labels

i was conversing with a friend the other day about gender and sexuality and self-identification, and he, bold as usual, asked me how i identified.

'i don't,' was my reply.

the words actually came out of my mouth before i had thought about it.  i had a similar experience a few days later while discussing politics and communities.  a different friend, after hearing me rant for about 30 minutes, stated 'i never pegged you to be an anarchist,' to which, i replied, 'i'm not.'

i used to really like defining myself in a set of identifiers, neatly stacked, with squared-off, clean edges.  liberal, feminist, environmental, bisexual, locavore, foodie, woman - yes, that's me.  but, um, no...it's not.

at this point i am finding that the way in which i place myself onto the identity landscape is not to create for myself a title, but to tell people what i think about things.  what followed the 'i don't' regarding my sexuality was a statement about how i am attracted to the energy of a person rather than their gender or sex.  what followed the statement 'i'm not' regarding my political views was a statement about how i am convinced that grassroots and community efforts make greater change than widespread policy, and that i prefer when i can to opt out of the mainstream.

we spend a lot of time creating labels for ourselves and others.  we base it on ideals, thoughts, beliefs, actions, phenotypes...the things that make up who we are as individuals are packaged and stamped with a brand that puts us among others in a group.  it's comforting - for the individual it creates a sense of personal meaning, and places them within a group to which they get to belong.  for others it gives some kind of indication of how this person might behave - it creates predictability, and it helps people to make connections to those like them.  it makes a lot of sense when i think about it.

but there is something for me that has not been jiving of late.  maybe it's a desire to avoid being stereotyped.  maybe it's an attempt to feed my inner ODD teenager's defiance.  maybe it's simply because i don't know what to call myself.  i think about all of the nuance and spectra within identity, compound that with fluidity and cross-sectionality, and simply start to feel overwhelmed.  if i call myself bisexual it feels like i start to lose something.  i could modify it by pairing the label with a kinsey scale number, but that even seems too simple.  it does not strike at the center of understanding that includes the kinds of attraction i have, the time of my life i am in, how i have been in the past, what makes sense to me in the moment, and how i don't want to be seen.  i could go through this process with every identity that may or may not be placed upon me.  in the end i think i'd just rather make statements of thought, belief, and action, and leave it at that.

i am fortunate enough at this point in my life to have friends who are willing to stick with me through this.  that said, there are times when i am dealing with someone who is not close enough for me to share my beliefs.  in those moments i might choose to use a label that can stand between us.  they get to feel like they know me - i get to keep myself to myself.

label as barrier to the self...

i think that another reason i avoid labels is that they can so quickly dehumanize us.  useful tool for dealing with acquaintances aside, labels can readily turn people into groups, and groups into the masses that we 'other' in order to demonize, pathologize, or even kill.  i think about how race labels were created in rwanda, and how that 'othering' played a part in political strife, conflict, and eventually genocide.  i'm not saying that putting a label on someone is a sure way toward hacking them up with a machete, but it does place them one step either closer in to you and away from 'other,' or one step farther into 'otherness.'  it's like the 99%.  on one hand i love that claiming this label stands me in solidarity with others.  it creates a sense of power for people who feel they have none.  it also dehumanizes.  it makes the 1% into evil, faceless, greedmongers who are out to hurt us.  not everyone within this percentage fits that bill, and they are people too.  on the flip side it dissolves the individuality of the 99% while diluting the causes and stories that each one represents.  that's what the placards are for - people trying to assert both. 

i also wonder whether or not i am placing barriers around myself by not claiming a label.  i did say that labels help us to connect with others - and it does so with alacrity.  not being willing to label myself can potentially make connection harder with people i first meet.  if i don't claim a label initially, regardless of whether or not that dissolves my nuanced self, i may not be granted the time with that person to go more deeply.  labels are often the conversation starters - not the end result.

at this point though i am opting for a label alternative.  i come up with some kind of bumper-sticker statement that gives people enough information about me to understand and connect to without conceding to the branding.  perhaps i am disrupting the practice..perhaps i am colluding by simply creating new labels that include a few more words.

at the moment it's working for me.

cliche

really obama? seriously?

i can't say as i have had the love affair with our esteemed president as many of my friends have. i am unimpressed with his position on gay marriage, dislike his stance on iraq and afghanistan, and generally think that he could do more to help people (yes, yes, i understand that congress plays a role in this too...see earlier posts on things i don't like about them). in the end i understand that i am not going to agree with everything, and i can applaud the things i do like as well, but today i certainly have a bad taste in my mouth.

with his approval rating at 44%, the economy not making the oft-predicted comeback, and his white house leaking like a BP oil cap, obama apparently has to defend himself. what's the best defense? apparently a good offense (and by good here i mean effective not actually worthy of positive note). embracing all cliche obama has attacked republicans, touted america, and cited patriotism to justify his choice to give the auto industry yet more money.

i get really really tired of people playing the patriot card. i know WHY people do it - it creates a division between oneself and the 'other' with whom one does not agree. calling someone unpatriotic (which obama did by saying that supporting the auto industry was a way to be patriotic) puts them into the 'other' category. the farther we can stuff our opponents into this box the better because it allows us to think of them as evil, wrong, and inhuman. now we can justify doing to these 'things' whatever we wish (thank you arbinger institute and clark university for bringing me two views on the same topic).

i think of rwanda

i think of the balkans

i think of pakistan and india

i think of 9/11

basic psychology, fear, denial, conflict, pain, hate...so many things come from choosing a heart at war, attacking, name-calling, killing, hurting. i know that what obama's use of nationalism is not as extreme, but it taps into the same narrative, the same path, the same way of making sense of the world.

if leaders are meant to unite the world does this mean that politics divides it?