Labels

What do we think of them?

I'm slightly wary of applying labels to myself or others unless I'm pretty certain that they're accurate, because I think that it leads to pigeonholing people and making mistaken assumptions.

But lately I've tried rejecting all labels, and it made me feel increasingly uncomfortable, like the ground had been ripped out from under my feet. I've also become increasingly aware of the limitations and ambiguity of the words we use to describe our views, personalities and one another; there are a lot of aspects of myself that I find myself no longer able to label truthfully using existing words.

So, do you label yourself and other people? What do you think of the practice? Is there a need for more precise labels than we have?

I prefer to think of them like "tags" rather than something strict.

So long as the labels don't invoke prejudice I'm okay.

Of course then they wouldn't really be labels would they?

I think labels are necessary. To reject [using] them [to describe yourself] is rejecting the need to explain your inner world to others, which always requires a translation. To 'label' (ha!) that translation a reduction or simplification (the most commonly-cited reasons for rejecting labels) is to assume that others are more stupid or more simple than you.

When I say to people I'm a bit of a metalhead, people understand that I probably also like awesome songs from other genres - to clarify that makes me sound like I think they're stupid. Metalhead is the easiest translation convention for what I identify as.

Of course mislabelling yourself or misunderstanding the translation conventions is a trap that not labelling yourself avoids, but that rejection often comes across as being "too complicated for you to understand". Which, I imagine, would annoy people.

So I embrace labels. They're tools.

EDIT: Of course, I try not to apply labels to other people, but to their actions. It is for them to describe their aims, emotions, dreams and motives, it is for me to describe only their actions, and only that if I feel like giving a shit about them.

edited 30th Jan '11 2:16:41 PM by mmysqueeant

I thought the word "labeling" explicitly referred to other people labelling you? Like, for example, if someone labels me as "thirteen years old" and makes their assumptions about me based around that fact.

^^ But what does "I am a metalhead" convey that "I listen to a lot of metal" wouldn't?

^ No. This thread is also about self-labelling.

edited 30th Jan '11 2:17:09 PM by BobbyG

Well, what's the difference? Both are labelling yourself.

Well, only that "metalhead" may be taken to imply loyalty to a particular subculture or group of people. Although if that's your intent, I suppose it makes no difference.

Okay, when it comes to self-labelling, I see no problem. I would actually be outraged if I COULDN'T label myself a Little Shop of Horrors fan.

The only problem I see with labels is when they're used or ignored in the extreme. Extreme being anything upwards of having a dire need to explain to a Simple Plan fan why they're not punk even if it takes hours on end to reciting a diatribe any time someone asks your ethnicity.

I don't like major labels. That's why my taste is automatically better than yours.

Oh, we're not talking about that kind of label? I feel like the less I care about someone, the more I "label" them... this doesn't particularly upset me, because I don't have the time or the inclination to care about everyone. The better you get to know someone, the less you label them; or, if you prefer, the more granular your labels get.

I tend to not use labels just because I can't seem to find a brand that sticks reliably. Every time, they just peel right off after a few days in my bag. Now, I just stick to colour-coded folders.

So long as they're used to get a general idea of $THING while remaining open to details as they're learned, labels aren't just not bad, they're damned useful.

edited 30th Jan '11 8:12:38 PM by Pykrete

The better you get to know someone, the less you label them; or, if you prefer, the more granular your labels get.

That seems like it's the wrong way around to me. Isn't it more useful to file a stranger into the categories e.g. "opposed to abortion" and "opposed to free universal healthcare", if that's what you know of their opinions, rather than "right wing" with all that implies?

Maybe if we called them heuristics instead of labels, people wouldn't have such a bad association with them.

Labels are convenient. They are an easy way to say things about yourself. Unfortunately, stigma tends to get in the way of things, and the convenience becomes a form of Serious Business.

I feel that labels have a time and place, and some people will anally insist on certain labels, and other people will anally refuse to use certain labels (there, both extremes are at fault, do not get offended), but your best bet is to use them when they would help, understand not everyone means them the same way, and that if it appears two people are using a different definition, define what you are referring to, and try to base your discussion or debate on that definition, not the word.

I can agree with all of that, but sometimes labels, once applied, lead to annoying assumptions being made (like "liberal" or "centrist"). Then there are those that seem to carry the additional meaning "and this is a bad thing" like "emo", "chav", "hipster" and so on.

Very true. Some labels (such as "weeaboo") were made with the intention to be negative. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Emo is not meant to refer to anyone who has a sad moment. Hipster does not refer to anyone who likes anything mildly obscure. Weeaboo does not refer to anyone who happens to enjoy animé. I cannot recall what a chav is, so I can't address that.

Unfortunately, that stigma did evolve. Even while being negative, they still gained an unwanted stigma, but in a different way.

edited 31st Jan '11 8:13:17 AM by MrAHR

Oh, but they do refer to those things. That's what the words mean nowadays.

Chav = working class British person only it's a bad thing.

And hipster, as far as I can tell, currently means being a Westerner. It's only a matter of time before it is extended to the entire human species.

Which is a pity, because they were meant to refer to extreme ends. People who did nothing but whine about how there is no way you could understand them, people who liked things that no one else liked and were convinced they were better than you for it and people who were convinced they were actually japanese, complete with using japanese and giving themself a japanese name.

Either way, though, they are pejoratives that make it easy to dismiss a person's opinion as irrelevent without giving it proper consideration.

Naturally, they are overused. But not everyone overuses it, and one has to make that decision about whether said person is using it accurately or inaccurately.

I mean, even when applied accurately, they're thought-stoppers.

Hm, I see what you mean. Which is once again a pity, because they would be very accurate words to use for certain scenarios.