Many people love bluebirds. That sentence is useless without understanding what the words “people,” “love” and “bluebirds” mean. These labels - short words or phrases that describe things, people and ideas - are the brain’s efficient way of locking neural connections into our memory so we can function without having to learn everything anew each day. They enable us to communicate with each other and across time and space.
Consider this situation posed by psychologist Amos Tversky and behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman:
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable?
1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
More than 80 percent of people presented with this problem choose “2,” yet the correct answer is “1.” Since both choices describe Linda as a bank teller and since not every bank teller is a feminist, it can’t be more probable that Linda is both. This is an example of the representative heuristic, the brain’s tendency to label Linda a ”feminist” because of her concern with discrimination and social justice. It’s a mental heuristic or shortcut, yet it leads many astray.
Labels are helpful - until they aren’t. They aren’t frequently. They are useful for things but can be dangerous when improperly applied to ideas or people. As in the case of Linda, they often stereotype. Calling someone a “Far-Left Democrat” or “Trumper” puts them in a box that tells us little about what that person actually thinks yet carries emotional baggage that defines how we treat them and whether we are open to consider what they say. Labels, as simplistic linguistic devices, can obscure the complexity in ideas. Saying we demand or angrily oppose the label “defunding the police” doesn’t mean we grasp the intricacies of what that idea could mean in practice for a given community.
Labels can thus hide our ignorance from ourselves. The labels “democracy,” “socialist,” “fascist,” “libertarian” and “communism” are part of ongoing political debates, yet how many people can define these terms with any precision? How frequently would those definitions meet the test of scholarly or historical rigor or even agree with others who use the same labels? They are shorthand and are thus shorthanded thinking.
Labels often present forced choices that divide us. “Pro-life” or “pro-choice?” “Gun-rights” or “gun control?” “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter?” Such divisions will never be bridged in the stark either-or language of labels, which can lead to the most dangerous of all labels: “Us” and “Them.” Indeed, those who rely on labels are prone to cognitive biases. They tend to search for information to back up their point of view and ignore contrary evidence (confirmation bias). They become more and more convinced of their wisdom (overconfidence) and moral rectitude (ethical numbness). They tend to associate with like-minded people who confirm what they believe leading to the likelihood of becoming more extreme in their views (group polarization). Rather than collaborating with other human beings to find useful solutions, they vilify them. The history of the damage done by self-centered and self-righteous groups is written on gravestones.
Labels applied to people also turn them into things, creating what theologian Martin Buber called an “I-It” relationship as opposed to what should be I-Thou.” In doing this, we rob people of their diversity and their humanity. It’s ironic that we readily acknowledge all kinds of differences of the label “chair,’ yet when labeling someone a “conservative” we deny the ideological and policy differences, including some more liberal beliefs, that exist among people we put in that group.
Labeling is to living as air is to breathing. We can’t live without it. But we can contain the damage it can do. When you use a label for people or ideas, look up what that label means and read about various people historically associated with it and their beliefs. See what characteristics are fairly common and what diversity the label hides. Approach the label with some intellectual humility. Ask those you associate with that label what it means to them. Most importantly, treat others as people, not labels – and don’t use a label when more careful communication would be less emotional and more helpful. Resist the urge to fit people into categories – and call out others who abuse labels. When you see a political ad, an interest group campaign, a protester’s sign, or listen to an advocate’s speech, look for their use of labels to demean and divide – and resist what they are asking you to do.
Martina Navratilova, who knows something about labels from building a tennis career by defying the expectations for and treatment of women on the professional circuit, summed up the challenge to all of us who want to avoid the liability of labels: “Labels are for filing. Labels are for clothing. Labels are not for people.”
Photo Credit: Carol Donsky Newell
