Labeling People Oversimplilfies
Shows No Respect For Others
A label ... a word or short phrase descriptive of or classifying a person, group, movement, etc. — facilitates social and political communication. But because, like soundbites, it simplifies and therefore distorts complex realities, a label is often used to take sides in a conflict, to make one’s side all good (“patriot,” “hero”) and the opposing side all bad (“communist,” “religious nut,” “terrorist”).
The terms “reactionary,” “Conservative,” “liberal,” and “radical” illustrate these liabilities. These terms are often used as prejudicial labels to exalt (us) or demean (them). But, when you transform labels into definitions of the terms, understanding increases. Here is one way to define these often inflammatory terms which might produce more light than heat. Reactionary: One who believes in returning to the revered values of the past. Conservative: One who affirms the tried and true values of the present. Liberal: One who believes that past and present values need improving. Radical: One who would cut the roots of the discredited past and present in order to begin afresh.
Once we examine these powerful terms by these definitions, we perceive their complex historical relationships, thereby disabling them as easy weapons for victory over others. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union reaches far back in U.S. history for its foundation — to the Bill of Rights, while the Heritage Foundation advocates reform of the U.S. welfare system. A possible general effect of these and other dispassionate definitions in an increased respect for or, at least, toleration of diverse perspectives, because each is discovered not only to be more complex than we previously had thought, but each is discovered even possibly to possess some good.
Dick Bennett
Fayetteville