As we interact with one another, we
generally find ourselves declaring our university majors, political
allegiances, and religious affiliations.
As we do so, we are not only joining groups of like-minded people, but
we are also indulging the human impulse to identify and label ourselves. And by doing so, we necessarily
separate ourselves into groups comprised of “us” and “them.”
separate ourselves into groups comprised of “us” and “them.”
In the act of labelling others,
we often lose the nuances of people’s personalities and opinions. Many of society’s
ills can be traced back, at least in part, to the oversimplification of issues
through the process of labelling. Political
gridlock, religious intolerance (Jesse B), conflict over political correctness
(Rachel M and Chloe M), and the disdain that often exists between academic
disciplines are often the result of oversimplifying people and problems through
labeling. (Jenna P). Problems arise when, upon meeting someone, we assign them
a label—like "English Major," "Utah Mormon,"
"Rebublican," "White," "Gay"—and immediately
allow our predetermined views of such categories of people to skew our view of
them or their opinions.
By trying to label ourselves, we can inadvertently limit our own thoughts, opinions, and even identities. Often we seem to discard all other aspects of our identity when we try to conform ourselves to some preexisting label. For instance, one who self-identifies as pro-choice may feel compelled to adopt other generally associated policy positions in the pursuit of ideological purity. Thus, the supporter of the pro-choice platform may ultimately feel pressure to support marriage-equality and permissive drug laws.
By trying to label ourselves, we can inadvertently limit our own thoughts, opinions, and even identities. Often we seem to discard all other aspects of our identity when we try to conform ourselves to some preexisting label. For instance, one who self-identifies as pro-choice may feel compelled to adopt other generally associated policy positions in the pursuit of ideological purity. Thus, the supporter of the pro-choice platform may ultimately feel pressure to support marriage-equality and permissive drug laws.
This kind of labelling is
ultimately a form of social tribalism. In
the sophisticated social structure in which we now live, this overly simple
tribalism is no longer necessary. Society is safe enough for people and
positions complete with complicated nuance. However, if we persist to engage in
simple labelling, we will continue to manufacture differences and force
unnecessary conflict.
I agree that society has fallen into a rut of "social tribalism," as you call it. It does make it easier for people to associate when they can find a similarity with another person. For example, if I move to a new city, I'm going to find people who like what I like because I'm confident it will be easier to make friends who share common interests. But at the same time, that kind of assumption on my part is the root of this simple labeling, where I subconsciously throw out other groups I have nothing in common with as easy friends to be made. When really, I could find a new friend in someone who shares no similar interests if I rid myself of the tendency to simply label others. (If that makes sense...) What would you propose to be the factor that moves society away from social tribalism? I think it'd be hard to unroot that innate tendency from everyone around us.
ReplyDeleteIN tackling such an overarching principle in society, it is important to realize the source of "labels" "groups" "factions" etc.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it must be recognized that most people often voluntarily, purposefully, and intentionally will surrender certain individual freedoms in order to gain an overall good. For example, one who joins the Boy Scouts of America Organization is submitting himself to their rules, regulations, and ways of life. If he intends to be a "true member", he may not agree on every Merit Badge or every principle taught, but by choice, he realizes that while he has not lost any individualism, but rather, increased it by the strength of the whole. To continue further, if he chooses to identify himself as a Scout, he will quickly realize what others reactions will be: some may applaud, others may think it quirky. Even after realizing that he is being "labeled" in a sense, he will either cut off ties with the "label" or will continue and perhaps may even strengthen such a tie. Some may even realize the negative connotation on their certain label, but they still see some benefit in the label as the continue to declare it. So it must first be realized that we enter into these labels voluntarily and there must be some gain, or no one would keep doing it. Whether that gain be found in ability to accomplish a common cause, find further identity with like minded people, or establish credibility.
Oversimplification would happen if we assumed that people are grouped into only one group in all matters. But they are not. If I told you that I was "Christian" that stills leaves hundreds of possibilities on interpretation of who I am. However, if I state that I am a Utah Mormon, Conservative Republican, Eagle Scout, Computer Programmer and that I have participated clubs or "labels" such as FBLA, Debate, Rotary, Fencing, Entrepreneurship, etc. You suddenly have not smothered my identity, but rather, in giving nine labels, you have an incredible idea of who I am. Try passing on so much identity in 10 words that can't be considered as labels and I will be convinced that groups "oversimplify" my identity.
I agree, that one label, such as "Democrat" can lead to much prejudice, but only by those who assume that there is no more depth to a person than a single word. But still in that one word, I have a vague but surprisingly general (not comprehensive) idea of your political stance. If you say that you are an "English Major" an educated and moral person will not assume automatically that you wear a scarf every day, but rather, in that title, he will sense the breadth of rich literature that you have been exposed to. If you say that you are a true "Utah Mormon" by seeing 50 questions that deal with religious ideology, I'm sure that I could guess 45 of the questions that you would answer. Thus, enormous time and effort are saved in such a simple example as this.
Perhaps you intended something different than what I have just put forth, in which, I may have been too quick to assume.
Social tribalism... I've never had a word for that but I've certainly thought about it. There are plenty of negatives that go along with it but like the other commentors said it may have some merits. If being viewed as something makes us want to be more like that something we need to start giving people better labels! It can be a tool for good. Consider how we're always encouraged to see others a children of God with infinite potential. That can have a great influence for good. I do, however, agree that negative labels will have the opposite effect.
ReplyDelete