Labels: Limiting or Limitless
Labels have ruffled several feathers in the past and continue to evoke squabbles and misconceptions. The famous quote by the Danish philosopher, theologian and poet, Søren Kierkegaard, “If you name me, you negate me. By giving me a name, a label, you negate all the other things I could possibly be” has been popularly used as a critical interpretation of using labels frivolously. When we provide a tag to something or someone, we are unconsciously placing them into tightly defined containers with little scope of variability. The defining characteristics of humans are their complex and unique natures with immense capacity for a range of emotions and behaviours. Hence, Kierkegaard was refuting labels as they provide the faulty perception of traits as being innate, fixed and non-negotiable, and constrict the scope of expression. Moreover, labels generally result in the formation of stereotypes and biases that get rooted deep within cultures and societies.
The value laden messages hidden in labels perpetuate feelings of learned helplessness in the one being defined. The psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven Maier described this phenomenon of learned helplessness in humans or animals as a learned trait where they think, feel and act as if they have no control over their circumstances. So, when a child is referred to as having “attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder”, we have narrowed his range of actions and feelings. This may lead the child to believe that he is unable to regulate himself and also lead to an avoidance of certain tasks. Moreover, once labelled, the individual may also develop a self-fulfilling prophecy where they act in ways to confirm other’s expectations of them. So a person labelled as ‘lazy’ or ‘angry’ or ‘depressed’, will display behaviours to ensure they fit into the mould of the tag. This will naturally result in faulty self-beliefs, lowered self-esteem and confidence, and a fixed mindset.
In order to ward away the scope of judgements and ignorance that lie latent in labels, Toni Morrison exclaimed, “Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined.” Here, the implied intention is to rid the scope of stigma, disrespect and slander that is evoked through the rampant use of labels. The negative emotions such as fear, doubt, anger or jealousy are elicited when named as people refute the categorization and demand an acknowledgment of their uniqueness. Also, in the epic story, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare disregarded the significance attached to names and instead urged attention towards the experience. The author’s acclaimed statement, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet” aptly describes the innate beauty and involvement that extends beyond its name.
On the other hand, one cannot deny the need for such labels and names in our rapidly transforming society. Labels are required for ease and efficient communication so that information can be exchanged in a timely and production manner. The names of places, things, body parts, food items and much more have allowed us greater accessibility and function. Further, in this age where time is scarce and valued, labels do give us the luxury to describe characteristics in a single word and develop competence and skill with our use of time. Also, one tends to denote labels as negative due to past negative experiences. Yet, labels can also be used to increase one’s self-esteem and remind them of the power of their own being. When we use labels that empower and remind individuals of their infinite potential, they are sure to create immense value in one’s life. After all, labelling things or people cannot be black or white, it’s a million shades of grey!
It can be summarized that the capacity to represent things gives us both creativity and self-delusion. Our minds are highly practical and logical but also have the potential of the infinite and creative powers. Also, human’s unique capacity for thought has created the illusion of separateness. So, the challenge is to embrace the interconnectedness between things and people beyond the surface display of traits. Hence, we have to ensure we always stay open to learning and growth, allowing new ideas and frameworks to be formed without staying stuck within the limited constrictions of the label. One of the best examples is standardized examinations. While these tests are a great tool to communicate the child’s performance in a concise and clearly defined manner, it fails to take into consideration the factors of motivation, interests, health, effort, or preparation. As a result, the marks or grades must be used as a guide and cannot be used to define a child’s performance or intelligence in totality.
We must at all times acknowledge the latitude and longitude of a label while giving ourselves permission to hone new attitudes and altitudes. After all, no one wants to miss the forest for the trees!
