Claiming to hate "labels"

[HYHYBT]

I'm just so sick of people saying they hate labels, that we shouldn't use labels, blah blah blech. In other words, if they were anything remotely like consistent, waging war on communication itself. Every word (or, at least, most of them; I'm not sure about conjunctions) is a label. Someone who claims to oppose labels, please defend your position.

(And no, it's not at all the same as merely saying we ought to be polite, or to call people by labels they approve of, or anything like that, so please don't pretend it is.)

[bara]

Can you give an example of the labels you are referring to?
There are many different types of labels after all and not all are bad.

[Hyena Dandy]

Essentially, the biggest argument against labels is

If you label people, they will go on to identify it. You give someone a label, you give them an expected behavior, they conform to the behavior because it's expected.

That's the argument as I understand it.

[Gravekeeper]

Essentially, the biggest argument against labels is

If you label people, they will go on to identify it. You give someone a label, you give them an expected behavior, they conform to the behavior because it's expected.

That's the argument as I understand it.

That argument is the exact opposite of how the human brain works.

We assign labels because we have to categorize information in order to make sense of the world. They have it the wrong way around. We assign a label *because* someone is demonstrating specific traits or behaviours. People don't just automatically conform to a specific set of traits and behaviors because you call them something.

And if they do, there's a label for that too: Idiot.

;p

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, HD isn't wrong, but it's more about younger people and those with a less-developed sense of self.

Children in particular will conform to what they think is expected of them, which is why so many posters on this board have had to spend years breaking away from the negative labels that were slapped on them by authority figures during their childhoods. I have one friend who will never believe that she isn't stupid, no matter how obvious it is to the rest of the world that she isn't. Kids who get hyper after drinking sugary drinks generally only do so because it's expected of them; though sometimes they don't, but because it's expected of them, their parents think that they're hyper when they actually aren't. Expectations can have a strange effect on those who think they are accurate and always happen.

However, that isn't really an issue for the vast majority of humanity. Most parents and teachers aren't abusive and most kids grow out of that need to live to others' expectations.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Everything we call ourselves is a label. Even 'male', 'female'. Those of us who do not like labels understand the need for labels..just do not like SOME labels. Certain labels limit what people think about others. To me..such limitations are not something I personally accept. Feel free to use any label for me you want, just don't expect me to accept it and act/react only within those labels.

I will give an example. A lot of people see the label 'Male' and to them it means certain things. Which we all know is just not the case. I don't have to be interested in cars etc. To me the label is too confining. It is not that we do not like the ease of words that explain things..but that some of those words are too limiting.

[Gravekeeper]

I will give an example. A lot of people see the label 'Male' and to them it means certain things. Which we all know is just not the case. I don't have to be interested in cars etc. To me the label is too confining. It is not that we do not like the ease of words that explain things..but that some of those words are too limiting.

That has nothing to do with the label and everything to do with stereotyping. Also, where's the rule that says a person only have one label and it has to define their entire being? -.-

[Mytical]

You are absolutely correct Gravekeeper. Often we do have more then one. However, a lot of people see that one..and that is where they stop. That is when it bothers me.

Lets take for instance sexuality. For me the labels Heterosexual and Asexual ALMOST explain my sexuality. I am not a very sexual being, though I am attracted to the opposite sex. Now that may be due to medical issues..it is hard telling. The thing is there is no one label that fits. So then what?

[HYHYBT]

Lets take for instance sexuality. For me the labels Heterosexual and Asexual ALMOST explain my sexuality. I am not a very sexual being, though I am attracted to the opposite sex. Now that may be due to medical issues..it is hard telling. The thing is there is no one label that fits. So then what?

So then you use (as you just did) the existing labels as a starting point for a fuller explanation when one is needed, which sure would be tough if you did away with them entirely

[Mytical]

Absolutely, it is impossible to get rid of common words used to describe things 'ie labels'. Not upset at that in itself, it is the limitations they can put on people, or rather the limitations put on those words by small minded people. So some of us do not rail specifically against the use of common words, but the fact that those words are used to pigeon hole people by those who can not seem to comprehend that people are a bit more complex then the simple words (ie labels) convey.

I mean I could give good examples all day..and all night.

Take 'convict'/'criminal'. A person labeled such trying to get a job has a very hard time. Some companies see this 'label' and do not go any further. However, somebody who stole and was caught because they were hungry is not on the same level as somebody ran a drug cartel.

[Andara Bledin]

Even positive labels can have a negative effect on those labeled, but only if those labeled allow them to. Mostly children and others with an insufficient sense of self to make their own determinations.

However, this is not a fault of the labels; they are merely a tool. If they are being mis-used, then it would be best to address those who misuse them and correct them. Changing labels or eschewing them altogether will not change the fact that those who abuse them will do the same with any new labels or create their own for that purpose.

^-.-^

[anakhouri]

I don't mind labels as long as they are not insulting. There's a vast difference between 'little people' and 'midgets', or 'woman' and 'wench'.

(I do get annoyed when you get into 8 million subgenres of fantasy and they all have tiny little differences but they each use a cutesy name...seriously, magical realism, slipstream and fabuliam are all at heart the same damn thing).

[Hyena Dandy]

Re: Fantasy genres, I suspect the difference lies primarily in the intention of the author. (In Slipstream, it's less about 'what is done' then 'how it feels.')

Whereas magical realism is about putting fantastic elements in a realistic setting, and told in a realistic manner. Fabulism is putting fantastic elements into a contemporary setting, and told in a realistic manner. One could write magical realism taking place in the 1930s, or the 1880s, or the civil war, etc. One can only write fabulism in the present day.

That said, if someone says "That's not magical realism, that's fabulism" they're wrong. You can't have fabulism without being magical realism. Buffy, even though it's set in the modern day, could never be fabulism because it isn't written as realism. You could have non-realist slipstream, though.

That's how it's been explained to me, anyway.

Outside of literary criticism, though, or discussing with fellow fans, the finer points of it aren't important.