The word “triggered,” which I used to hear only in mental health circles, has now fully permeated everyday language. What was once a term created to refer to the behavioral response (e.g., dissociation, panic, flashbacks) to cues resembling a specific, circumscribed, traumatic event, has evolved into having at least three additional common uses.
First, the evocation of a painful emotion:
“I was really triggered when she interrupted me and started talking about herself.”
Second, a derivative of the first with a more narrow application, the elicitation of offense or political outrage:
“The way the terms “poor people” and “racial minorities” were used interchangeably was highly triggering.”
Third, its reappropriation for satirical use:
“Stay triggered snowflakes” is Tomi Lahren’s, the provocative conservative political pundit, catchphrase.
I confess to feeling annoyed with all of these uses, including the original use of the word. When the opportunity presents, I steer clients away from using this term, for reasons (beyond my own annoyance) I will explain. In no particular order, I list my reasons for cringing at the word “triggered” below.
The relinquishing of agency
The disavowal of aggression
Erosion of our abilities to express ourselves
Curtailing of free expression
1. The relinquishing of agency
To say “I was triggered” means accepting the role of passive, inert recipient. Of course the world affects us, and it is correct to assume that the things others say and do have an impact on us. However, to say “I was triggered,” in my view, carries the assumption that the world should not have acted upon us in such a manner. This rings of a regressive, and omnipotent complaint. To say, “I felt triggered” is an improvement, insofar as an acting, feeling entity (i.e., the feeler) mediates the outside world’s influence. Still, even in this improved form, which I take to mean feeling helpless, can be self-validating, but may not best capture the actual feeling incited by the “triggering” event. Which leads me to point 2.
2. The disavowal of aggression
The seldom-explored referent of the figurative expression being “triggered” is that of a gun being fired. When someone has been triggered, the outside world is the finger and the passive recipient is the gun. I can only assume that this metaphor caught on because it captures the reactive force of anger that underlies “being triggered.” If we react with an attitude of helplessness in response to feeling triggered, we are not acknowledging the feeling of being angered. If you can recall being in a fit of rage, you may indeed be helpless in reality, but the feeling of anger itself is inimical with helplessness. My view is that anger has become a taboo emotion in our current cultural context, and the proclamation that “I am triggered” is a sneaky way of saying “you are to blame for the anger I feel.” No matter how provocative the offender, feeling triggered diverts attention away from the more empowering reality of our emotional energy. After all, what function does anger serve if not to empower us?
3. Erosion of our abilities to express ourselves
Responsible parents teach their children to “use your words” when they feel angry in order to help regulate their emotions and to open up a means of resolving conflict without violence. Not only does the assertion that we are triggered not serve the function of affect regulation as no emotion is being labeled and expressed, but also “being triggered” is much less collaborative and related than “I felt angry” or “I felt sad when…” By expressing real feelings, two or more parties have the opportunity to clarify their intent and negotiate solutions. When one party is triggered, intent is irrelevant and so are other solutions other than censorship. This type of dynamic is precisely what is meant by sadomasochistic dynamics, where both parties are simultaneously the aggressors and victims, each remaining stuck assuming one or both roles of aggressor and/or victim. In other words, this results in a divisive rather than cooperative form of relatedness.
4. Curtailing of free expression
When intent does not matter and silencing oneself are the only ways to solve a moment of conflict, the potential for resolution has been supplanted by resentment. Psychotherapy’s earliest “golden rule” was to free associate, or say whatever comes to mind as it arises. The assumption underlying free association is that unconscious conflicts are brought to light and a resolution can be achieved. As humans, we all have dark and sinister forces residing inside of us, along with their opposites. The emergence of these emotions can lead to dialogue, intimacy, and freedom, whereas being triggered by one another’s inner darkness leads to primitive defenses, such as dissociation, denial, and projection. In other words, we drift further away from one another and blame other people for darkness that exists within us. As a therapist, it is essential that I not be triggered by clients’ darkest thoughts and feelings. I assume that the expression of shameful feelings leads to understanding, intimacy, and inner cohesion. My experience is that such a stance works to relieve inner conflict and tension while helping people deal with undesirable thoughts and feelings in more mature ways.
Summary:
Instead of communicating to yourself and others that you cannot tolerate their speech or actions by being “triggered”, work towards expressing more accurately what you feel, allowing yourself and the offending party to express one another’s point of view, and find ways of fostering resilience when no obvious compromise can be reached. Although aspects of pure traumatic re-experiencing symptoms that are “triggered” by external cues can be captured by the analogy of “being triggered,” the implication is that the outside world must be changed rather than inner resilience developed; in other words, avoidance must prevail over habituation and desensitization. At the very least, next time you are tempted to use the word triggered, be curious about what you are feeling and hope to achieve by endorsing this experience. To put it more succinctly, I believe we would all be healthier if we adopted a resilience-focused stance towards trauma and offensive speech rather than the stance described by Jonathan Haidt as a culture of “moral dependence.”