Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Karen
If you swept the streets in front of your home and made a living at it, then by e-prime standards, people would still not refer to you as a street sweeper. If you had gave out a card as a symbol of your career choice that clearly defined you as a street sweeper, then people could accurately call you a street sweeper.
|
I see that you think if someone self-identifies as a [blank], you consider that grounds for others to identify them as such.
I still feel troubled by the connotations of such an act, even regarding self-identification. I regard someone carrying a business card that defines them under some professional label as encouraging sloppy thought; it limits consideration of what other skills, capacities, and roles they might competently fill. Imagine if you met a 'janitor'. What would you assume about this person? A 'professor'? What if you found conversation with the 'janitor' far more engaging and insightful than the 'professor'? Would that surprise you? If so, what set up the assumptions that set the stage for perceptual bias? These considerations may not apply to you, but I find them ever present in my day to day life, as I interact with differing groups of people. If labels do indeed encourage bias, do we really need them? What do we need them for? Do they serve a similar obfuscating purpose as the verb "to
be" itself?
Quote:
|
If you engage in many activities and would like recognition for these activities, then you could tell people who observe you doing your tasks that in the morning I sweep streets, but by noon, I attend University as a student and in the evening I spend time with my wife and children.
|
Why would I self-identify as a student rather than a street-sweeper? Why do I need to self-identify as either? Could I just say 'I study at the University, I make my living by sweeping streets, etc.' and leave it at that? Certainly we factor 'convenience' in determining our use of labels, but sometimes 'convenient' means 'sloppy' or 'lazy' communication...do you know what I mean?
Quote:
|
From your copy, I read two different issues. One based on labelling and the other based on the action of the label.
|
Do you understand though, why I see the label as extraneous to the observation? How the action exists, but the label does not...how we use the label to pigeonhole someone's role/'identity' in an hierarchical society?
Quote:
|
I believe if you accurately label a person, the action will fall into place.
|
Can you really 'accurately label' anyone? I refer only to certain types of labels that tend to obscure perception...no one could consider labeling somebody 'french' as the summation of their skills and capacities in society, but to me calling someone 'police officer' renders you blind to the fact that the 'police officer' has a lot of talent for painting, or leadership, or sailing, or calculus, or...do you see what I mean?