Name Calling
Labeling people is a normal human activity. Labeling gives us the ability to cluster our experiences and talk in generalities. As much as we might like to treat each person in her or his uniqueness or marvel at the beauty of each leaf, uncovering each uniqueness would exhaust our available time and fill our mind with excess detail. Both would cause reflection, reason and intelligent conversation to come to a grinding halt. So, placing people in categories is essential, even if such categorization squeezes individuals into narrower groupings than reality warrants.
However, there is a difference between labeling for description and for denigration. To denigrate, we label by identifying the characteristics people have in common—skin color, sexual orientation, religious identification, ethnicity, body shape—and then we assign other, more derogatory, characteristics. This we call prejudice—literally, the ‘pre-judging’ of others—so that we attribute identical characteristics to all individuals who belong to a particular group. Growing up in any society inculcates persons into thinking of categories such as us-them, men-women, Jew-Christian-Muslim, conservative-liberal, to mention some of the more familiar labels.
Working in the area of religion, I am aware of our own need to cluster and categorize. For example, the words fundamentalist/conservative and liberal are used to designate the two common sides of belief and practice. They also are used for self-identification and as a way of speaking pejoratively about others. It needs to be noted that a significant problem with the use of these designations is that they cast too wide a net, collecting a disparate variety of people and beliefs.
To acknowledge this and to be more descriptive, I have developed two acronyms for my own use—F-E-COTs and LAHRS. F-E-COTs (the dashes are for pronunciation) are a way of speaking about the diversity of believers on the religious right: fundamentalists-conservatives-orthodox-evangelicals-traditionalists. For those on the religious left, I use the acronym LAHRS: liberal-atheist-humanist-rationalist-secularist.
These acronyms are awkward, and they pull together individuals who might glare at being lumped with others in their category, but the classification does help me keep in mind the diversity that now goes under the overly-broad labels of fundamentalist/conservative and liberal. Of course, one drawback to these designations is that each time I mention F-E-COTs and LAHRS, I have to explain what I am talking about, and that diverts the conversation from the subject to the meaning and appropriateness of the labels. Nevertheless, even if not used by others, I find the acronyms helpful for my own thinking.
Already, though, I am finding the acronyms F-E-COTs and LAHRS inadequate in discovering a new phenomenon—individuals who encompass elements from both sides: the theology of F-E-COTS and the social concern of the LAHRS. These are individuals who believe in a literal Bible and adhere to a pre-Copernican theology while, at the same time, firmly working toward GLBT (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender), abortion and environmental rights. Now, by what name should I call them? A single word is needed to avoid speaking two-or-three descriptive sentences.
It may be a bit confusing to have individuals who do not fit into our easy categorization or ‘name calling.’ However, that is a reminder of the frailty of any generalization—no category can fully encompass the totality of even one human being, much less the bubbling, fermenting diversity of life itself.
Bob Tucker
February 2010
That was a good article,You learn something new every day.
Well, I just got to this. b.