Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: labels

  • Lazy Labeling

    Lazy Labeling

    I frequently hear various people complain about labeling. We shouldn’t label people, they tell me. But labeling is essential. Language wouldn’t function without labels.

    For example, sitting right next to me as I write this is a cat. I label him “cat” and I tell you he’s a cat, and we communicated. Behold, the cat, also named, labeled, that is, Li’l Mo.

    Li’l Mo, a Cat!

    Thus the label is useful. None of you are shocked at the picture after being told it would be that of a cat.

    But …

    A Tale of Two Cats

    Now behold two cats.

    The cat with longer fur is Cheena. In this video, which was taken only a couple years before Cheena crossed over the rainbow bridge at 16 years of age, Li’l Mo is about 6 months old.

    I credit Li’l Mo with extending Cheena’s life by perhaps a year because she seemed to gain new energy with him around. She mothered him, in the way a crotchety old aunt might, not too clingy, but playing with him and occasionally putting him in his place. As long as she was alive, she remained the dominant cat.

    So we have two animals labeled cats, one labeled Li’l Mo, and one labeled Cheena.

    Where Labels Cause Problems

    I have repeatedly noticed something interesting when I describe these two cats. I love both. I remember Cheena fondly and frequently.

    Cheena was very set in her ways. She would spend her time sleeping on the bed, specifically on my side. She didn’t want a lot of attention but about once a week she’d spend an hour or so on my lap. She adored having her hair brushed every night. She was picky about her food. She was dignified, and would take what I called “princess strolls” through the house, head high, looking left and right, making sure everything was in order.

    She also hated the vacuum cleaner, and would hide at the opposite end of the house when I brought it out. As most animals do, she hated the vet, but unlike any other cat I’ve had, she was very sweet about it. I remember after I picked her up from surgery after her foot got infected (Li’l Mo bit it!), the vet offered me a carrier box as they saw I hadn’t brought one with me. “No,” I said, “I don’t need it.” A couple of members of the staff followed me and watched as I carried her across a waiting room filled with dogs and a few other cats while she just hung out against my shoulder. Not a peep or a wiggle.

    Cheena was generally unconcerned with the activities of the humans as long as she got dinner on time and found me in my chair where she could sit on my lap.

    When I tell people about Cheena, they often say, “Well, she was a cat.”

    Mo, on the other hand flies around the house like a mad cat. Princely strolls are only occasional and generally short. He also hates the vet, but I wouldn’t even think of taking him there without a carrier. Oddly, he’s totally cooperative with the staff, and totally uncooperative the entire rest of the time. He’s unafraid of the vacuum cleaner. If he deigns to notice it at all it’s to chase it and pounce on it. He has no concept of riding peacefully on my shoulder. He is deeply concerned about his food being on time.

    When I tell people about Li’l Mo, they often say, “Well, he’s a cat!”

    And therein lies the problem, though it’s usually not an issue with cats. It’s not important, except to me regarding my cats, and perhaps to the cats, that people notice their individuality. But in many other cases, it very much does matter.

    A Personal Example

    A friend of mine for some years never conducted what I would regard as a complete conversation. Whether the issue was religious, political, or even how to accomplish some task, he would jump in when I was half-way through explaining my position and say, “Yes, I understand completely.” He would then carry on the conversation in a way that made it clear to me that he had checked off my view as matching some compartment he had created in his mind, and I was stuck in that compartment. Discussion would die.

    I found this very frustrating, as he was a person with interesting ideas and I would have enjoyed exploring our differences more seriously. But once I was placed in the compartment, the discussion was over. He never appeared to be thinking of me negatively. He’d usually put me in a compartment that was agreeable to him., but it was still frustrating.

    Lazy Labeling

    And that is the problem with labeling. Not the use of labels in itself, but refusing to use accurate, or at least carefully chosen labels. This doesn’t mean we can’t use general labels. Cheena and Li’l Mo are (or were) indeed cats. They’re also individuals.

    My views might generally fall into a category chosen, but they might also differ in important ways.

    Make the Effort

    In relationships and discussions of ideas, be willing to do the work of understanding and labeling accurately. Your life will be enriched for the effort.

  • We Now Pause for a Bit of a Rant

    We Now Pause for a Bit of a Rant

    Scot McKnight (whose work I deeply appreciate) quotes Dennis Prager (whom I rarely read) on his site, talking about the difference between the “left” and “liberals.” You can follow the link to read what set me off.

    Labels are necessary if we are to communicate. Words are, pretty much, labels. All labels have limitations. The word “tree” can evoke different meanings. Different people might have different boundaries between a tree and a shrub, for example. That’s why we have words, and not just a word. We have phrases, clauses, sentences, and yes, even paragraphs. You use those to explain the detailed boundaries of the way you are using a particular label.

    The problem is not labels. The problem is the misuse of labels. Politics gives birth to lots of misuse because those in politics want to have shorthand ways of vilifying opponents. So we take a group’s label, find all the bad things done by anyone who might fit that label, and apply them to the entire group. That’s why we have videos from liberals (as defined today, not the century old definition used by Prager), showing stupid conservatives. This is supposed to leave us with the impression that everyone on the right is an idiot and knows nothing.

    In turn (and I don’t care who went first, just “in turn” in terms of this rant), we have conservatives producing videos of stupid liberals.

    Wow! I am so utterly dumbfounded! There are stupid Republicans. And Democrats. And liberals. And conservatives. And Christians. And non-Christians. And …

    The only thing we should get from such videos is a low opinion of the people who make them.

    My problem with these labels is that while I know stupid people who hold a variety of positions, I also know intelligent ones. Intelligent conservatives, liberals, progressives, leftists, rightists, and so forth. I find no sense in which you can determine intelligence by political position. Further, I know of no way to discover how charitable someone is through a label. Sure there are surveys, but do you really want to assume that a survey applies to each person you meet? I find it much easier to just talk to them and then listen.

    My father, for example, was a vigorous opponent of what he called socialized medicine. Yet he gave away medical services or charged less than the market would bear all his life. He never turned anyone away over money. He died as John Wesley suggested with very little. Without a doubt he cared, cared deeply, and did something about it. I’m sure my conservative friends will applaud.

    But there are others, “leftists” if you please, who believe very firmly that everyone should have medical care. They don’t believe private charity can accomplish it, so they work to make it available to everyone using the mechanism of government. Their purpose is not to “get” the drug companies, the health care equipment manufacturers, or the doctors. Their purpose is to provide better health care for more people. They aren’t evil. They take a different approach.

    There’s plenty of room to debate these approaches. But none of this will happen if we assign all possible evil characteristics to our opponents, and all possible good ones to our allies.

    One of the characteristics that will prevent any movement toward unity is the desire to vilify groups of our opponents, not by labeling them, but by misusing their labels or by mislabeling them.

    A little generosity in the use of labels would go a long way. And no, don’t assume I blame most mislabeling on the right because the quote that set me off was from Dennis Prager. This issue has plenty of blame to go around. Several times.


    (Featured image credit: Openclipart.org.)

  • Discovering What Young Adults Want

    I hear (and participate in) many discussions about what young adults want from the church, usually in the context of asking why the youth and young adults don’t attend church services or the events we put on for them. I’ve arrived at an age where waitresses at restaurants ask me if I want my senior citizen discount (I recently turned 55!), and I sometimes even get one. The interesting thing is how few of the discussions of what young adults like ever include any young adults. I may feel young, but I’m not in touch with the twenty-something or even thirty-something crowd.

    I recall being in a church committee meeting where we discussed what we should do with the church services to get more young people to attend. After more than half an hour of ideas, I felt constrained to point out that there was nobody in the room under 40, and maybe only one or two under 50. The rest of us were in our 50s. Isn’t there are problem with this sort of discussion?

    But when I read Dan Dick’s Beyond Label or Cateogry, I felt much more sympathy (or perhaps empathy) with the girl in the story than with my friends of a similar age. My first reaction was that listing the contents of her purse seemed like a violation of privacy. (I note that some time after I read the post, but before I wrote this, another commenter noted the same thing.) But then I thought that this was an effort to discover her identity, and nothing personal was revealed.

    I too have struggled with labels. I can’t just join a group, in many cases, because I’ll be on their side on one issue, but not on another. People in groups tend to expect you to be on their side, at least most of the time. But despite my own difficulties with labeling, I can get lost in trying to follow the various commitments of those younger than I am.

    So please read Dan’s article and give some consideration to flexibility. Is our complaint that young adults don’t like faith? Or is it, rather, that they don’t like all of our extraneous commitments and our expectation for conformity?