Musings on Labels

I've given thought lately to our use of labels in society and how this affects our perceptions of things, mainly other people.

Most of our labels have a moral message hard-coded into them. When somebody uses a term like "racial prejudice", "hate crime", "homophobic" or "anti-Semitism" it's pretty clear how they feel about the word they're using. It's a shortcut of sorts and sends a pretty clear message about the person described by the term.

But some terms don't behave in this way. "Ethnic cleansing" or "purification" must be understood ironically from the point of view of those doing the "cleansing". We don't agree with the concept embodied by the neutered term, but the harsher, more correct term - "genocide" - carries a more appropriate, powerful punch that not all may find comfortable.

My favorite labels are the more ambiguous ones: "Democrat or Republican" doesn't usually provoke strong reactions, but the more vicious "liberal or conservative" labels or anything that ends in "-winger" vary in meaning considerably depending on where you stand and how eager you are to demonize an entire political opposition. Use of these labels almost single-handedly guarantees that other political stripes won't exist, as everybody in our country must be part of an imaginary two-sided "culture war" that nobody can opt out of.

"Culture war." That's another one. The more you use it, the less you need to think about the issues and the easier it is to sound like you know what you're talking about when you call talk radio hosts.

Somebody who crosses the border without filing, jumping through all of the hoops and waiting a decade to help their family find breakfast each morning is an "illegal immigrant" or even an "alien", but somebody who gets paid to fly across the entire world and smash up a country is considered a hero fighting for our freedom (keep in mind that I'm using different language for purposes of analyzing our perception, not necessarily making moral judgments about each and every soldier or illegal migrant worker).

Furthermore, a cheater on a test isn't considered an "illegal student". People who speed and don't pay attention aren't "illegal drivers" even though they're putting lives at risk and aren't contributing to society like the "aliens" we vilify.

So - my question. Do labels come from meaning or do we create meaning from our labels?

The Shaky Role of Patriotism

After a couple of inside-jokey, stream-of-consciousness posts I've decided to let loose the dogs of war and unleash an issue I've been mulling over for more than a few months: the role of patriotism in our society. As the graphic above implies, I speak specifically to my resident nation, and more generally to the rest of the world. I will be taking a harsh, though hopefully not cynical, examination of the attribute of patriotism (nationalism) and its possible effects on society.

As a society we value character qualities and "proper" emotions within individuals. Qualities like bravery, kindness, courtesy and respect are celebrated for their positive effects on society and individuals, while "negative" qualities such as jealousy, anger or apathy are widely condemned for negative effects on others and, by extension, by society as a whole.

So where does patriotism stand? Many of us celebrate this quality without any real personal regard for what it means; certainly most would define it as a "love" of one's country or a willingness to uphold one's land of birth as a standard or value in and of itself. Millions of people throughout recorded history have sacrificed their livelihood or died in the service of their nations (tribes, clans) - often on different sides of the same conflict, and for dozens of causes and goals.

So who's right? Can everybody be right?

In fact, we're so inclined to think of patriotism as an end in itself that we often ignore the difficult questions that it poses: Just what is a "country" anyway? Tracts of land of various size, divvied up with negotiated borders over the years, decades or centuries by people in power that we've never met? What if the occasion arises wherein my patriotism and that of another fall in direct conflict? If we're both killing each other under different banners, which "patriotism" is a greater good, and which is pushing its possessor toward positive, beneficial acts? Who holds the moral high ground here: myself or my foe? It seems unintuitive to state that both can claim that right simultaneously.

There's the rub. And it's exactly where we always run into trouble: as with other emotions or character qualities (greed, jealousy, anger, desperation), patriotism cannot be evaluated merely as a static, positive attribute that one can have in quantities, but as a state of mind which should lead the bearer toward positive actions. For every bonafide died-in-the-wool "patriot" who attempts, out of love, to preserve that which is positive in his country through the pen or the sword, there's a slackjawed, incoherent bigoted wreck of an individual who uses patriotism as an accomplice to ignorance and a shield to hate, hate, hate anybody with a different origin. Like any other emotion, patriotism is best evaluated rationally and not emotionally.

To sum it up: Inasmuch as patriotism encourages good behavior, it's good. If the pursuit of patriotism encourages you or your country to participate in something oppressive, evil or hateful, it's bad. It's funny how much we can learn when we contextualize these things.

Blind patriotism can be extremely volatile - patriotism and national identity are often invoked most strongly during times of war (mobilization against some outside foe) or gross actions of government leading to loss of personal liberties (specific examples of this in just my country are so widespread that it would be redundant even to discuss them here). Patriotism is always invoked during the most disgusting, invasive acts of government, the same acts that a real love of your country would lead you to oppose. Tolerating oppression under the guise of patriotism and national identity is not something to be celebrated.

Some individuals even invoke patriotism to excuse bad behavior, or to judge a man or woman by their indulgence in shallow symbols or effluent, empty praise of the motherland. I shouldn't have to tell you that this ain't right.

Because of the volatile nature of patriotism, I suggest that we take a break from it for some time and evaluate how much we're really doing for people, and how much we're able to look past labels like country and nation and see people. Lose the blinders labels create and really help your country by staying true to principles of freedom and basic human respect. Invoke any good and just principles that serve as the foundations of your country, but never use patriotism as an excuse to support something that will limit your freedoms or destroy your country's goodness (or its moral authority, "soul", etc.).

Americans love those that "died for their country" because they upheld the Bill of Rights and principles of freedom, saving millions of people from death at the hands of those with ignoble motives. Anybody who would twist their deaths into shallow sacrifices for some tract of geography is either opportunistic or evil.

Musings

Fear Factor's probably cancelled by now, but if there's still time for a new host the show's producers had better do a thorough psychological evaluation on him,* just to make sure he won't abuse his power.

After the remaining contestants have just been dragged by a horse through broken glass or something, the new host leads them into an empty room, before the camera crew and producers have had a chance to catch up, and suddenly gets extra professional:

"All right, everybody. Third challenge, for the million dollars. Poop your pants."

Uniform looks of disbelief all around. He looks at his watch.

"Ten seconds, for the million dollars. Get pooping. Nine, eight, seven, six . . ."

They might think that he's probably joking, but once you get that far, you're not going to take the chance. They'd probably have to move the real third challenge's shooting back a day, so that everybody has a chance to shower.


*I'm assuming for the purposes of this exercise that the new host would be mail. Any female celebrity's career would be killed by association. Boo, Hollywood sexism!