Simplifying Reality

I was at a gathering recently, that shall remain blameless, when I was eavesdropping on a conversation, where a man was espousing his views - tossing in phrases like "self-responsibility" and "fundamental freedoms." Eyeing him suspiciously, the person he was addressing, asked what, uh, affiliation, he was connected to.

The man hesitated a moment and said, "I'm a Libertarian."

The conversation sort of drifted off after that. The two of them might have agreed on many subjects, but the label got in the way.

Labels are very effective where they warn us, for instance, that if you swallow a cleaning fluid it will be harmful to your health. Or when the side effect of a drug is worse than what it's treating.

But in politics, it might be a lot simpler if we didn't go around attaching people to parties. Maybe you just listen to what he (or she) has to say and make up your own mind. I'm labeled, among other things, as a Contrarian.  A label to which I am diametrically opposed.

We've always lived with labels: geek, jock, bimbo, cheerleader-type, nerd, punk, preps, black, white, gay, yuppies, senior citizens. The list is endless. The people who study these things say that this kind of pigeonholing, which has nothing to do with pigeons, is how we simplify reality. And that neatly categorizing people makes us feel superior.

I'm not sure if that's true, or just a convenient way to label labelers. I do know when labeling really gets serious.

Banned Books Week is an awareness campaign led annually by the American Library Association (ALA), in an attempt to protect freedom of speech by celebrating books that the ALA claims others have banned or attempted to ban from various venues. In part, because there are still private groups and public authorities - whom I won't label - in various parts of the country, who are still trying to label "controversial" material to purge libraries.

These actions apparently arise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid, and that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals.

I think this gets back to violating our fundamental liberties and the right to read any damn thing we want.

It's a subject that you, I and even, well, a Libertarian, might agree on.

Okay, you've had time to think about it. What's your label?

   Print   Email

5 Members’ Opinions

March 24, 2008 12:35 PM
jmr said...

Your insights are amazing as usual! Now that I think I know what
a libertarian is, I can be nice to one (I think).

From Career Mother.

March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
ExPat said...

My label? J. Peterman, of course. Great clothes. I also have a weakness for Italian suits and English dress shirts....and SUV's (small ones).

Perception becomes reality. Labels are a convenient way of dealing with people. Take astrology. You only have twelve people to deal with. Actually I'm not sure I like labels. It sets up a black and white world, when the world is mostly various shades of gray. We are "different people" in different settings. I let others label me. I'm not sure I care.

As to censorship. Opposed to it completely with the exception of things that shouldn't be seen or heard by young children.. As an adult, don't buy it, watch it or hear it if you don't like it. When you tell others what they should read, or see, or hear, or do then you have truly labeled yourself and attempted to label others by comparing them to yourself.

By the way, I do read any damn thing I want!

March 24, 2008 4:19 PM
Mr. Roush said...

Labels are also interesting to me in that many think they tell the whole story. I was in London just a few months ago, and a local asked me about my political persuasion. I said that I was a 'conservative,' and she launched into a rant. When I agreed with her, she stared at me funny and said 'how can you agree with me and call yourself a conservative?' I was forced to respond with something akin to 'don't judge a book by its cover.'

The convenient thing about labels is that they allow us to write off other people. 'Oh, you're on of thooose,' followed by a shift in conversation type of thing. I think that's why a great many people who don't want to take the effort of learning about others for themselves use labels as a crutch.

more on the honor roll

March 24, 2008 5:01 PM
Spinner said...

Often we know people because of one sort of connection; work, athletics, a book club. So we tend to make a judgment about that person from only that one perspective. He could very well present one facet of his personality (very aggressive as a touch football player) and so we would judge him on that trait alone. But we do not see this "obnoxious jock" when he is expressing a thoughtful insight on a (banned) book his book club has read. Book club members would have a very different label for him. We all lead multi-layered lives and thus we would have to fit into several different pigeonholes. So why try to "label" anybody when we ourselves would not like to be "labeled"?

As to this book-banning thing, we tend to see these causes coming from the religious right. And I figure that if they can walk through the shadow of death, they can maneuver the aisles of a library. And train their kids to do the same.

March 24, 2008 5:14 PM
pa farm said...

There's no question that labels nearly always throw up barriers that then become almost insurmountable. I've said that all along.
So here's (and, yes, I know it's just another label) what I came up with. I say I side with those who have good ideas. I know this is slighting those with bad ideas but that's ok.
ps J.P., I love this site. Great job.