I guess one issue I have with what we have been talking during this class is that everything must have a label applied to it. We are constantly hearing that someone is liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, republican, democrat, black, white, Asian, and so on. We are also being constantly hounded about needing to conform to society, but isn’t this only due to have a label affixed to a person. If were truly without label then we would not have something to conform to and we would be free to be our own person and to make our own choices. Now I accept that we do have labels for a reason, it is a way of identification our association within a particular group. It is when we make that identification the sole statement of a person or the only way we identify with that person that it goes too far. For example, I am studying at a college so I am a student, but to say that due to my being a student means that I voted within a certain political affiliation is wrong. This is what we heard in the last presidential election, it was widely proclaimed that due to someone being a student they were going to vote for Barack Obama. Maybe I did and maybe I didn’t, if I did was it because I am a student, or did I look at both candidates and choose who I thought would be best for the job? If I voted for McCain was it due to me being a conservative, or was it because I once again thought he was the best man for the job? Applying a label in this case would be wrong as according to both labels I should have voted for both.
Another problem with these labels is that they are often oversimplified: labeling sexual orientation as gay, straight, or bisexual makes it seems as if those are the only three options, and everyone fits neatly into one of those categories. The same with liberal, moderate, and conservative.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I completely understand your voting example--is saying that most students voted for Obama the same as saying most students voted for Obama because they were students? Or, that a student "should" have voted for Obama?
It might also be worth exploring if there is a difference between labeling an individual and labeling a community (especially if you're looking at the efficacy of using labels to predict or explain behavior.) Certainly, I can't assume that everyone who votes for McCain is a conservative (that's a logical fallacy)--but if I attended a conservative political rally, would it be safe to assume most people there voted for McCain?
During the campaign many news agencies came out and said that "Obama has captured the student vote." I take that statement and their use of it to mean that they are implying all college students would vote for Obama, and by me being a student I would vote for Obama.
ReplyDeleteAs for merely attending a political rally I would say no, you are not predetermined to be voting for that candidate or group. You could be a member of the press corps or a member of the opposing party watching and learning what is going on. Now if I saw you wearing a McCain shirt, holding a McCain placard, and with idol worship in your eyes when he walks on stage then I would say there is a pretty fair chance you would vote for him.
O.K. I take "captured the student vote" to mean that he won that demographic--any thoughts from anyone else on how this statement can be interpreted?
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not sure you understood my last question--I didn't ask if I would be predetermined to vote for McCain because I attended a conservative political rally. My question is: Could I assume that most (not each and every one) of the other people there voted for McCain? If I spoke at the Republican National Convention, would I be able to tailor my speech for that audience based on assumptions of what they support? Ultimately, I'm asking if there is anything that can be learned or understood about people by examining their social class, gender, race, geographical location, etc.? Are we influenced in meaningful ways by these things, or do we make all of our decisions, and develop all our values and beliefs, independent of them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion regarding labels that bring a couple thoughts to mind.
ReplyDeleteOne is how labels are in some cases functional. Admittedly this is a more narrow idea of labels than previously discussed, but when I walk into a store and see a person with a nametag, I am going to expect them to be an employee of the store and hopefully able to be able to answer a question. When walking into a McDonald’s, I label the person behind the counter an employee and I expect that person to play a specific role in buying food from the store. Without the label and the expectations for interaction with the McDonald’s employee, buying food would become something of an adventure.
The second thought is how people start to behave when they start to identify themselves with a label. In political affiliations as an example, I have seen friends initially start preferring one candidate over another for a rather limited scope of reasons. The fascinating thing is how a person may then start changing some of their opinions on other topics so that they more closely align with the candidate’s platform. A person may just change their mind and that is well within their rights. However, it is interesting regarding the timing of the change and that the change brings their thoughts more closely in alignment with the label.