weeks later, I would have been spared the rush of feelings I felt when a friend posted a photo of her daughter playfully buried by her brothers in the sand. I would have been spared knowing such horrors occur. But would the world be a better place for my not knowing? Knowledge helps us prioritize our responsibilities in the world. Don’t we want engaged, knowledgeable citizens striving for a better world?

Recently, the idea of trigger warnings has leapt the gulch between social media and academic settings. #Universities are dabbling with #policies that encourage professors to provide trigger warnings for their classes because of #complaints filed by students. Isn’t the syllabus warning enough? Can’t individual students be responsible for researching the class content and reading #materials before they enroll? One of the benefits of broad exposure to literature and art in education is Theory of Mind, the idea that human beings have the capacity to recognize and understand that other people have thoughts and desires that are different from one’s own. Do we want #higher_education to comprise solely literature and ideas that feel safe to everyone? Could we even agree on what that would be?

Art occurs at the intersection of experience and danger. It can be risky, subversive, and offensive. Literature encompasses ideas both repugnant and redemptive. News about very difficult subjects is worth sharing. As writers, don’t we want our readers to have the space to respond authentically to the story? As human beings, don’t we want others to understand that we can empathize without sharing the same points of view?

Trigger warnings fail to warn us of the very things that might cause us to remember our trauma. They insulate. They cause isolation. A trigger warning says, “Be careful. This might be too much for you.” It says, “I don’t trust you can handle it.” As a reader, that’s not a message I want to encounter. As a writer, that is not the message I want to convey.

Trigger warnings?

Poppycock.

▻http://www.stirjournal.com/2014/09/15/trigger-what-why-trigger-warnings-dont-work

Essay on why a professor is adding a trigger warning to his #syllabus

Trigger warnings in the classroom have been the subject of tremendous #debate in recent weeks, but it’s striking how little the discussion has contemplated what actual trigger warnings in actual classrooms might plausibly look like.

The debate began with demands for trigger warnings by student governments with no power to compel them and suggestions by #administrators (made and retracted) that #faculty consider them. From there the ball was picked up mostly by observers outside higher ed who presented various #arguments for and against, and by professors who repudiated the whole idea.

What we haven’t heard much of so far are the voices of professors who are sympathetic to the idea of such warnings talking about what they might look like and how they might operate.

As it turns out, I’m one of those professors, and I think that discussion is long overdue. I teach history at Hostos Community College of the City University of New York, and starting this summer I’m going to be including a trigger warning in my syllabus.

I’d like to say a few things about why.

An Alternative Point of View

To start off, I think it’s important to be clear about what trigger warnings are, and what purpose they’re intended to serve. Such warnings are often framed — and not just by critics — as a “you may not want to read this” notice, one that’s directed specifically at survivors of trauma. But their actual #purpose is considerably broader.

Part of the confusion arises from the word “trigger” itself. Originating in the psychological literature, the #term can be misleading in a #non-clinical context, and indeed many people who favor such warnings prefer to call them “#content_warnings” for that reason. It’s not just trauma survivors who may be distracted or derailed by shocking or troubling material, after all. It’s any of us, and a significant part of the distraction comes not from the material itself but from the context in which it’s presented.

In the original cut of the 1933 version of the film “King Kong,” there was a scene (depicting an attack by a giant spider) that was so graphic that the director removed it before release. He took it out, it’s said, not because of concerns about excessive violence, but because the intensity of the scene ruined the movie — once you saw the sailors get eaten by the spider, the rest of the film passed by you in a haze.

A similar concern provides a big part of the impetus for content warnings. These warnings prepare the reader for what’s coming, so their #attention isn’t hijacked when it arrives. Even a pleasant surprise can be #distracting, and if the surprise is unpleasant the distraction will be that much more severe.

I write quite a bit online, and I hardly ever use content warnings myself. I respect the impulse to provide them, but in my experience a well-written title and lead paragraph can usually do the job more effectively and less obtrusively.

A classroom environment is different, though, for a few reasons. First, it’s a shared space — for the 75 minutes of the class session and the 15 weeks of the semester, we’re pretty much all #stuck with one another, and that fact imposes #interpersonal_obligations on us that don’t exist between writer and reader. Second, it’s an interactive space — it’s a #conversation, not a monologue, and I have a #responsibility to encourage that conversation as best I can. Finally, it’s an unpredictable space — a lot of my students have never previously encountered some of the material we cover in my classes, or haven’t encountered it in the way it’s taught at the college level, and don’t have any clear sense of what to expect.

For all these reasons, I’ve concluded that it would be sound #pedagogy for me to give my students notice about some of the #challenging_material we’ll be covering in class — material relating to racial and sexual oppression, for instance, and to ethnic and religious conflict — as well as some information about their rights and responsibilities in responding to it. Starting with the summer semester, as a result, I’ll be discussing these issues during the first class meeting and including a notice about them in the syllabus.

My current draft of that notice reads as follows:

Course Content Note

At times this semester we will be discussing historical events that may be disturbing, even traumatizing, to some students. If you ever feel the need to step outside during one of these discussions, either for a short time or for the rest of the class session, you may always do so without academic penalty. (You will, however, be responsible for any material you miss. If you do leave the room for a significant time, please make arrangements to get notes from another student or see me individually.)

If you ever wish to discuss your personal reactions to this material, either with the class or with me afterwards, I welcome such discussion as an appropriate part of our coursework.

That’s it. That’s my content warning. That’s all it is.

I should say as well that nothing in these two paragraphs represents a change in my teaching practice. I have always assumed that if a student steps out of the classroom they’ve got a good reason, and I don’t keep tabs on them when they do. If a student is made uncomfortable by something that happens in class, I’m always glad when they come talk to me about it — I’ve found we usually both learn something from such exchanges. And of course students are still responsible for mastering all the course material, just as they’ve always been.

So why the note, if everything in it reflects the rules of my classroom as they’ve always existed? Because, again, it’s my job as a professor to facilitate class discussion.

A few years ago one of my students came to talk to me after class, distraught. She was a student teacher in a New York City junior high school, working with a social studies teacher. The teacher was white, and almost all of his students were, like my student, black. That week, she said, one of the classes had arrived at the point in the semester given over to the discussion of slavery, and at the start of the class the teacher had gotten up, buried his nose in his notes, and started into the lecture without any introduction. The students were visibly upset by what they were hearing, but the teacher just kept going until the end of the period, at which point he finished the lecture, put down his papers, and sent them on to math class.

My student was appalled. She liked these kids, and she could see that they were hurting. They were angry, they were confused, and they had been given nothing to do with their #emotions. She asked me for advice, and I had very little to offer, but I left our meeting thinking that it would have been better for the teacher to have skipped that material entirely than to have taught it the way he did.

History is often ugly. History is often troubling. History is often heartbreaking. As a professor, I have an #obligation to my students to raise those difficult subjects, but I also have an obligation to raise them in a way that provokes a productive reckoning with the material.

And that reckoning can only take place if my students know that I understand that this material is not merely academic, that they are coming to it as whole people with a wide range of experiences, and that the journey we’re going on #together may at times be #painful.

It’s not coddling them to acknowledge that. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

▻https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-why-professor-adding-trigger-warning-his-syllabus