Labels re-thought

Sometimes friends are there to tell you you're wrong.

Oftentimes that telling involves a rousing debate, referencing philosophers, ideals, and supreme-court cases - but the end result is the same. Or maybe not completely wrong, but you've overshot the nugget of truth that was in your argument and ended up in Nevada when you should have stopped in Cedar City. That was the role my good friend, and past debate partner, played for me this weekend. You can read his response to my post on social tribalism here, we ended up having a multi-hour discussion which ended up with Locke.

My post condemned the use of labels to separate ourselves into groups that would cause others to lose the nuances of our own personalities in the dogmas of the group, or even inadvertently limit our own thoughts as we attempt to conform to preexisting labels. Upon further exploration of the idea, perhaps the problem isn't the labels themselves. Labels are an important part of any social-contract (there's Locke), and are necessary to a well-functioning society. The source of the problem is when we discard all other aspects of ourselves in an attempt to conform with a single group, rather than using labels to describe ourselves.

Many of the social ills and perceived affronts occur when we fail to separate the essence that is 'us' from the labels we've taken on to facilitate social interaction. When we see commentary on a certain group's ideologies as a commentary on ourselves personally. This oversimplification occurs because viewing others as nuanced individuals is hard, it's hard to really truly view ourselves as nuanced individuals. But the best way is seldom easy. The sophisticated society we enjoy today is capable of accepting complex personalities and I submit that in order to progress we must begin to separate ourselves from the labels and groups we use to facilitate social interaction.

Parties, labels and bigotry

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.”

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.

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.