Trigger Warning: Pussies of America

Political correctness is a term that is making its way into every sentence of every newscaster covering political debates or interviews. Political correctness has become a hot topic issue as the 2016 elections are a fiery mess of mudslinging and bullying. Especially with regards to Donald Trump. The article The Coddling of the American Mind seeks to highlight how American colleges and students are becoming too oversensitive. The article explains why this oversensitive political correctness has made its way onto college campuses and demonstrates what it is doing to the students at these colleges and universities. In a more satirical and humorous demonstration of the “oversensitiveness” and absurdness of political correctness is the show on Hulu called Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. The show points out some of the flaws and issues with political correctness. The common theme between the article and show is that political correctness has, by definition, gone to an extreme and in order to protect students “trigger warnings” have been developed. Which basically is the same thing as a safe word people create when they’re having sex.

“Trigger warnings” are warnings that professors give their students when they are covering material that is provocative and may cause emotional duress to students who may have experienced something traumatic in their past. Essentially these “trigger warnings” effectively act as a censor to anything that may be controversial or provocative, and limits the extent and where the conversation of the topic will go. This greatly diminishes the value of the conversation and does not challenge students, nor prepare them for the “real world”. To continue with the “real world” idea, students will not be prepared for it with all of the censoring happening in classrooms. The world is a controversial place, and trying to create a little bubble of protection against the big, mean, nasty world will get students no where in life. I argue, that this over coddling will inevitably make students so “weak” … sorry “sensitive”, that when they enter the real world and are faced with their first controversial situation they will implode and have a mental break down, as they realize the rules that the big boys play by in the real world are mean and nasty, and not all lovey dovey.

 Political correctness is also, in my opinion, unconstitutional as it acts as a form of censorship on free speech. However, all forms of “political correctness” should not be completely abolished. We should still have political correctness, but in moderation. We can’t have people running around schools yelling “Heil Hitler!”, but we shouldn’t be oversensitive so that when people make a joke about how "It looks like you guys are being slowly suffocated by these questions" gets professors or students suspended. Essentially what needs to happen is that people need to loosen up and let people experience controversy and the real world and finally "man/woman up"! 

Trigger Warnings and Their Appropriate Place

“The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt addresses the movement on many college campuses to create safe environments that allow students express themselves and learn without fear of discrimination or intolerance. However, there is a point where this desire for tolerance becomes harmful to students. I do believe that respect and tolerance should be advocated on every college campus, but you cannot realistically wipe out every possible action or statement that might offend somebody. This kind of idealistic thought is going to make students very unsuccessful after graduation. However, I do think that some of these ideas, primarily trigger warnings, do have an appropriate place.

               I do not think that trigger warnings should be demanded within the academics of a university. I think that if a professor wants to prepare their students for the graphic nature of a film or book, then they are welcome to do so. However, students cannot demand that every professor disclose any material that could be considered triggering or offensive. It is not their job to make sure that you are educated within your comfort zone, and they are not targeting your anxiety or trauma. The assigned works of a class are chosen to help you learn the material, which is the professor’s job. If you feel uncomfortable about a work, feel free to speak with your professor about your worries, but ultimately you should realize that if the subject matter of the class is too much for you to handle, then maybe you should be in that class. I find it especially startling that law students are asking their professors to not teach rape law. If you want to pursue a career as a lawyer, then you cannot ignore a section of the law because it makes you uncomfortable! You shouldn’t limit your own education or restrict your peers’ education because of your discomfort.

               I do think that trigger warnings could have a place in some social media. As a Tumblr user, I think that trigger warnings can be very effective in making your social media experience pleasant. I think that trigger warnings have an application in social media because it’s meant to be a pleasurable, leisure experience. If you don’t want to see graphic or explicit content on your dashboard or feed during your leisure time, then you have the right to filter. However, I commonly see people angry or upset at other users because they choose not to tag triggering material. Even in social media, you cannot make somebody tag their content. I think that because social media should be a comfortable, pleasurable experience, so each individual has the right to avoid these stressors. No matter how much you filter, unfriend, or unfollow, it is not guaranteed that uncomfortable posts will be eliminated from your feeds. It is not anybody else’s right to make you feel comfortable. Of course, nobody should actively try to make you uncomfortable, but the general intent of any social media post is not to make specifically make you feel uncomfortable or traumatize you. As young adults, we should have the maturity and knowledge to handle our discomfort appropriately. 

The Coddling of the American Mind

Although being cautious and sensitive are typically viewed as beneficial ways to approach other individuals, this article serves to inform its readers that this can be a dangerous way of thinking and acting. The major ideas of this article, which include "trigger warnings" and "protection", offer justification and reasoning for the danger of coddling American students. As I college student, I feel like I am able to offer a relevant viewpoint in regards to whether or not students are being coddled. I, too, hold that there is a certain level of sensitivity that dangerously confines students from the outside world, ultimately distorting their way of coping with uncomfortable situations--situations that will inevitably occur throughout life.

"Trigger warnings" serve to prevent students from reading, viewing, or otherwise experiencing situations that could be offensive or provocative. These warnings are effective in aiding those individuals who have endured offensive situations in the past with a caution and awareness for what they may come into contact with. Although these warnings may be quite beneficial for individuals who struggle with maintaining mental stability, they do not allow these individuals to overcome these difficult situations firsthand; rather, these warning widen the gap and distance they have to attaining normalcy again. I believe it is extremely important for individuals who struggle in this department to minimize their fears and anxiety by overcoming these uncomfortable, or previously offensive, situations gradually through the recognition that you cannot always prevent yourself from enduring stressful encounters.

Another term used throughout the article was "protection". There was an interesting example of how, over the decades, parental and authoritative protection has intensified to a point that is unhealthy for personal growth in their children. It is noted that children used to have "free range" in playing after school outside without extreme parental guidance. Nowadays, children are extremely confined to indoor games and are supervised in essentially every activity they become a part of. Of course it is important to establish a safe place for children because there have certainly been instances where children have extended beyond their boundaries and, consequently, have found themselves in life threatening situations--potential of abduction. In order to establish a sense of freedom and protection in lives of children, I find it important to gradually reduce the amount of protection as the child grows older. If a child is unable to discover how to individually protect themselves in the world--whether this be from people or ideas.


Moreover, this extreme sense of protection and need to establish warnings is somewhat illiberal. American society coddles students to the point where they are essentially incapable of freely reacting to uncomfortable situations; instead, institutions and rules serve to do this for them. Indeed, it may be beneficial to have guidelines in place in order to maintain sensitivity in school so that inhumane statements aren't thrown around chaotically; nevertheless, this undermines the potential of human beings to overcome these stressful situations with their own will, power, and integrity. I am aware that even human integrity is sometimes too weak to defeat the injustices of our world; however, I am also aware that quitting and succumbing to this institutionalized way of protection is not healthy for the growth of individual strength and fortitude.

Dewey's Interpretation of Democracy

Dewey's perspective on democracy and its preservation is one that rejects the need for institutions and totalitarian government and stresses the idea of it being something that individuals must personally consider and develop an understanding for. Personally, I really enjoyed this point of view and description of democracy. It offers a much more functional approach to how society can fully experience a democratic life as well as why a democratic life is important at all. Dewey presents ways in which to better understand democracy and the benefits thereof. His main points are that democracy cultivates a genuine appreciation for other people and that it also provides a safe platform for healthy, enriching debate amongst diverse people. All in all, democracy is a rewarding way of life and it is through the understanding of these main concepts that individuals will be able to fully experience the beauty of a democratic life.

To many, democracy is perceived as a form of government. Additionally, it is through the processes of government and its institutions that democracy is maintained in aspects of society. Dewey tries to diminish this notion and convince his readers to really view democracy as something more personal and individually manipulated, rather than governmentally controlled. "In any case we can escape from this external way of thinking only as we realize in thought and act that democracy is a personal way of individual life; that it signifies the possession and continual use of certain attitudes, forming personal character and determining desire and purpose in all the relations of life." This perspective allows me to expand my idea of democracy in a way like never before. Just like many, I typically view democracy as a way of government, neglecting the possibility of it being a personal way of living and associating. I find within this idea a newfound appreciation for democracy as I am able to see more clearly the true potential democracy can have if an individual takes a more personal approach to it. If an individual takes all the characteristics of democracy--such as, freedom, liberty, justice, equality, etc.--and cultivates a new posture towards people, with these principles being the foundation of this posture, democracy will naturally occur. In actuality, the reason why democracy may fail or be less evident sometimes in society could be because we, as citizens of the society, fail to characterize ourselves by these values. We hope and trust that our government will maintain this characterization; however, we see that it sometimes fails when injustices occur and freedoms are neglected. A possible solution to revamping democracy in times of decadence could be to begin a revolution and transformation in individuals. To elaborate, individuals must embody these various democratic values in order to create a genuinely democratic society.

Individuals who acquire Dewey's interpretation of democracy will discover a new faith in humanity. One key value that personifies this idea of democracy is respect; respect for other opinions, other religions, other physicality's, other ethnicities, etc. "Democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment." Dewey makes a distinction here about true democratic faith compared to general faith. Someone who comprehends democracy and authentically tries to live a life that portrays it will uncover this interesting faith in humanity. This faith allows individuals to appreciate the mere idea that other people have their own reasoning and method for formulating opinions. This uniqueness in everyone, essentially, should be allowed and ultimately appreciated. This concept really resonates with me in that it extends the idea of equality and its importance to a more functional, relational level. I am a strong advocate of equal rights amongst any and every type of human; therefore, I believe this faith and appreciation for people can help advance the cause for true equality in society. With the personal endeavor to learn how to find the good in people, rather than assuming our differences equate to some disconnect between right and wrong, our society could undergo a tremendous democratic revitalization.

As this faith in humanity continues to build and more and more people find merit in approaching life in this way, discussions regarding controversies and differences will become less of an opportunity to ridicule. Dewey states that, "A genuinely democratic faith in peace is faith in the possibility of conducting disputes, controversies and conflicts as cooper-ative undertakings in which both parties learn by giving the other a chance to express itself." This approach is one where respect serves as the foundation for all human interaction. Because people respect one another they will be able to willingly and compassionately dispute different ideas and beliefs. Individuals who do not contain this sense of respect, or in Dewey's words "faith", will almost naturally try to diminish other people's viewpoint with harshness and condemnation. Dewey ultimately believes that a true democracy is one that contains individuals who freely converse and debate topics without resorting to any ounce of negative judgment. I believe that divides, separation, and stereotypes are created because people cannot refrain from using their emotions when they may be debating something. The democratic faith in people and the acknowledgement that people have a right to believe whatever they want must overwhelm every conversation so that no one feels as if their beliefs are unimportant, idiotic, or wrong. All in all, I find myself very aligned with Dewey's viewpoint on democracy.

Similarities between Science, Faith, and Society and On Duties

               In Science, Faith, and Society, Michael Polanyi expresses his ideas on how scientists should interact with the public and each other. Although Polanyi disagrees with many well-accepted ideas, such as the unimportance of the scientific method, he emphasizes the responsibility that a scientist holds in the scientific community, specifically to the longevity of science. Throughout his lectures, Polanyi claims that civil, thoughtful interactions between scientists are necessary to the continuation of scientific study over generations. Polanyi’s ideas about how a scientist should act remind me of Cicero’s opinions on how a politician should act in order to maintain the Republic.

               Cicero and Polanyi are both concerned with their institutions ceasing to exist. Cicero has watched the Republic decline, and he seems to be torn between being hopeful for its recovery and believing that the Republic is doomed. Polanyi continuously also refers to the existence of the scientific community and how certain behaviors are essential to maintaining it. Specifically, Polanyi referernes a “moral conviction” (54) that is required of scientists. This idea that scientists should act ethically reflects Cicero’s constant emphasis of the importance of virtue in politics. Both Polanyi and Cicero believe that ethical, virtuous behavior are imperative to improving the community and oneself. However, there are temptations to stray from this virtuous behavior. In On Duties, Cicero refers to the house that a nobleman should live in: “the master should not be made honorable by the house, but the house by the master” (54, section 139). Similarly, Polanyi refers to prestigious positions that scientists can receive. Polanyi addresses the temptation to forfeit this moral conviction in order to gain power: “the quickest impression on the scientific world may be made by … serving up an interesting and plausible story composed of parts of the truth with a little straight invention admixed to it” (53). Both of these warn against ignoring the moral obligation that a person has to their community, and although both authors address the temptation for corruption within the community, they both are confident that virtuous behavior is capable of defeating corruption.

               According to Cicero and Polanyi, the interactions within a community will eliminate corruption. To Cicero, success in the Republic is dependent upon the people’s support, and the best way to gain their support is through the “reputation and rumour of liberality, of beneficence, of justice, of keeping faith, and of all the virtues” (75, section 32). In the Republic, it is the public’s duty to discern between those that live virtuous lives and those that do not. Therefore, those without honor and virtue will be unsuccessful because they cannot gain the support of the people. In Polanyi’s scientific community, it is the responsibility of peers to help maintain ethical behavior. Polanyi refers to the peer review process, in which peers critique and apply value to each other’s work (47). If a scientific discovery does not reflect ethical behavior, then it will either not be published or it will be discredited. Therefore, corrupt and purposefully false science will actually hinder a scientist’s rise to power because the reputation of a scientist depends on the peer-assigned value of their work. In both societies, it is the community’s responsibility to ensure that corruption and dishonest members are removed.

               The parallels between the ideas of Cicero and Polanyi stem from the desire for their community to succeed. In a time when a community is threatened, it is important that all members work together to ensure that their community is not demolished.