Labels as Limitations

[AmyJ]

2 weeks ago, our stake president came to speak to our branch. He focused on how labels can set up limiting perceptions. One of his examples deals with car stuff. Our stake president is a junior high English/History teacher by profession, he has self-described himself as “not a mechanic” and considers himself as having limited car fixing mechanic skills. So the car had something go wrong with it, and he has done enough car checks to narrow it down to the part that needed to be replaced. As he was fuming about taking it into the mechanic, his wife advised him if he knew what the problem was, he could probably find something on YouTube and fix it himself as a potential money-saving option. Since he labels himself as “not a mechanic”, he had not put in as much effort to learning how to fix cars, and thus had limited himself in this area. He gets the part and starts in on doing the repairs using YouTube as his guide – which was helpful. But because he “is not a mechanic” he ran into additional difficulties when what he saw in front of him was not what was presented on the video and goes back and reports to his wife. Eventually, the car gets fixed, and the stake president resolves to no longer label himself as “not a mechanic” but resolves to work on his mechanic skills.

SIDE NOTE: I hate being the wife getting a report on when things don’t go well mechanically. I feel worse then useless and it makes me want to tell the husband to “find the money and take it to a mechanic” because the angst and time/resource sink is always more then originally accounted for. I dwelt on this point for a while during his talk and might have missed something.

He also specifically notes that when we label ourselves as “sinners” or a specific sub-type of sinner, we can limit our perception of our ability to change, and form our own self-fulfilling prophecy.

I am glad that he spoke about this, and he gave a good talk overall.

BUT… I think there is more to the story (and maybe I missed it getting hung up on empathizing with his wife)…

In part, this was a trigger topic for me because as a superficial explanation, it was accepting a label that triggered the start of my faith transition.

I think that the problem is what to do with the labels we pick up throughout life and how we tend to treat others with labels or descriptions. Not every label is a death sentence or a final limitation. Not every label should induce a binary reaction of “or” – we should look for the “and” in how we talk to ourselves and how we talk to others. To throw the label/description process out entirely diminishes an opportunity to provide a short-hand summary of challenges being faced and can set us up for having personal unrealistic expectations that feed into a self-defeating prophecy cycle. A challenge of processing and accepting a label is that it can define us and limit us – and sometimes it shouldn’t.

GENERAL EXAMPLE:

“I’m an alcoholic and I believe in recovery. I attend weekly meetings and try to associate with like-minded people instead of hanging out in bars. I am becoming more educated on ways that I can manage the genetic hand I was given in terms of addictions while learning how to manage my family situations” is different then “I’m an alcoholic and I recently had a setback. I believe that through the Atonement, I can work with God to overcome this. I believe that God loves me and helps remind me to set myself up for success in the future in specific ways” or “I’m an alcoholic and I can never change”.

PERSONAL EXAMPLE:

“My brain wiring is different than others, and corresponds more with people described as having Asperger’s Autism then people who don’t have that description. In accepting this label, I became more aware of some of my limitations, which humbled me in some areas. I believe that this description for me is apart of God’s personal plan for me (or at least doesn’t cause cosmic issues) and it is something I can grow with. In accepting this label as a short hand for some common developmental delays associated with this type of brain wiring, I can judge my personal progress more effectively, and tailor my goals to what I can do. I can have Asperger’s Autism and be a mother, a solid employee, a strong student, a part-time philosopher, and a member of a community. I can learn how to read people better knowing this is a limitation of mine and I can ask trusted associates to help me in this area. I can accept responsibility for handling the perspective shift so that I go slowly and burn few bridges in learning how to deal with my new perception of myself and of the world around me.”

I think that his talk stuck with me because I am working through calibrating a label/description acceptance decision, and may have needed this perspective to re-align myself.

How has accepted a label changed your life?

What are some “best practices” you would recommend to others who are learning how to identify or re-identify themselves?

[Anonymous]

I am very skeptical of the intent of the SP. The last few years, one of the things that I have heard in the church is that gay people limit themselves by labeling themselves as gay. Instead that they should limit themselves primarily as children of God with varying unique struggles. Hypothetically, if we replace “not heterosexual” for “not a mechanic” in your SP’s story then the SP concludes by resolving to no longer label himself as “not heterosexual” but resolves to instead work on his heterosexual skills. Please take this with a grain of salt because I could be seriously wrong about the intent of the SP.

I believe that it is harmful to tell people that the labels by which they identify themselves are wrong. In regards to homosexuals I believe we do this not primarily to help them but to comfort ourselves – to avoid having to make any special room for them in our communities or our theology. It is to say that “you, as a class of people, do not exist”.

OTOH, I can theoretically see how labels can be both empowering and limiting. Child of God, man, business professional, husband, father, worthy, sinner, saint, Christian, Mormon. I do not feel like these labels hold me back in helping me form a positive self-identity.

Failure, reject, unworthy, sub-par, stupid, disabled, abnormal, crippled, fat, ugly and other negative labels could have a negative effect.

I do know that there is a movement within the disability community to use person first language. This is an effort to avoid perceived or subconscious dehumanization in discussing people with disabilities. Instead of saying “John is a disabled man” person first language would have us say “John is a man with disabilities.” In so doing, the intent is to identify the personhood of the individual and not the description.

Once again, the SP could have had the best of intentions and maybe I am reading this wrong. Perhaps he is decrying the harmful labels of “unworthy”, “porn addict”, “Smoker”, “disfellowshipped”, or “excommunicated” …. However I remain skeptical of this topic and others (religious freedom) from church sources.

[Anonymous]

Great post, Amy!

It reminded me of two different philosophies for how we view ourselves and others: Essentialism and non-Essentialism. Let’s take “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” for an example. In the story, A fawn named Mr. Tumnus one day happened to displeased the Witch very badly, and so the Witch turned him into stone.

[img=”https://78.media.tumblr.com/b0370514417cbe2be21841b1d73e44e2/tumblr_oaujkhzpz31u9i71jo1_400.gif”%5D[/img]

[img=”https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fb/d5/3a/fbd53a226b188ffdeedc5e2b0dba88b1.jpg”%5D[/img]

So the question is, is the stone statue Mr. Tumnus was turned into, still Mr. Tumnus? An essentialist would tend to say yes, a non-essentialist would tend to say no. Delving a bit further, it’s worth asking “Which characteristics are tied to a person’s identity and which are not?

Despite being sealed, I will never get to hold my newborn daughter again. She currently holds almost none of the same fundamental characteristics of her newborn self. Her identity used to be tied to her “newborn” state, but those traits are not all that make her who she was or is. She is therefore the same, and not the same, person she was when she was born. So what characteristics are essential to a person and which are not? In other words, which attributes of a person could you remove or change, and still have the person fundamentally remain the same?

This is why, I think, labels are especially harmful. For example, if I say “I’m such an idiot”, I am declaring “idiot” as an essential characteristic to my self. If I said “That was not a very smart thing to do”, “idiot” is not declared an essential characteristic to my self. Homosexuality is something the Church holds to be an “non-essential” characteristic. Someone can “struggle with same-sex attraction”, but in the end (whether in this life or the next) can be overcome. Person who deals with “same-sex attraction” can have that attraction removed or replaced, and still retain their self identity. Saying “I am gay” implies that it is an essential characteristics. If they had their homosexual attribute removed, they would no longer be who they are.

Sometimes, we want to use labels to cement our identity. That’s what gave “I’m a Mormon” such fantastic power as a campaign. “I am a cook”, “I am a snow border”, “I am a musician”, but also “I am a Mormon”. Other times, it hinders our ability to change.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Once again, the SP could have had the best of intentions and maybe I am reading this wrong. Perhaps he is decrying the harmful labels of “unworthy”, “porn addict”, “Smoker”, “disfellowshipped”, or “excommunicated” …. However I remain skeptical of this topic and others (religious freedom) from church sources.

As near as I can tell, his focus was on not taking labels on us as individuals – but especially harmful ones. I think his focus was on how our perceptions – our labels – shape our reality. He did not go into any other examples aside from his personal example of “non-mechanic” and how a person who labels themselves as a “sinner” might be limiting themselves from changing.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

This is why, I think, labels are especially harmful. For example, if I say “I’m such an idiot”, I am declaring “idiot” as an essential characteristic to my self. If I said “That was not a very smart thing to do”, “idiot” is not declared an essential characteristic to my self.

And that is why I have been coaching my husband for the past 6 years to identify the act instead of the child. For example, “You completed an unwise choice.” vs “You are a bad girl.”

dande48 wrote:

Sometimes, we want to use labels to cement our identity. That’s what gave “I’m a Mormon” such fantastic power as a campaign. “I am a cook”, “I am a snow border”, “I am a musician”, but also “I am a Mormon”. Other times, it hinders our ability to change.

I think that labels can be used to solidify parts of our core identity and provide a catalyst for action. I am not willing to throw the baby (the good parts of the label) out with the bathwater (the bad parts of the label) – but I am willing to ponder over the best practices to extract the baby from the bathwater.

When I started describing myself as a person with Asperger’s Autism, I learned/was reminded that my non-verbal communication skills are non-intuitive – everything I know about a non-verbal situation I gather the way that a doctor charts information about a patient. I learned how to tie information previously gathered about the person and previous situation, analyze body language from previous encounters, ask key questions (that are socially acceptable in that situation) and put it all together. My brain works to logically parse out whatever it is that most people intuitively understand.

I thought that “I used to have issues with socializing but I outgrew it”. The reality of the situation is that I did outgrow a lot of it, and can figure it out/bluff with the best of them – but it still impacts my relationships with people. It was when I began to humble myself and assume I did not have all figured out, but consult with my husband (who is socially intuitive sometimes even if he doesn’t like it) and trusted friends about situations. I also started being respectfully forthright with new friends about what the protocol is to resolve the times I won’t get it non-verbally. My marriage is stronger because we no longer assume that both of us are picking up all communications being sent non-verbally and we make verbal a lot of communications now.

[Anonymous]

This is probably an unpopular opinion these days…

I really don’t like this modern trend of medical diagnoses as tribal definitions..I know people.with various conditions, one with a genetic defect which severely affects his appearance, someone with albinism, numerous depressives, some schizophrenics, and yes some people with Aspergers, which seems to be quite prevalent. But as for people identifying as “Aspies” I can only see two aspects to that – learning how to live with it and campaigning for wider acceptance. All of these groups suffer persecution, discrimination and lack of support in society, but as a personal identity? Not so sure. I suffer from a number of issues myself which have severely affected my life. But I’m not thst interesting in hanging labels round my neck and hanging out with people who have the same neurological issues. I’m more interested in culture and experience.

[Anonymous]

I’m not a fan of labels. The issue with them is that they are always a generalization, putting an individual into a group. I get why this is useful when one is working with groups, but since am an individual, I prefer to think of myself as me and not as myself as part of a group.

This is exactly why I’m not a follower of Fowler. The “stages of faith” are a great way to understand general trends among people like us, yet as a person like us, I’ve come to recognize that my FC/FT is unique, just as yours is or anyone else on this site. By not following someone else’s perception of how a FC/FT should proceed, I’ve been able to let it take me to a peaceful place; one that continues to shift and turn, and I don’t have any reason to compare myself to anyone else or to anyone else’s notions.

From a golden-rule perspective, I try to recognize that others are individuals as well. Spiritual Profiling is unfair. I never use the term ‘TBM’ for the same reason that I don’t want people calling me an ‘apostate’. I have known lots of LDS people who are first-rate people and not at all burdened by the faults we tend to ascribe to the Church.

I have known jerks within every ‘group’ of people. But I have come to realize that most people are wonderful. Most people exhibit good and kind and compassionate behavior. Most people smile more than they frown. Most people will help a stranger if needed. We have a strong inner desire to assign people to groups and to assume that people that are not in ‘our’ groups are bad people.

[Anonymous]

I suppose in the most general sense labels are tools. Labels can be utilitarian and descriptive, limiting and confining, they can raise a person up or hold them down. Labels can create communities or divide them.

On Own Now wrote:

This is exactly why I’m not a follower of Fowler. The “stages of faith” are a great way to understand general trends among people like us, yet as a person like us, I’ve come to recognize that my FC/FT is unique, just as yours is or anyone else on this site.

Yes, all models have limitations. However, I remember the relief I felt when I first found these models (fowler and a description of assumptive world collapse). I knew that a) I was not going crazy, b) I was not being deceived by Satan into a destructive downward spiral, and most important c) that I was not alone.

We will never escape from labels (just look at pronouns – he, she, it) therefore we should attempt to use them for maximum benefit (ethically speaking). I believe it is very important to listen to individuals in their positive and self-described identifying labels. They have the right to tell their own story. As long as they are not hurting others then we should be very careful about diminishing, dismissing, or discrediting another individual’s or group’s narrative.

[Author]

Posts