I was in a lecture today, being taught about Oedipus Rex and the context in which it was written. The lecturer, incidentally a former student of the uni, started to talk about how the text was relevant to different groups of people today, even though it was written 2500 years ago; one of those groups was, verbatim, "us [the class] as intellectuals".Anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality—anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank!George Carlin
I've been thinking about this for a while: this idea of labelling people with a certain defining attribute or personality trait. I think it's kind of ignorant. I am not just an 'intellectual'; I am a human being who does a lot more than think. Yes, I'd like to think of myself as intelligent, but does that mean my intelligence defines who I am? I don't think so. I guess if the label isn't seen as exclusive—i.e., I am an intellectual among other things, then it's a non-issue—but, so often in our world, we're quick to judge. I'm not trying to remove myself from the issue either; I do the very same. More often than not, when I watch videos criticising religion, something along the lines of "Stupid Christians..." or "Fucking Muslims..." goes through my head, even though the fault of whatever issue is at hand cannot possibly be attributed to every single member of the faith in existence—that's premature judgement, plain and simple.
And, for the linguistic manipulator, that's what labels are for: instigating instantaneous judgement unto a person based on a particular quality or aspect of that person's life or personality, and the stereotypes we have attributed to said qualities and aspects—when a mere adjective turns into a sole classification. Don't bother looking into the rest of their persona—we have the answer right here! We did the work for you! Ain't we a swell bunch? And in this world of access-on-demand impatience, people go along with it because it's the easier route. People take everything they get and question nothing, even when it's a sceptic feeding them the opinions.
Thing is, from what I see, people are just arrogant. We like that feeling of judgement, whether delivering the judgement (basically all a stand-up comic really does :P) or merely asserting it without having done the actual work. So commonly, I see people always asserting themselves and searching for avenues to superiority, even if it's only partial superiority. There's such a fine line between "I made this. I think it's pretty good :)" and "I made this. Isn't it awesome? It's so awesome. I'm awesome." It's such a small step now from acknowledgement to bragging.
I'm getting off topic :P
I don't want to see people through this label framework. I want to see people as individuals, not part of some autonomous collective. I don't want to see my friends who are Christians as my "Christian friends", but I so often do. Recognising their faith is a good thing, a sign of respect through acknowledgement of their beliefs; but does that religiosity alone separate them from my "non-Christian friends"? I don't think so. I mean, my friend group, while mostly irreligious, has at least one Christian I can confirm, and one or two who are part of families where some people are religious, even if it's to a very small degree. We're all friends, and more often than not, we put this shit aside and just hang out, so how does anyone's religiosity (or lack thereof) come into play here? It just doesn't. Sure, they might bring up a point of view in discussion that's based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that they remain part of a friend group with beliefs ranging from "raised as a Christian from birth" to "religion had no part in my upbringing whatsoever and plays no role in my life at the present time".
That's another thing that gets me with labels: their use on children and the effect that has. Let me get one thing straight: as far as religious institutionalisation goes, I think it to be child abuse, pure and simple. It's intellectual rape: you're depriving your child of a well-rounded point of view and systematically fucking their ability to make informed decisions. No parent in their right mind would do that. I have no problem with religious education, so long as it's balanced with education on other perspectives; but, of course, most religious parents simply indulge in the former, not even considering the latter. If your God is so fucking amazing, you can have faith in respecting your child's intelligence and their ability to find their own way to your God.
That said, children raised in a religious household oftentimes refer to themselves as Christian or Catholic or Hindu or whatever else, even when they're not really religious at all! I've seen people who 'identify' as being part of a particular faith when they don't really believe in the actual doctrines, read the scriptures, attend services, or anything else you kind of have to do to actually be religious. If you're not sure of what you believe yet, that's fine, but don't just photocopy your parent's label and stick it to your own forehead—that's just fucking lazy. You have to work this shit out, do some research, figure out what you actually believe in before you start calling yourself anything. You have to investigate the arguments for and against the existence of god (in the broad sense of the term), determine the accuracy of sets of scriptures, and come to a conclusion about your beliefs before you tout them. You can change those beliefs at any time—you could see things differently later down the track—but you have to find your own set of beliefs rather than just parroting what your parents believe in.
This inaccuracy is what makes stuff like the Census tell a different story to the one that's actually true. It doesn't matter if 66% of Australians identify with some version of Christianity—who cares? If you want to know who's actually Christian, it's far better to go off church-attendance figures, statistics regarding belief in the Bible and its verisimilitude, participation in religious rituals and public events, shit like that. Who you are is defined far stronger by what you do than what you say.
The same could be said for nationalities and ethnicities: just because you're from Country X doesn't mean you'll act in a certain way. It might mean you were raised in a different culture and have different values, but that's the keyword: might. Racism stems from not giving those of different nationalities the benefit of the doubt, shunning them before they have a chance to demonstrate what they as an individual believe is right and what they do in society. And if your parents were from a different country to the one you were raised in, but you were raised predominately in the country you still live in, what fucking difference does it make? In most cases, influence in identity surely extends far beyond one's parents and kin in general.
Politics is another area where labels come into play all too frequently. Everyone's a 'left-winger' or a 'right-winger', a 'liberal' or a 'conservative', a 'libertarian' or a 'socialist'. I don't classify myself under any of these labels, for two reasons. 1: I'm not educated in political issues enough to make a decisive judgement (I don't keep up with political news anywhere near as much as I should), and 2: my judgement on an issue depends not on which side of the proverbial scale it falls, but on the findings of my investigation into the specific issue itself. I would say I'm generally left-leaning, but I don't support any left-wing branch of politics (does Australia even really fucking have that? :P).
Like, get this: our Labor party is (as 'liberal' as it really gets over here) opposes, in our bipartisan political reality, the Liberal party... who, might I add, aren't liberal at all; they're definitely conservative. That's right: in Australia, you can even get away with lying even in the title of your political party :P Anyway, a few years back, the communications minister for the Labor party introduced legislation that proposed mandatory censorship of the Internet at ISP level across the country. I don't agree with that at all; it violates what I see as a basic entitlement to freedom of speech and access to information, not to mention how much this would cripple our already substandard digital infrastructure—intercepting data and scanning it to verify its status as 'permissible content' at ISP level has been shown to slow transfer speeds to a halt. Yes, our government is also planning a to implement the National Broadband Network (replacement of existing copper wiring with fibre-optics), but throwing a mandatory filter over that is like constructing a 50 lane highway but only opening a toll booth in one lane. This isn't dumb as a proposition with conservative aims, nor as a proposition coming from our left-wing of politics; it's just dumb as an idea. I can't use that legislation to trash either party in any other area; that makes no sense.
Might I also add that, metaphorically, you need both a left wing and a right wing to fly a plane; and, it doesn't matter what side of the plane you sit on because it's always the same two people in the cockpit. Elect who you wish; regardless, the plane goes where the pilot fucking wants it to go :P
Even on a personal level, this can get to me. Not only was I classified today as an 'intellectual', but I also like to think of myself as a 'comedian' and a 'writer'. In the same way that going around saying you're an 'intellectual' can be a little arrogant, I think the same of going around calling myself a 'comedian'. In the dictionary sense, a comedian is simply someone who engages in the formation and delivery of comedy, regardless of their level of skill or success. But so many people think that to be called a comedian, you have to be good at it—you have to be funny. I've gotten plenty of laughs, and my comedy videos are proof of that, but I still think it a little cocky to say to people "Yeah, I'm a comedian.", because then, for all I know, I'm now expected to be funny in conversation, or I have an implicit 'joke quota' these people want me to meet, or some silly shit like that. I always refer to myself as an 'amateur comedian' because while it's true that I tell jokes with some level of success, I also have a lot of fucking work to do before I'm anywhere near the likes of Robin Williams, Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle, Jim Jefferies, Steve Hughes—the people we know are comedians. Once I get there (if I get there at all), then I'll just be a comedian for I will have thoroughly proved myself to be beyond amateur in nature.
For now, though, I'm just a human being. Who needs to go to class :P
i think this is my favourite post of yours that i've read. not saying i agree with it all but it did make me think.
ReplyDeleteabout the idea of people labelling and making judgements of each other straightaway, maybe it's just people being assholes but in psych, we're actually learning about how people do that. there are things called schemas which are in our brains and allows us to make inferences aka judgements of things, without much information or evidence. like if we walk into a bar and see a guy slumped over with a glass in front of him, we'll assume he's had a lot to drink and who knows, probably an alcoholic, though we've never seen him take a drink. but it's evolutionary, we need all that judgement and information that we put on things without direct evidence because it allows us to evaluate situations quickly. like when we ask, how is it that people are so naturally able to understand how to act in social situations, especially went it can be so ambiguous? because of schemas, we have expectations of how we/others should act and it allows for social cognition. (sorry, that was week1 psych, i was just trying to see how much i could remember since it seemed vaguely relevant.) just trying to point out that i dont think people always put labels on others just to be singlemindedly judgemental.
about people putting labels on themselves, i disagree with you there, esecially about religion. personally, i think its fine for people to label themselves however they want without other people policing them for it. I don't think there is particularly a wrong way to express religion. attending church is one way i suppose, and maybe this is just me being a cop out but i think it's completely legit to call yourself one religion or another as long as thats what you think you believe in. i mean, especially with religion of all things, its not really about actions, its about spirituality and your 'relationship with god.' maybe for some people its more outward, wearing crosses, going to church every week, but for others, its just praying or simply not crossing off the possibility that god could exist. if people identify on the census as christian, then they probably are christian. personally i think its a bit of an outdated question to ask. i ticked athiest on the census, just because i'd rather the government think there are more athiests than christians out there, but i think the question is really just saying 'do you believe in a christian god and associated things?' not, are you a hardcore churchgoer because that's the only kind of religious that counts.' if being raised catholic means i still have enough faith left to question the existence of god rather than dismiss it outright, then i think i have to right to claim that label.
i think my point was just basically, i don't think people should police/judge the way other people identify themselves.
Glad to know I provoked some thought -- your comment did the same for me.
DeleteI know people make inferences -- we have to, otherwise we'd investigate every single little thing, which isn't viable -- but I'm more referring to people who take inferences way too far. Say we go back to the example you mentioned of the guy slumped over at the bar. That's a really specific example, so I'd agree with the proposition that he's almost certainly had too much to drink, and agree that he might be an alcoholic; what I'm trying to say is it's not right, in my view, to continue making inferences of judgement that extend so far as "he's an alcoholic, therefore he doesn't love his family/is a bad person/is beyond help", stuff like that. Without knowing the individual, that judgement can't really be made. You could think those things to be *possibly* true if statistics line up with such hypotheses, but I guess I'm saying there's a point where it stops being rational to continue judgement without evidence.
As for religion, I guess you're right, there's no real 'right' way to express religion. Kind of went against my own argument stating that religious people had to act a certain way to be religious, lol :P I think that idea came from me seeing statistics a while back where, for a particular country somewhere (might be Australia, can't remember), where the number of people who identified as Christian was higher than the number of people who believed in God, and that just messed with my head because I'm sure that believing in God was kind of central to being Christian in the first place. But, as you've said, you can be sceptical and still have enough faith to believe somewhat. With that, however, there are terms that exist to describe such a belief -- being on the fence about God is being agnostic, so to me, that's more accurate. With what you said about being raised Catholic leading you to have enough faith left to question God's existence, it isn't your raising alone that's left you sceptical. Your position is, at least partly, a result of your own investigation, which means it's your belief that you formulated through your own thought. I'm talking about people who go "my parents said this so I'm going to believe it without questioning it at all" -- that's just parroting.