Labels: The Quick Path to Confusion
Confidence spectrum: 80%
I
I've never been a fan of labels.
I'm a(n) X.
Where X = Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, rationalist, nerd, scientist, feminist, academic, philosopher, anti-psychiatry, climate activist, pro-choice, etc.
But before getting into that, I want to point out from the outset that they are useful (and necessary) in everyday life. When someone labels themselves as 'Christian' it suggests that they probably have more overlap in their worldview with a self-labeled Christian than a self-labeled Buddhist. Using the label 'Christian' is more reasonable than explaining the nuance in their individual views every time someone asks them if they are religious. As is using any of the other 'religious' labels. In addition to convenience, labels help like-minded people find each other. For example, If I am at a party and am told one room is filled with gamers and the other with makeup artists, I probably have more overlapping interests, shared experience, and personality traits in common with the gamers. So labels help people find communities - that's great. When time is limited labels are pretty helpful linguistic shortcuts.
But that is also their fatal flaw: they are shortcuts. Because they are shortcuts, they don't really tell us that much about a specific individual person.
Take the label 'Christianity' for example. Some users of this label pray daily, some only on Christmas. Some wave pride flags with honor and others think same-sex relationships result in eternal damnation. Some think it’s okay to just 'be a good person' and the real value of the faith is peace now while on earth (not heaven) and others beg their dying relatives to utter a series of sounds on their deathbed like it’s the password into eternal bliss. Some study the original Hebrew in order to critically analyze and interpret their gospel and some just do whatever the current Pope says. Clearly, the variety of beliefs that fall under the umbrella of 'Christian' is enormous. It is so wide, that many self-labeled Christians would likely say that the other side 'isn't actually a Christian.'
Thus: labels are helpful guides as to what a person likely believes, but they tell me little about what a specific individual actually believes.
II
I don't mean to harp on people who use the 'Christian' label. The same can be said about every other label; Christianity isn't an odd duck. If anything, religious labels are probably more useful than others because they typically all converge on the same scriptures, religious figureheads, etc. Most self-prescribed labels (environmentalist, mother, social justice advocate, etc.) don't have any sort of authority figure uniting everyone that uses the label. What they specifically mean when they invoke the label is even more heavily tied up with their subjective understanding of the term than usual.
Despite how poorly these labels map onto a person's actual beliefs, we use them to make snapshot judgments about others. We stereotype. Assumptions are bootstrapped in. Extrapolations are made. Even though the original label may point one in the correct direction, the miscommunication that ensues from subconsciously thinking that you understand the nuance of another's position based on a label is far more damaging than any mild insight the label gives at the start. It's too easy for two people using the same label to actually be in discordance. Vice versa, it's too easy for two people to disagree about a label yet very much be in accordance. Classic Type 1 and Type 2 errors of the Communication Chasm.
But this isn't just a normal Communication Chasm mishap. All language is easily misinterpreted and the original intent is often lost in translation. What's unique about labels is how quickly they become identities; and identities are dangerous. Every identity brings with it a list of expectations. Expectations on what one should value and think. Expectations on how to behave, look, and, ultimately, live. Some of these expectations will fit you well, but not all of them will. Herein lies the danger of labels. Piggy-backed expectations that we shouldn't care about (but all the signs of our 'identity' says we should) become integrated into our life. We insidiously become fully attached to something we only partially agree with.
III
If we accept the premise that 1) labels are practical and 2) labels easily become conflated with identities and 3) identities are dangerous, what should we do?
Don't use labels.
Instead of being an 'environmentalist' just be someone who generally thinks and cares about the environment. After all, that's what you actually are. This helps you avoid cognitive dissonance when someone else's version of 'environmentalist' doesn't quite vibe with your use of the word. It makes it more difficult for bad ideas to bypass scrutiny and makes it easier to let go of the bad ones that get through. Most importantly, it gives you space for growth when you learn more about the world and change your mind. Once you start believing you're a fish, you never attempt flying or jogging. You just try to swim faster.
Labels are square, cookie-cutter boxes, but people are blob-shaped and dynamic. Don't put yourself in a box. Particularly a box someone else designed.