Humans, however, have some deep psychological need to categorize the world around them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as such categorizations allow for information about a subject to be quantized, so to speak. If I say, “I am a mammal”, people have a pretty good idea what that entails. Similarly, if I say, “I am a Republican”, people would like to have a pretty good idea what that entails. The idea being that individuals to which the label is applied are believed to share some common traits - this is just as true within biological taxonomy as outside of it. Such labelling is essentially shorthand for communicating ideas about groups.
Problems begin when the label is applied inappropriately, or when an individual is pigeon-holed based on incomplete information, or when certain traits are erroneously assumed to be representative of a given group. And all too often, those errors in classification occur with the intent of insulting someone.
So, while humans have a need (or, at least, a strong desire) to conceptualize via classifications, all too many suck at forming accurate and useful classifications. That, and the fact that many of the classifications formed are more rightly part of a continuum than discrete entities, and it’s easy to see why such labelling often goes awry.
I think the real problem is when people can’t escape their labels. One of the old longtime posters whose name I can’t remember (Esprix?) but authored numerous “Ask the Gay Guy” threads never managed to escape the gay label, and people constantly brought it up in threads that had nothing to do with homosexuality. It gets really freaking tiring to be unable to express an opinion and have it listened to on topics unrelated to your label.
I’ve personally found that when this occurs, the people who do it are of the mindset “Well, you aren’t one of us, you’re one of THEM, so you must be less than us.” This is often followed up by questioning the person’s morality, and implying that they do repellant things that no “normal” person would. It can be present with bullying behavior. It also may occur while the person is making themselves look foolish, just to be spiteful to another. Some people don’t understand that the world isn’t “black and white” but really varying shades of grey. They think “Either the person is for me, or against me. That person is Good/Evil.” The various orginazations created by humans tend to encourage this mindset, so the problem is only worsened.
The ability to apply labels and categories is part of intelligence; rather than having to analyse each example of scorpion to check if this one is dangerous, I can assign scorpions to the category dangerous - avoid, leaving me free to mentally process other tasks.
Of course it isn’t very often as simple or convenient as that when it comes to labelling and categorising people, but the process is innate; it’s what we do by default.
Sarah, I hear you! I am not my age, political affiliation, occupation, nation of origin, gender, marital status, or hobbies.
I’m a wobblly fog with sparks and intense murmurings of then and now – of love remembered, that is not lost – and a narrow ridge that I’m crossing still with great anticipation. The best days are sandelwood scented.
For some, this will make no sense at all. But I think it will to you, Sarah.
This was actually, sorta, the subject of the first thread I ever posted to the Dope.
In my view, (and Korzybski’s), the issue isn’t one of labeling, but taking the map for the territory. Labels, to a certain degree, are part and parcel of our thought process.
The trick, of course, is in realizing that person A can be modeled as label B, but that a one to one correlation never exists.
As a human being I must categorize what I see around me in order to comprehend the world. To answer your question, I really don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive. I can recognize that a person is a homosexual (label) and still accept them for who and what they are. Likewise I can recognize that someone is a communist (label) and accept them for being the fool they are.
That seems rather silly to me. Am I hurt by being categorized as an atheist, a southerner, white, or a mechanic? Well, yeah, sometimes people can say pretty hurtful things about all of those categories. However I have to say that the labels fit and I’m not offended by them.
It isn’t silly at all. If you’re a centrist there are probably some subjects you and a Republican might share a common opinion on. Unless you’re one of those centrist who only agrees with the left in which case you’re not really a centrist.
Ok, so we can all agree that labels can be used a shortcut for bigoted thought? That doesn’t make them inherently wrong.
I hear it very rarely. In fact I can’t remember the last time someone said something like that to me.
So you’ve categorized the intelligent and not intelligent, the gorgeous and not gorgeous, those with and without a sense of humor, those who are well read and not well read, and those with and without talent. You haven’t avoided the problem.
Sure, but as I said earlier the two are not mutually exclusive.
Did you read any of my subsequent posts, in which I continued to explore what was bugging me and came up with the conclusion that it wasn’t the labels so much as the people who use them to base all inferences about a person on?
OPs can evolve. This one did. Pay attention.
I chose the wrong word. What I am really pitting is the behaivior of individuals based on labels. Modify your reading of the OP to include that, and I think my point should be clear.
One more thought. I think it more likely that “types” get labeled more often because people DO “get it” than because they don’t. Again, along the lines of what mangetout and mcgibson both said, although in different ways.
I’m sorry you’ve been hurt by people rejecting you for some of your traits. They may not have necessarily done so because “tattoos = freak” or “tomboy=dyke” though to use your example.
Rejection for type isn’t necessarily a personal rejection, but, especially in business decisions, one of policy and type of business. “Front office appeal” for one thing. A thread some time ago on the “Self Proclaimed Nice Guy” and the “gold digger” are two examples of “bad” labels where a type has been identified, not by a person’s appearance, but by their own actions, and the label is effective in avoiding running into that type and in warning one’s fellow daters.
Tom: wow she’s HOT
Bob: yeah, but she’s a gold digger
Tom: Eeeks, nevermind
Effective and fair use of a label, even though it’s a negative one. Time and energy is saved on Tom’s part, and likley heartache as well.
Or, on second thought, back to what mangetout said about recognizing scorpions.
