The Problem With Labels
We search for our identity.
That's a fact of life. We seek to learn about ourselves - why and how we are the way we are - and this is the ultimate goal for everyone (or at least it should be).
That identity can be sought outside of ourselves, and shaped by ideologies on the outside of our being. The true identity is always inside, the Christ within each of us - whether we look for it or not.
You will probably see that no matter how different we are on the outside, our center-self is virtually identical to each other - like knots on a rope. It's a connection to that center that is called "gnosis."
On the outside, however, things are not so easy. We struggle to identify with society, the lesser self - the PUBLIC self (it was called "the mob" in Rome...go figure). The self is then bent and formed, growing in and around each society and its own unique norms and processes. We define ourselves growing into these societies by different labels, such as "rich" or "poor", "middle-class", "democrat" or "republican", or even "Jewish" or "Christian." No matter what the label, it's usually determined by how we interact with each group we live our life around, and how they in turn react to our own impressions on their personalities.
The problem here is that we sometimes let these outside forces define who we are, instead of questioning why we believe something for ourself. I am, of course, guilty of this just like most others are. But what we all must do is analyze what it is that we hold dear, why we have the values that we have, and what we can do to better the interaction of outside principles on our own psyche.
Labels can be important, too, because they allow a conscousness to feel welcomed.
I've touched on this in another post, but it's still to be held true. We must know WHY we are the way we are, and not just allow society to tell us what and why to think. I am fully aware that people disagree with my opinions on things, but we all must know that we come from the same identical root. My opinions don't make me better or smarter than anyone, and neither do anyone else's make them the same.
We search for our identity all our lives within society. If we only searched within ourselves, we might not be so restricted as a society.
posted by Joe Daher @ Thursday, October 26, 2006
10 comments
10 Comments:
OK, so let's continue this here. You misconstrued what I was saying on Jordan's+ post. When politics are a part of the discussion people tend to be a little more sensitive, something I don't get since politics is to me something of a game and not to be taken too seriously. But hey, that's up here in Canada and the government doesn't have the kind of power the US version does, so there is less to worry about and less to be involved in. But I digress.
The problem I have is with labels. It seems to be that you are attempting to determine and define your identity by mixing together various pre-packaged labels like you're baking cookies.
1 cup Republican
4 TB Conservative
400 grams Gnostic
Mix well
This is fine, perfectly viable for you to do it this way. What kills me though is that you seem to act honestly surprised and upset when others judge you based on their preconceived notions of what those labels mean to them. I mean, what else do you expect to happen?
I seek not to label myself, even Jordan+ can be guilty of this. I let my actions determine how I am perceived both by myself and by others. And at the end of the day, it only matters what I think of myself. Labels are a dangerous waste of time.
The GoPhilip says:
Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.
What kills me though is that you seem to act honestly surprised and upset when others judge you based on their preconceived notions of what those labels mean to them.
It's not a surprise from all perspectives - Lord knows I expect that from hordes of people. But the crowd I speak with should know better, at least, that's the expectation. We label ourselves based on how we identify with life. I could dispense with the labels, but I would still be labeled exactly that by outside observers. Why hassle with the semantics?
The Republican complex I have is shaped by this. I continue to posit that my ideals are formed rather differently than those "neo-cons" and the "Religious Right," but just because the position comes from them doesn't make it altogether useless. It's how they get to their conclusions that I disagree with, not the actual conclusion itself.
Where I draw my problems is that people - not you, but in general - assume that because you take a certain position on a topic, that it means also that you believe A, B, and C about the topic. This is not the case, and I *strongly* object to this lump sum assessment.
"The map is not the territory"
I think confusing the label with the labelled is the main problem when it comes to "labels".
However, they exist because they are useful. We need them to communicate effectively and efficiently. We need them to understand things. Indeed, all language is built upon this "labelling" of things, as every word is a label.
So, there are, I feel, two extremes that often come into play - one is the person who abides by labels as if they alone define who they are, or that they must conform to these inventions; the other is the person who (seemingly) rejects all labels because they consider them limiting or flawed, and this is often a defensive response to encountering a person of the first type, though they often fail to recognise how much they use labels, and how useful they are. Both are, obviously, flawed, and I think we need to reclaim things like labels as valid and useful - they are tools, so as long as we recognise them as such, I think we can make some excellent progress.
-D
You said: This is not the case, and I *strongly* object to this lump sum assessment.
It's the reality however, people will and do do this. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
People will always assume they know more about you than they do based on the labels you ascribe yourself to. It is why I truly hesitate to use them unless I know that the people I am using them with are on the same page as me.
I really don't tell anyone that I plan to be a priest because of all the connotations it brings and how thoroughly people will think they know all about you now.
As for the US politics labels, we know what the we know up here. I am sure many of the finer details get lost in translation. Right now for me, Republican equals the party and the that group 'o people is messin' the world up somethin' fierce.
In Canada we vote for the party, not the person. So when someone says they are Liberal or NDP, they are saying that the ideals of the party apply to them. Otherwise they would not label myself with any party and proceed to both complain and support the government, a hallmark of Canadian living.
You'll have to excuse us Canucks if we do the same to you when you state you are Republican. The image that comes to mind is you wearing a GW Bush mask holding up a sign that says "Bomb the fuckers!"
Right now for me, Republican equals the party and the that group 'o people is messin' the world up somethin' fierce.
Yeah, I am aware of this, and this is why I speak up. There are a number of flaws with this, obviously, and there are a number of things that could prove this statement true. The biggest reason people have a distaste of the Republican party is because of the lack of progress in the Iraq war. However, there are other issues at stake here, and these should not be lost amidst the mismanaged war across the world.
For instance, according to Dow Jones, the American economy is as high and higher than its ever been. This is a big issue for me in elections too, especially since the Democrats favor raising taxes and whatnot.
The image that comes to mind is you wearing a GW Bush mask holding up a sign that says "Bomb the fuckers!"
That's why I try to portray something different. ;-)
For US politics, you can identify with a particular platform based on its goals. You don't have to agree with everything, obviously, but there are certainly majorities we're speaking of here. The goals of the platform don't seem, to me, to be misrepresenting themselves...it's how they come to these conclusions that I disagree with. I don't really care about the route of the ideal, it's the goal that matters to me.
Great response. Can't wait to finally meet you though, ethernet is no place to build a friendship.
You said: The biggest reason people have a distaste of the Republican party is because of the lack of progress in the Iraq war.
Here I have to most vehemently disagreee. The distaste is that the US is there at all.
And as a Canadian I have my own shame to bear in Afghanistan. We should not be there either. For the first time since WWII we are actually fighting, not peace keeping and it makes my stomach turn.
Neither country is in it for altruistic reasons. They are not there for the people of that country. They are in it for their own financial gains. Period. There can be no discussion that good is occurring, the intrinsic evil of the basic reasons and motivations taint it all.
I meant that Canada is NOT in it for altruistic reasons. Sorry.
Brother Shawn:
I understand exactly the steps that your mind has taken in judging both of these wars, and I can even say that I agree to some degree.
I think both wars have been mismanaged. But y'know, we're not exactly dealing with the same kind of "military vs. military" wars that we've grown accustomed to in modern civilization.
However, I do believe we should've gone into Afgahnastan and Iraq.
I know many have died in these battles. Many died BEFORE these battles as well.
The taliban would regularly beat women in public for not adhering to their totalitarian laws. Saddam Hussein would not only beat people, but he would videotape the beatings so that he could show it to other people and grow more fear within them. Both of these regimes should've never been allowed to rise to power, and I will vehemently defend this conclusion.
I wish the situation had been better. I really do. I wish the US could've been able to negotiate with these countries and solved all these problems. But let's discern: had we negotiated, it would have only been in our personal interests. What about all the good that has happened in both these countries?
There are THOUSANDS of schools built; 98% of children in Iraq now have vaccinations; they have had free elections; WOMEN can not only vote, but PARTICIPATE in the elections...it's not ALL bad.
I do, coming back to it, realize that it's not a dream world over there. This is the price of war AND freedom. How many more millions would have had to suffer in the future before someone else brought this to the attention of the world? People are dying right now to fight for this freedom, and the security IN freedom. But the fight WILL end. It will.
We hear so much about the cost of either of these wars. What about the value of freedom? The right to choose? These ideals come naturally for Canadians and Americans, but these people have had lifetimes to wonder about these...
I can't help but throw one more last word out there. You have all valid points and the pacificist in me struggles to accept the justifications for any violence at all.
There is strong evidence that shows the US is RESPONSIBLE for both the Taliban and Saddam. Maybe not for the actions of these two groups, but for placing them in power and providing the arms and the training to stay there. Just because a dog owner didn't meen for their pet poochie to become rabid, doesn't mean they are not responsible for the harm the rabid animal does to others.
At the end of the day, would these problems that validly require aid and armed resorts have been needed if the US (and the UK and Canada to lesser degrees) had stayed within its borders?
The answer of course would have to be no.
You, like many others, are too fixated on the problems facing us now and what has to be done about them. You are completely disregarding what CAUSED them in the first place.
I must say, Shawn, that's the most valid point you have made so far, in my own humble opinion.
However, the mistakes of those fifty years ago (or forty, or thirty, or ten) were made, and we bear a responsibility to attend to the issues at hand.
Did the US aide Bin Laden? Yes, when he was fighting the Communists. Did they aide Saddam? Yes, when he waged a war with the Grand Ayatolla.
I highly agree with you on this one, and that's why I said before that the two regimes should never have been allowed to rise to power (I'm speaking here on a global front).
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Horrible way to govern a country, and I think this end of the world realizes this now.
Analyze and criticize, God knows I will, but that doesn't draw us away from current events.
Post a Comment
<< Home