![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 17th, 2003
Labeling people
Jun. 17th, 2003 03:34 pmAfter reading an entry in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tallin's LJ (here) I pointed it out to griffen and suggested that he should try it. Discussion ensued. And that led to some thoughts I'm going to share.
Many people get *very* upset about "labelling" people. I can understand why. The LJ entry I point to above has lots of bad examples.
But labelling *is* useful. It saves time. The trick is that you have to remember that people only "sort of" fit the group characteristics. And when it's group that you don't get to pick (white, male, etc) the fit can be almost non-existent.
But as I told Griffen, it can be useful to look at what you think of when you here "so-and-so is X" when you are also X. And then consider how you *differ* from that image.
Then look at the way the general public would think upon hearing that. And you may pick up a few things worth trying when educating people about the group in question.
Still, I maintain that labels have their place. "She's blonde" will help someone recognize a person. And (if they have brains) suggest that blonde jokes *might* not be a good idea, at least not until you know them better (I've had blonde friends who *collected* blonde jokes!).
"He's gay" suggests that trying to set that person up as a date for your sister probably won't go over well (on the other hand, if you've got a *brother*...). But he's *not* necessarily going to like show tunes or have great fashion sense. :-)
And so on. Stereotypes and labels *can* supply useful information. But you have to realize that the map is not the territory. and that it may be *very* inaccurate.
tallin's LJ (here) I pointed it out to griffen and suggested that he should try it. Discussion ensued. And that led to some thoughts I'm going to share.Many people get *very* upset about "labelling" people. I can understand why. The LJ entry I point to above has lots of bad examples.
But labelling *is* useful. It saves time. The trick is that you have to remember that people only "sort of" fit the group characteristics. And when it's group that you don't get to pick (white, male, etc) the fit can be almost non-existent.
But as I told Griffen, it can be useful to look at what you think of when you here "so-and-so is X" when you are also X. And then consider how you *differ* from that image.
Then look at the way the general public would think upon hearing that. And you may pick up a few things worth trying when educating people about the group in question.
Still, I maintain that labels have their place. "She's blonde" will help someone recognize a person. And (if they have brains) suggest that blonde jokes *might* not be a good idea, at least not until you know them better (I've had blonde friends who *collected* blonde jokes!).
"He's gay" suggests that trying to set that person up as a date for your sister probably won't go over well (on the other hand, if you've got a *brother*...). But he's *not* necessarily going to like show tunes or have great fashion sense. :-)
And so on. Stereotypes and labels *can* supply useful information. But you have to realize that the map is not the territory. and that it may be *very* inaccurate.