Labels (Part 1)

Many educated people often talk of the wisdom of avoiding labeling people and or interpersonal dynamics. To a certain degree I can agree. I agree that sometimes labels reduce us to objects within a category, rather than the individuals that we are. However the opposition to labels also misses the utility of labels. Labels allow us to form cognitive shortcuts and form expectations.

 Many of the labels that we use in fact are problematic specifically in the ways in which they act as cognitive shortcuts and framing expectations.  But the use of the label is not so much the problem as the rigidity to which we stick to the expectations or associations of that label. Take the labels “gay or “straight,” for example. Both of these labels are laden with expectations and associations, which often on whole are true for the majority (if not all) of the people that would fit the label. A liberal interpretation of the label would allow for a man labeled as “straight” to enjoy shopping or watching Glee more than watching sports and for a gay man to enjoy working on his car or hunting more than Project Runway or RuPaul’s Drag Race, as well for the more stereotypical reverse.

 

However, knowing that a man is “gay” or “straight” also informs me of the likelihood that he will know certain people or places that are frequented by other people labeled “gay.” Most “straight” people in Houston are not familiar with the Ripcord or BRB, but most “gay” people are. Perhaps most importantly, I know how safe or appropriate it is to hit on someone who has labeled himself “gay” or “straight.”

 

Of course, again there is the problem that while most people can in fact be neatly sorted into categories, others are poor fits for any of the existing categories that we have.  I have a client who would less identify as “gay” or “straight,” as he does “submissive;” the striving force of his sexual arousal is grounded in the dominant nature of a partner, rather than the partner’s gender. This client shies away from identifying as “bisexual” because “bisexual’ tends to be interpreted as attracted to both males and females, but this terms side-steps the notion that a partner’s gender is irrelevant, but rather it is the nature of the person—regardless of gender—that attracts him. I know other people who are honestly attracted to males and females and for whom gender is actually part of the attraction—“bisexual’ applies aptly for these clients.

 

Labels also give us a sense of belonging. Race or ethnicity is another area in which there is resistance to labeling. Race and ethnicity are, like sexual orientation, false categories that are socially constructed and do not reflect the diversity of people. However, through such labeling one has a sense of belonging, of having a kin-group.  According to Abraham Maslow, Belongingness is one of our basic needs and is foundational to our forming a positive sense of self. Acceptance, a form of belongingness, is essential to healthy self-esteem. Humans are naturally (it seems) suspicious of out-group members and more willing to support in-group members, and so labeling ourselves helps provide us with sources of support as well

 

So labels simultaneously allow us some expectations and associations (which we ought to confirm for each individual occurrence of a label in order to avoid too rigid of interpretation of the label), and fail to capture the full range and nuanced differences among people.  They also help give us a sense of how to behave and toward and around others. Similarly, they help us can give us a sense of community and promote mental health. Rejecting labels altogether because they do not work perfectly seems equally unwise as interpreting labels too rigidly.