Stock Rants #4: Labels

[kiya]

When you tell me you don't believe in labels, what I hear is that you don't believe in communication.

"Label" is a fancy word for "noun or adjective", and it's not even all that fancy.

You just want to be, man, without all of these words harshing your mellow. That's very nice for you. I hope you never, ever have to communicate outside of your smug bastion of solipsistic privilege in which "just being" is something you never have to explain, never have threatened, or never actually need to care about. You are not a category, you are a free person! You are colour-blind! You don't see gender! Your response to referring to someone as the wrong religion is, "But these labels, they separate us! Why can't we all just get along!"

If you respond to someone trying to make sense of distinctions with "Why define? Just be!" you are saying that precise and specific information exchange is irrelevant. I can only hope that you never wind up in a situation where you actually need to explain something you find important in a manner that requires the use of actual nouns.



The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. -- Mark Twain

(This rant brought to you by a conversation the other day with oneironaut in which he asked if there was a "labels" stock rant yet, and "Why define? Just be!" posted as an answer to a "What's the difference between..." question on FetLife.)

Comments

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

Oh hell yes, also

http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=478

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Eh, if we're talking about, say, kinks (as opposed to something like, say, gender or race, where others will label you in ways that matter even if you "don't label yourself"), I don't think people should have to claim a one-word blip for something that describes them. Blips can be handy, but necessarily fail to tell the whole story.

That said, if something like "I don't think either the word 'submissive' or the word 'bottom' fits me" is code for "I don't know what I want and like the idea of making you terribly uncomfortable guessing" that's a very different animal from, say, "I don't think either of those words fit me, because although they're almost right, to me those words imply $foo or $bar, and I'm actually way off over here $fweegleing."

If "don't LABEL me!" means "Actually, it's better if we have a conversation, because it's complicated," that may be a good thing. If it's code for "I don't want to tell you what I want" it sucks profoundly.

[kiya]

What it generally appears to me to be code for is either "I don't want you to describe yourself in a way that violates my assumptions about you" or "I am profoundly offended that you called my jerkass behaviour jerkassery."

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Okay, clearly there's specific context here. If I knew it, I'd know what to say.

I tend to think that labeling yourself can be very handy sometimes, but at other times it becomes a straitjacket. Often, as we grow and change, we have to re-assess some of the one-word blips we pick for ourselves. Sometimes this is painful. Sometimes we find that what feels best is to not categorize ourselves for a while and see how that works out. Or to describe in detail how we feel or what we want, rather than trying for a word that sums it up. (FWIW, this is some people's problem with safewords... not sure if that's incidental or relevant.)

But that's very different from when you claim a label for yourself and others refuse to accept that you are, in fact, that thing.

[kiya]

Not terribly specific, just getting fed up with "Why are you labelling me?" from cis people getting called out on their transphobia, "But what do these labels really matter?" from people who have been told that non-Wiccan pagans really don't care about the Wiccan Rede, and "Why do you need a label so much?" in response to people who are trying to figure out how to talk about what they want.

Or, the specific example that came up today, "Don't define, just be!" in response to, "I'm trying to get a handle on what the difference between a 'submissive' and a 'slave' is, can anyone help me understand how these words are used?"

There's a certain number of frou-frou more highly evolved (see previous rant) people who are Too Pomo To Communicate. And maybe I'm a poor primitive, but sometimes it is just too damn useful to say that that leaf-shaped (woops, a label!) digging implement (how dare you CATEGORISE me?) a freaking spade.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Or, the specific example that came up today, "Don't define, just be!" in response to, "I'm trying to get a handle on what the difference between a 'submissive' and a 'slave' is, can anyone help me understand how these words are used?"

Eh, I gotta admit to a little bit of sympathy there, but only because many people's definition of "slave" is so obviously a bizarre construct built out of generic wankfodder, Story of O, and Gor.

[kiya]

No argument there.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I wince when I see "well, a submissive doesn't give up control everywhere, and a slave gives up control in all things" because, well, I still, ten years on, have no slagging idea what "all things" is supposed to mean.

OTOH, explanations that suggest that "submissive" might (but of course doesn't always) mean someone who sexually enjoys feeling helpless or ceding power, but isn't necessarily interested in serving as a deep, over-time, commitment she needs for personal fulfillment while "slave" probably means someone who is deeply service-oriented make sense to me.

That might be wrong or might not be, but at least that's something I can coherently discuss. The first is not even something I can parse, most of the time.

[elf]

The difference is in my mind as:
A submissive gives consent to the dom's control each time, for each act. The power-play is ongoing, and a crucial part of the relationship.

A slave gives consent exactly once, and it covers the entire relationship. There is no power play; the relationship is one of mutual obligation of pre-established terms.

(I could be wrong; I'm not actively involved in either. But those are the dynamics as I've come to understand them.)

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

That's what people say, yes, but I can't parse "exactly once." It just plain doesn't make sense. It's understandable as a fantasy concept: "I don't want any way to back out of this." But real life is never so black and white... and the vast majority of Master/slave couples I've known have broken up. "I give consent exactly once" would mean "I can never withdraw it."

That's not real life, and I (at least; YMMV of course) have found that people who use this definition tend to have elaborately bizarre explanations for why obvious exceptions do not count as impugning the once-consent.

But if that's so, then they haven't been honest about the once-consent in the first place, and are talking nonsense rather than telling me how their relationship truly works.

[elf]

Well. "Exactly once," meaning, "for the relationship." The terms might be re-negotiated later, but when the consent is withdrawn, the relationship is over. Or no longer the same relationship. (Some married couples divorce & remarry; some boyfriend/girlfriends go through on-again, off-again phases.)

The consent is given for whatever-the-terms-are, which may include various exceptions. The consent isn't "anything and everything;" it's "whatever we've agreed to." (Which is sometimes not very well thought-out, sigh, resulting in a need for weird re-negotiations and both parties insisting the other is "doing it wrong" because neither wanted to actually spell out what the consent did & didn't cover.)

And there's no reason the two concepts can't be mixed. A relationship can include overall consent for a wide range of actions, and a submissive component for, for example, some BDSM activities.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

speaking of non-wiccan pagans and entirely unrelated to the rest of this post, have you read any of seressia glass' books? i am reading _shadow blade_ right now, and the main character is a follower of ma'at.

[artan]

I tend to think that labeling yourself can be very handy sometimes, but at other times it becomes a straitjacket. Often, as we grow and change, we have to re-assess some of the one-word blips we pick for ourselves.

I think that this is something of a mind-constrained-by-[language][culture] problem. If someone is labeled (by self or other) as "Bob is X" or "I am Y", "am" is... temporally uncertain. I am hungry. Easily fixed. Temporary situation (probably). Other labels become more complicated. I am blond. Some people would take this to be permanent, some people realize that it's actually among the easily changed, but likely requiring more effort. It gets even more sticky with lifestyle-orientation labels which require defense of the idea among onslaught of disapproval. One becomes identified with being the label, or rejects the labels trying to live outside them, losing track that labels act as map-descriptors, not whole-identity-packets.

So it gets very easy for people to get caught up in the temporally prolonged/infinite-expected-duration "am", and then forget that they can reassess their labels (which really, are in a constant state of revision, as "am" is also instant-determined).

Then there's the problem of no one actually speaking the same language. Words have meaning based on shared understanding, but frequently such context doesn't line up, especially in subcultures where multiple people are trying to claim a label to fit their interpretation of such thing, rather than add further descriptors to clarify.

[kiya]

"Estoy triste. Pero siempre estoy triste ..."

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. Which is why I was asking lilairen what exactly she meant. at first, her post seemed to be saying that people should label themselves. Then it seemed that she was talking about people who use "I don't label people" to avoid describing people in ways those people want to be described, or use it to dismiss people who say, "Well, you're an X and do things that way and expect others to as well, but I'm a Y so it's important that I do things this way instead," which I see as a completely different matter that has to do with whether or not you respect someone.

Then there are sociopolitical issues like a white person saying "do you really need to orient your life around being black?" which are actually about erasing other identities. Or, even worse, using a concept like "No one is really 'trans'" to try and argue that the way someone lives her life and experiences her reality is fundamentally wrong.

And it seems like those are the things the post is actually about, in which case I agree with it completely.

But if it had been about whether people accept labels that others would use for them, then I think there's something to be said for handy nouns and adjectives,but also something to be said for having lengthy conversations that some people avoid by using one word instead, assuming that that word fully explains what a person is like or is doing. (Eg, since FetLife was mentioned: "I am a switch." Okay, well, if the question is "do you both beat people and get beat?" I don't need more information. But if I don't know whether the person is talking D/s or SM, or don't know whether the person evenly splits between whatever two things he means, his answer may be an adjective where I needed a paragraph. Hence, one meaning of "Labels are limiting.")

[artan]

I think that the title including the Rant-Label seems to define some of the thought process as "this bothers me, I will flail at it to half explain and half complain". Though again, interpretation limitation on the Rant label may apply.

The sociopolitics of language gets even more complicated, in a kind of 1984, stripping out possible interpretation way. Though there is also the problem of redefinition of perfectly good language that other people try to do in order to "defend" whatever idea they have and fit it into an existing set. For some reason people seem to be reluctant to make up new words (or get attacked by others if they do and then attempt to explain them).

"I am a switch." Okay, well, if the question is "do you both beat people and get beat?" I don't need more information. . . . Hence, one meaning of "Labels are limiting."

Or, it could mean "flip me and the room shall illuminate!".

[griffen.livejournal.com]

And sometimes it means "Actually, I don't want to have this conversation, because it's uncomfortable, and I don't want to explain why I don't like that label," and that's also difficult to deal with.

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

My own approach to labels is: they're fine to use, but it's important to explain what you mean when you use them, because they always seem to mean different things to different people. And if you don't know of a label that fits you for whatever subject you're trying to discuss, don't use one that doesn't fit just because you "need a label." Instead, learn to discuss what you think and feel and perhaps the ways in which that differs from the established labels you've come across.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

Labels are rarely precise; hence they inevitably distort the truth they are purported to carry. Which is why people get frustrated and want to eschew them, which, as you point out, doesn't help.

Example: on a group bicycle ride today, I saw a big chunk of wood lying across our path. We always call out hazards, but I was momentarily tongue-tied: our call-out vocabulary is restricted to very short phrases like "Hole!", "Grate!", "Car up!", etc. I didn't know how to label this chunk of wood; "Chunk of wood!" was too long and didn't convey the sense of danger I wanted. Fortunately the rider in front of me called out the proper label, "Obstacle!"

"Obstacle"? That could be anything, no? But in the context, it was exactly right.

Which brings me to a point I want to make about labels: they are shaped by the labeler's agenda, and sometimes that goes beyond omission and inaccuracy right into the realm of falsehood. For an example, listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: while not believing in labels may be the same as not believing in communication, it does not follow that believing in labels is the same as believing in communication.

[artan]

it does not follow that believing in labels is the same as believing in communication

This reminds me of my brief experience doing high ropes courses and climbing many years ago. Anything falling was "rock". It didn't matter what it was, if someone yelled "rock" that meant a heavy object was moving downward and caution was needed. Labels also change their meaning and context depending on situation, which is probably part of the problem - people looking for absolute correct descriptors, rather than being willing to toss out something generally functional that can be clarified if context is required but otherwise worked with in the immediate situation.

[ibnfirnas.livejournal.com]

And at the same time, if someone is hitting you, and you say, "Stop hitting me!" the response, "Look, man, stop labeling my actions, I don't believe in labels," is really irritating, you know? Likewise, as called out here, when I as a woman of color am turned down for a job and a less-qualified white man is hired, and I point that out, if he says, "Look, don't call me white, that's a label, and I don't see color" is profoundly unhelpful.
Labels are imprecise, imperfect, and shaped by context, because they are words and that is the nature of words. But we also have words for a reason, and I think what's being called out here is the impulse to say "stop describing what's going on" because the description is unsettling.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I think I get what you're saying, but I only partially agree.

The way I think about it:

Language is an imprecise way to describe reality. Categorization is a human activity which we impose on reality and does not have an external existence in itself -- "categories" don't exist, not really.

However, as humans, we NEED to categorize, to put into words, and to label in order to deal with things.

The thing is: "the map is not the territory." The word is not the thing; the label is not the labelled.

Nonetheless, those labels, categories, and language are necessary in order to conceptualize, and to simplify things to the point that we can deal with them. We need to make simplified models of reality in order to comprehend them, and these are all ways we can do that.

The problem with labelling is that it can lead us to forget that the label is only a simplification. That can lead to problems when we affix a label to something, because that label fits that thing better than any other option -- but the thing itself doesn't have ALL the characteristics associated with the label.

If we are all always careful to remember that labels are generally only approximations, then they make up a very useful shorthand which can greatly speed up and facilitate APPROXIMATE communication. And most of the time, "approximate" is good enough.

But it's important to remember that "approximate" is all that labels CAN get.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

This. Thank you.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

We have an inbuilt need to distinguish; labelling is merely the language manifestation of it.

If you can't distinguish between a chair and empty air, how will you sit down? (Also, If you can't distinguish between various categories of food (good, edible, bad-for-you, not-food), how do you survive?)

The moment you move from the very concrete to the abstract, categories acquire fuzzy boundaries. You can define the limitations of the individual chair, but if you're talking about chairs in an abstract manner, can a 'room with no chairs' contain bar stools?