labeling humans

i have been thinking about the practice of labeling humans and turning it around and over in my mind and so i thought i’d throw down a blog about it.

first, let’s look at the word label

Label Definition

la·bel (lā′bəl)

noun

1. Archaic
   1. a narrow band of cloth, etc.; fillet
2. a card, strip of paper, etc. marked and attached to an object to indicate its nature, contents, ownership, destination, etc.
3. a descriptive word or phrase applied to a person, group, theory, etc. as a convenient generalized classification
4. ☆ an identifying brand, as of a company producing recorded music

for the purpose of this blog, i shall be referring to the definition of label as seen in no. 3 above : a descriptive word or phrase applied to a person, group, theory, etc. as a convenient generalized classification

as previously stated, i have been thinking a lot about labels. all kinds of labels. the kind that one finds on products. the kind one uses as an instruction. and the kind that are also applied to people.

from my experience, most people do not seem to have a problem with the first two types that i mentioned. we welcome these abbreviated, yet concise, holders of information.

• without a label, how would we know what size the sweater was? we might be able to figure it out after some experimentation and  time, but why go to all that trouble?

• without a label (usually referred to as signs), how would we know where were going while on holiday? we might be prone to travel form place to place referring to points of geography as “that town” or “this place”; hardly an efficient way to communicate or to travel.

• without a label, how would we know what point of the day or hour we might find ourselves enjoying? isn’t the numerical system we apply to time simply another form of labeling

point, is. just about everything we use to communicate with is some form of label, including the words you are reading right now. so, what seems to be the problem with using “labels” to  aid  in the description of a characteristic type of person? if we go by our definition that a label is a “generalized classification” then perhaps the problem people have with being “labeled” is that of non-specificity. Furthermore, one might see an avoidance of human labeling as an attempt to retain the right to change at any given point of time or will.

If this is the case, it is my opinion that one might just be taking the word [or the label] much too seriously. Don’t forget the purpose of labels – for information and guidance. Can labels be wrong? Yes, of course, but more times than not they are helpful. Helpful in allowing the human mind to form a sort of rough draft within which to expect certain behaviors, actions, etc. The word rough is very important here. All a label, when applied to a human being, implies, is that that human being shares a lot of the characteristics of a group of other human beings – which – does not necessarily mean they share all or even the same attributes varied within the defined group.

approached like this [viewing labels as a cognitive framework rather than a complete description] the concept of labeling might not seem quite so restrictive to those who tend to view it as such. in fact, if one wants to communicate the essence of their true selves as efficiently and with as much precision as possible, one might actually encourage as much labeling as possible through self-assessment, social feedback and professional opinion. in other words, the closer we are to the target at the start, the easier it should be to locate.

so, yeah, i am pro-labeler [if that word exists]. not for the purposes of lumping a bunch of people together to strip their personal differences but to have as many tools at my disposal as possible to aid in the understanding of who a person really is, which is most always much wider and variant than the label[s] suggest. to me, a label is merely a signpost steering me in the best direction to understand and communicate efficiently with another person.

danger can occur when people begin to see the individuals whose statistics, when put together, form a subset of the population, and that subset is given a name [or label] and that label is given a definition, and each unique member of the subset is defined solely by that label. this is not only morally wrong, but bad science. no statistical study is ever without it’s margin of error and/or statistical outliers.

so…. next time you observe yourself or someone else reacting to some human label  [and it is interesting that some have negative connotations simply put there by bad interpretation] … think of the real definition of a label, it’s intention, and perhaps even, how it can be utilized toward a positive end.