Day 8: Label Me This, Label Me That

(I wrote this for one of my classes, but I felt compelled to share it here and hope it might elicit a response from those of you who should dare to read it. Comments are welcome. I wrote this not so much to answer questions but to perhaps pose new ones and hope that someone might be challenged in them to find truth for themselves. It is my most sincere hope that this insignificant essay be not a statement but an initiation of dialogue. Bless, y'all!)

What is man without his labels? It seems everywhere one turns in modern culture there is a new label or categorization employed to describe some aspect of a person’s identity. Modern psychology seems especially dedicated to the systematic classification and categorization of virtually every single thought pattern imaginable, aberrant or not. When I was growing up, a hyper kid who talked in class and seemed to have far more energy than they could possibly ever expend was just a kid with excess energy. Now, they suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD, or its more aggressive twin, Attention Deficit Hyper Disorder, ADHD. All of which has me wondering what came first: the disorder or the label? Labels comfort most people. They give a sense of belonging, an explanation for their own nature, a way of describing self. Yet to what extent does the label influence or even form self-identity? If a parent labels a child as ADD from an early age, will that child grow into the identity of ADD, or was the label merely giving a classification to what was already present within the self of the child? To answer these questions there must first exist a clear understanding of what the self, what identity, truly is and what extent language affects the formation and alteration of self identity. There must also be answered the question of whether or not this identity, the self, can be controlled, altered, and manipulated in any form. Can a person externally influence the self of another person? Can a person control, even change, self, their own identity? If language does influence identity and the self can be controlled by internal or external forces, then it would seem clear that labeling and self-categorization have formative effects on the identity of a person. In short, words can change who we are, or at least who we believe ourselves to be.

The nature of identity itself defies conventional categorization and definition. Psychologists and philosophers wage great wars and crusades to pin down the nature of identity and there has yet to be any consensus within those communities. Man struggles to give voice to his own essence, his being. This difficulty defining identity perhaps should give some inclination as to whether or not identity itself is directly influenced by language. If language cannot yet give a concrete explanation of what makes a person unique, why should anyone expect they could use language to explain themselves? Perhaps the true problem centers on the complex and often fluid nature of identity as opposed to the relatively less abstract nature of language.

Social Identity Theory in psychology teaches that identity is wrapped up tightly in socialization and group interaction. Any social group to which one feels a sense of belonging will mold an individual’s identity, creating a multi-faceted and highly complex reflection of the various social interactions of the individual. For example, if the individual joins a political group that defines itself as a liberal group, that individual will tend to begin to identify themselves as being politically liberal. Further, that individual will likely find a specific role identity within that group, typically by fulfilling some perceived need within the group or by applying their own perceived gifts and abilities toward some goal common to the group. This role identity helps solidify a sense of belonging within that group and further reinforces their identity with those other members of the political group. Yet a person’s role identity often changes within a group over an extended period of time. Role identities also vary greatly from one social group to another as can the language used to label those identities within each group.

How can a single word, a label, possibly hope to describe the many subtle nuances of an individual identity? I do not believe it ever can. This then raises yet another question: if a label can not adequately describe identity, why do we use them? From my own experiences and research, there seem to be two compelling answers. People frequently employ identity labels to aid communication of self amongst those who have little or no existing knowledge of, or relationship with them. These labels also control personal perception of the identity of both self and others.

In one of the top grossing movies of 1998, You've Got Mail, the Joe Fox character, played by Tom Hanks, makes a poignant revelation of modern life. He lucidly observes, “The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision-making ability whatsoever to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee. Short, tall, light, dark, caf, decaf, low-fat, non-fat, etc. So people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing or who on earth they are can, for only $2.95, get not just a cup of coffee but an absolutely defining sense of self: Tall. Decaf. Cappuccino. “ For all the advances in communication and the myriad new decisions we are faced with every day in modern society, we have become less equipped to communicate and less able to make decisions. We live in a culture that keeps us too busy to develop organic relationships. The result is the capsulizing of identity into key words we can quickly describe to another person. We cut to the chase to determine whether we perceive the relationship is even worth investing time and energy to cultivate, believing our time to be severely limited by the numerous demands of modern life. In the process, we run the constant risk of misinterpreting each other’s identities due to differences in the way we interpret each other’s language.

When do we become so submerged into our role identities that we actually miss an opportunity for an important personal connection with another individual? In You've Got Mail, the Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly characters spend most of the movie encountering each other in their social role identities, where they distrust and dislike each other, while simultaneously, and unwittingly, developing a very strong personal connection with each other on-line through email. Presumably, they bare more of their true self to one another outside the restrictions of their social role identities and find they actually have much in common, eventually developing a strong attraction and even love for one another. This narrative exposes a strange contradiction in the interaction between language and identity. The same person expressing themselves through language in their social role identity creates a very different perception than when they are expressing themselves through language via email, outside their social role identity. According to boxofficemojo.com, the movie grossed over $250 million worldwide, clearly touching on a subject easily identifiable to a wide audience. Could it be that our modern lives have become so dominated by socialization and role-based identities that we have lost our sense of self? Have we lost our ability to know ourselves beyond how we are known by others in our social groups? A quick search on Google of the term “personality test” would indicate the answer is yes. There are hundreds of different tests designed by men and women with numerous credentials for one purpose: to help you know who you are. Take the test, get your label, know yourself.

As often appears the case with identity, investigation into its nature creates more questions than answers. Perhaps that is the entire point. Identity may not be the destination at all. Identity may be the life-long journey of self-discovery, a process that ends only in death, and perhaps not even then. Whether we create labels to explain our identity or our identities mold themselves to the labels we give ourselves and others, one thing is clear: humans hate to be alone. If there were no other people to interact with and express ourselves to, then we would have no use for labels. Humans desire labels and role identities because they help give a sense of belonging. Labels provide a fast method of expressing self to others in a modern world where there is often little time allowed for the slow development of relationship and intimate interpersonal knowledge.