Labels are tricky. Our brains like things neat and tidy, and labels allow us to quickly group 'like' things together. And yet, we often over-identify with labels (either ones we have claimed ourselves or ones other people have slapped on us). We seem to forget that a label can apply to us but we are not the label (or at least the label isn't all we are).
I've seen a lot of different thoughts on labels, and the words by which we call ourselves, but to me, labels always remind me of stereotypes and first impressions. Most people think that stereotypes are harmful, and if you try to lock people into stereotype boxes, then yes, they definitely are harmful. But at the same time, we acknowledge that making a good first impression is important, because we understand how much that initial meeting flavors the rest of our interactions.
Both of those things stem from a very real and very useful survival mechanism. When we encounter something new, we have a split second to judge whether or not it is dangerous. We rely upon our first impression (which is mostly visual, though sometimes you can add in what is said or done in your first encounter with a thing or person). We then compare that information with our stored banks of categories (stereotypes), to help us decide if the new thing is good or bad.
Now, we live in a different world than our ancestors did. For most of us, meeting a new person isn't a life or death situation. I pretty much never think "is this person going to try to kill me?" when I meet someone, no matter how shady the situation is. But we still lean on this basic labeling information to tell us how to react to people.
Labels are a bit like nesting dolls. We sit inside a series of larger and larger labels. The ones closest to us are the most specific, and the ones further away are the most broad. For example, I am half-Chinese, which makes me part-Asian, which also makes me human and a living being. Any one of those labels are true, but at each level more and more 'other' things are excluded. If I just think of myself as a living being, I can look around and both the cats and the tree outside are the 'same' as me, while the chair I'm sitting on and the sky above me are different. But if I am thinking of myself as half-Chinese, I am different from a Japanese person, an Irish person, a full-blooded Chinese person, the cat, the tree, the chair and the sky.
By grouping things (by their labels) in our heads as 'same' or 'different' from ourselves, we create a range of distance between us. We are more likely to empathize with things we feel closer to, the ones we share more labels with, than those that are different.
Thee biggest problem arises when we allow those labels to be all we know about a thing. Labels are meant to be starting points, not ending points. They aren't circles we draw around ourselves declaring everyone inside the circle, those who are 'like' us, as our allies and everyone outside as enemies. Just because we don't share labels doesn't mean we can have deep and meaningful interactions.
And I feel like this problem arises because we rely to much on labels and we never recalibrate our understanding of a thing. Think about it like this. As a child, many of us didn't care too much for vegetables. When I think back on shared eating experiences, I think of school lunch, and I'll be honest, the vegetables we got in school lunches left a lot to be desired. If that is your formative experience with eating vegetables, you won't be favorably inclined when introduced to a new vegetable. Also, sometimes our first exposure to a thing isn't showcasing it in the best light. If my first experience eating Lima beans was to have them overcooked and somewhat gritty, I might decide I don't like them. They would go into the box in my brain for 'foods I don't like'. And if I assume that label is a Truth, I won't ever try Lima beans again, because I don't like them...right?
But this is why it's important to not limit ourselves with labels! Because sometimes, we try old things in new ways, and we love them. Or we start to realize that the labels we were working with are outdated, they were things we set up as children, and when we grew up, we just never went back. But even as adults, we can come to realize that labels are grouping tools, not hard Truth. Stereotypes are a trap, because of course all Lima beans aren't like the ones we had as a kid.
What we have to learn to do is acknowledge the meaning of the label, and then make sure we are actually seeing what is happening now. If I have had a lot of bad experiences with large dogs, I might be cautious every time I see one. But there are quite a few large dogs that are very gentle and friendly, and by treating them all as if they were viscous, I would be denying myself the opportunity to pet the nice ones. It is one thing to be cautious, because my past experiences would tell me that I was in a dangerous situation, when meeting a big dog for the first time...I might not want to rush forward and try to cuddle it. It's an entirely different thing to allow my labeling of the dog to make me avoid it entirely (or worse, treat it as if it's already attacked me).
The most important thing to remember, when thinking about labels, is that labels are useful but they don't define you (or anyone else). Labels allow us to group things together, but just as every orange in a bushel of oranges won't taste exactly the same (some might be sweeter, some might be sour, one might have rotten spots), not every thing we have clumped together in a label is the same. We have to start from the label, but then let our experiences in that particular moment guide us. Or else we are blinding ourselves to the possibilities!
