Labels and tribes
What's in a name? On the use and abuse of labels...
I find labels annoying, because they just about never represent their corresponding concept correctly. In cégep, some people were calling me goth, because I had my hair dyed black most of the time and my whole wardrobe was black (and then, progressively, some dark grey, really!). I was pointed toward the (ridiculously tiny, in St-Hyacinthe!) goth community, where it was quickly obvious that I was way too cheerful and bubbly for these guys. Suicide just wasn't on my mind, and being from a funeral homes family, death wasn't all that cool, sounds more like work to me. Ironically enough, I got some mild depression toward the end of my cégep years, heh.
But the attraction of labels has to be fully understood. When you're outside of the mainstream, and you think you're all alone in the world, finding out that there's others "like you" and that you might not be totally crazy after all is, to say the least, a bit relief. For me, it came when I read the Jargon File (*rolls eyes*), particularly the A Portrait of J. Random Hacker appendix, which was almost creepy to read. Funnily enough, the only two things I found off the mark at the time were food and sexual habits, but it turned out that I just hadn't had proper Asian food, and about a year and a half later, my girlfriend had another boyfriend, so there.
So the labels, as much as they can be infuriating sometimes, they can also be reassuring.
There is also the need for words that express complex concepts for communication purposes. In a pinch, I might use the word "girlfriend" to refer to azrhey. Even though we both disagree with this term, we've agreed that it's the shortest way to having people get an idea that's at least acceptably close to reality without getting into long explanations. I'll use the term "poly" to refer to myself sometimes, but oh, so reluctantly (that's one wacky subculture, and some elements find me no less wacky either!). This isn't really about having the right definition, as much as the sender of a message knowing the receiver's definition, which is the one that will be used to interpret the message.
I've found recently that anti-labels can be useful. It's sometimes easier to point at something you're really not than try to point at what you are. So, while "poly" often annoys the hell out of me, I find I can say something like "non-exclusive" or "non-monogamous" without feeling so full of shit, and still getting a good "concept compression ratio".
Basically, my impression on this is that words should describe the world, not determine it, as pointed out by sps.
I get more relaxed when it comes down to labels that are unambiguous, where you can say whether it applies or not with at least some level of certainty. If Bob is married to Julia, then Bob is a "husband". You can dig up the paperwork. I'm a male. You can check out my little Y in my chromosomes (I'm sure there's some transgender issue sensitive people reading this, just because I'm special that way, and to those, I'd point out I said "some level", there still fun to be had, no worries).
Stuff like "so-and-so is my girlfriend" get a whole lot looser and unclear. Even in the "normal" monogamous case, it's not exactly like there are Office of Lovers registration desks where such things can be laid down in black on white, but in my case, it's next to completely meaningless (confusing at times, but on the upside, "breaking up" becomes just as meaningless, so there!). At least, the normal people, they get to have some kind of talk at some point, where they say they won't be frolicking with other people (and then they proceed to do it anyway in about half the cases, eurgh). Or at least, they ought to, good communication and all (yeah, I live in a little fairy world sometimes, leave me alone!).
I was using the expression "favourite people", until not so long ago, to refer to a very specific, short list of people, that for all sorts of reasons, I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable calling "girlfriend", even for the purpose of communication with silly people. But then, what do you know, I was thinking of certain people who weren't on that list, and whether they ought to make it to that list, and I just couldn't think of what was involved in either making it in or out of that list. Basically, I had made up my own label, just as loose and stupid as others (but this one was my own special kind of stupid!). As further proof that I am not perfect.
To conclude, a quote from Herr Bargeld:
What I mean by positive is obviously the opposite [of negative], and precisely because I am not able to define this opposite perfectly even makes it more true. If I were able to define it, I would just be stating again that there is no escape, no exit, no other way out.
I find labels annoying, because they just about never represent their corresponding concept correctly. In cégep, some people were calling me goth, because I had my hair dyed black most of the time and my whole wardrobe was black (and then, progressively, some dark grey, really!). I was pointed toward the (ridiculously tiny, in St-Hyacinthe!) goth community, where it was quickly obvious that I was way too cheerful and bubbly for these guys. Suicide just wasn't on my mind, and being from a funeral homes family, death wasn't all that cool, sounds more like work to me. Ironically enough, I got some mild depression toward the end of my cégep years, heh.
But the attraction of labels has to be fully understood. When you're outside of the mainstream, and you think you're all alone in the world, finding out that there's others "like you" and that you might not be totally crazy after all is, to say the least, a bit relief. For me, it came when I read the Jargon File (*rolls eyes*), particularly the A Portrait of J. Random Hacker appendix, which was almost creepy to read. Funnily enough, the only two things I found off the mark at the time were food and sexual habits, but it turned out that I just hadn't had proper Asian food, and about a year and a half later, my girlfriend had another boyfriend, so there.
So the labels, as much as they can be infuriating sometimes, they can also be reassuring.
There is also the need for words that express complex concepts for communication purposes. In a pinch, I might use the word "girlfriend" to refer to azrhey. Even though we both disagree with this term, we've agreed that it's the shortest way to having people get an idea that's at least acceptably close to reality without getting into long explanations. I'll use the term "poly" to refer to myself sometimes, but oh, so reluctantly (that's one wacky subculture, and some elements find me no less wacky either!). This isn't really about having the right definition, as much as the sender of a message knowing the receiver's definition, which is the one that will be used to interpret the message.
I've found recently that anti-labels can be useful. It's sometimes easier to point at something you're really not than try to point at what you are. So, while "poly" often annoys the hell out of me, I find I can say something like "non-exclusive" or "non-monogamous" without feeling so full of shit, and still getting a good "concept compression ratio".
Basically, my impression on this is that words should describe the world, not determine it, as pointed out by sps.
I get more relaxed when it comes down to labels that are unambiguous, where you can say whether it applies or not with at least some level of certainty. If Bob is married to Julia, then Bob is a "husband". You can dig up the paperwork. I'm a male. You can check out my little Y in my chromosomes (I'm sure there's some transgender issue sensitive people reading this, just because I'm special that way, and to those, I'd point out I said "some level", there still fun to be had, no worries).
Stuff like "so-and-so is my girlfriend" get a whole lot looser and unclear. Even in the "normal" monogamous case, it's not exactly like there are Office of Lovers registration desks where such things can be laid down in black on white, but in my case, it's next to completely meaningless (confusing at times, but on the upside, "breaking up" becomes just as meaningless, so there!). At least, the normal people, they get to have some kind of talk at some point, where they say they won't be frolicking with other people (and then they proceed to do it anyway in about half the cases, eurgh). Or at least, they ought to, good communication and all (yeah, I live in a little fairy world sometimes, leave me alone!).
I was using the expression "favourite people", until not so long ago, to refer to a very specific, short list of people, that for all sorts of reasons, I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable calling "girlfriend", even for the purpose of communication with silly people. But then, what do you know, I was thinking of certain people who weren't on that list, and whether they ought to make it to that list, and I just couldn't think of what was involved in either making it in or out of that list. Basically, I had made up my own label, just as loose and stupid as others (but this one was my own special kind of stupid!). As further proof that I am not perfect.
To conclude, a quote from Herr Bargeld:
What I mean by positive is obviously the opposite [of negative], and precisely because I am not able to define this opposite perfectly even makes it more true. If I were able to define it, I would just be stating again that there is no escape, no exit, no other way out.