Hey you!! Why not be a subscriber? Just click here.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Labels? Schmabels!

Just to clarify, this is not the same post my good friend Jeff wrote entitled "Label Schmabel". I mean, it's obviously not exactly the same. My title is plural and has punctation. You ought to take a few minutes and read his when you have a chance.

My thoughts aren't crystal clear on this subject yet, but I thought writing about it might help. So, here goes.

If you've ever watched The Breakfast Club, a movie about a group of high school kids that spend a day in Saturday detention, you know it deals with stereotypes. At the start of the movie, their judgemental supervising teacher gives them an assignment to write an essay about who they think they are. At the end of the movie, you hear the essay read as a voice over.

Dear Mr. Vernon,

We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. But we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us...

In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain...

...and an athlete...
...and a basket case...
...a princess...
...and a criminal...

Does that answer your question?

Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.
Very interesting, huh? Like Mr. Vernon in the movie, we all, in general, define people by the "groups" that they belong to. A few examples immediately come to mind:

teacher
Texan
musician
liberal
adult
environmentalist
biker
geek
Christian
professional
father

Whether it is because of a person's profession, gender, political leaning, age, or socioeconomic class, we all tend to view people through those stereotypes/labels/paradigms. But, also like in the movie, the reality is that no one is only one of those things, or a perfect representation of any particular group.

You might ask, "Aaron, if a movie from the 80's has already explored all this, why are you re-hashing it?"

I might answer, "I don't know." But I won't. Instead I'll answer by saying that the thing I wanted to remind myself (and you, if you are reading this) is that when we let labels define people, we ascribe faults and strengths to people that they may or may not have. I have one friend who always says (only half-jokingly) that anybody with dreadlocks smokes dope.

When I met my wife in college, I volunteered to tutor her in trigonometry. I'm a big guy, and in college I was in (much) better shape. My (future) wife's response internally to my offer was, "How can he tutor me in trig? He's just a big dumb jock."

You know what they say...don't judge a book by its cover. (But you may not know what I say...don't judge a book by its movie. )

Though I may have looked it, I, of course, am not a big dumb jock.

What do you think people might assume about you? Who do you tend to "pre-judge"? It's worth thinking about.

There you have it...told you I didn't have my thoughts organized very well on this.

4 comments:

Misfit in Paradise said...

They think I am a sweet grandmotherly type. Until they see the NIN tattoo. Or the fedora. Or maybe the blue fingernails. Hmm. Maybe they think I am a bit weird.

Aaron said...

You sound pretty cool to me.

steve e said...

labels are a representation of characteristics which can be quickly applied to groups. The key words are "quickly" and "groups". They are useful generally speaking for this purpose. If approached at night, alone, by a group which can be placed in a set of "these people might be dangerous" no analysis is persued and a response like "lets get out of here!" is appropriate. Using grouping as a primary method to assess individuals sounds weird just as a sentence, and becomes really dumb it you think about it. The reason it is pervasive is that you have to critically think about individuals to mentally exclude them from the initial label. Some people "can't" do this many people "won't". An interesting side observation is that most people don't recognize their own group in this way. They may label themselves "christians" or "catholics" but their real group is invisible without significant reflection. Hence they will see people in their group as individuals... and to them everyone else can be stereotyped. See prejudice,war,genocide etc.

Aaron said...

Yep. "Groups" are not necessarily a bad place to start (as in your dangerous people at night point), but people need to remind themselves to move on past the group to the individual.

Thanks for your thoughts, Steve.