Labeling:
"The pretty one, the pretty one" -
They said, "you'll be the pretty one."
Perhaps they said it all in fun,
but 'twas a label she would shun.
They said, "Don't waste your time with art -
you ought not scribble, you're too smart."
But she intoned, with all her heart,
"My passion is creating art."
They said, "My dear, you're too intense!
So much emotion makes no sense."
And she replied, "In my defense
my feelings are of relevance."
They'll call you "silly", "loud" or "gay",
a "poor sport" when you will not play,
a "whiner" if things aren't your way;
"successful" when your life's okay.
Some labels stick, that's very clear,
but others simply won't adhere -
perhaps the wearer shows no fear
and strips them off when they appear.
No label easily defines;
each person many traits combines.
When strengths and talents one entwines
all labels fall - uniqueness shines.
By Sharon Flood Kasenberg, January 15, 2015
So what's wrong with being labeled "Pretty"?
Well, nothing - unless that's the only way you're perceived. But all too often, women (especially) are acknowledged to be "pretty" or "beautiful" and aren't allowed to be anything else. Society has a bit of a double standard where the sexes are concerned. A handsome man is more likely to be given credit for being intelligent than an attractive woman. Thus "pretty" can be a label that is as potentially limiting as it is complimentary.
As a small child I was cute. In my family I was perceived as "the cute one" - "the baby". For five and a half years I wore those labels. Then my baby brother was born, and whatever notions I had about my own cuteness quotient were blown to smithereens. He was, undoubtedly, far cuter than I was. His newborn rosy cheeked perfection couldn't be competed with. Furthermore, kindergarten had demonstrated that cute little girls were a dime a dozen. By the time I was six I knew that I'd need to be more than "cute" to make my way in the world. So, the way I see it, you'd have to be less self aware and more of a narcissist than the average six year old to be content to sail through life on your looks alone.
Labels - even those that are perceived as being complimentary - are limiting. There's no reason why the "smart" kid can't be the "nice" kid AND the "good-looking" kid. For that matter, that same "smart" kid may be a "troubled kid" too. We all merit more than a one word synopsis, but in our fast paced world we want to be able to take a quick look and categorize.
Negative labels are especially damning. In grade five I had a teacher who had me pegged as "a trouble-maker" from the get go. I had never been perfectly behaved, but I'd certainly never been seen as a disciplinary problem either. Still, Mr. "Snave" took one look at me and decided that I was a bad seed. I got detention after detention, which my parents found a little surprising. Since he was also the Vice Principal at my public school (which necessitated his being out of the classroom fairly often) the class could get pretty rowdy when his absences were prolonged. Somehow Snave could walk into a class of thirty kids, twenty-five of whom were talking, and only hear the same five voices every single time. (He even dubbed us his "After Four Club". Oddly, most of the kids who really did have disciplinary problems managed to not be in this "club" - go figure.)
The sad part of my story about Snave is that as my years of interaction with him went on I did become one of those kids with a bit too much attitude. His undeserved label actually became its own self-fulfilling prophecy. I figured that if I was going to be punished anyway, I might as well do something to deserve it from time to time! That's when I began to understand that people sometimes do live down to the negative expectations that labels place on them.
Labels stick. Consider what I'll call the "Parable of the Mean Dog".
Johnny sees a big dog that growls at him. (The dog actually growled at him because another kid, about Johnny's age, had hit it with a rock. But Johnny doesn't know this, and isn't well versed in animal psychology anyhow.) So he tells his friends that the dog is mean.
His friend Mike doesn't believe him, because he knows the guy who owns the dog. Johnny is upset about not being believed. He wants to be right! (Maybe it doesn't occur to Johnny that this is the case, but it is.) So he tells Mike to come with him after school and he'll prove that the dog is mean. Off they go after school. The dog is sleeping behind a chain link fence. Johnny yells to wake the dog up. The dog lifts a wary eye, and goes back to sleep. Johnny pokes the dog with a stick, and the animal shifts it's position. Johnny pokes the dog again - hard.
The dog wakes up and growls at the boys - and Johnny (now vindicated) says,
"See? I told you that dog was mean."
That's another problem with labels. None of us want to wear them, but most of us want to put them on others. Sometimes, like Johnny, we want to be perceived as someone who is good at labeling.
"I had him figured out the first time I met him" we'll say proudly.
If you're good at reading people I mean no insult. (I'm good at reading people too.) But the guy who takes pride in labeling won't just store gained perceptions in his or her brain. This individual will feel the need to share their labeling finesse with the general populace. If anyone disagrees that they "pegged it right" they will feel the need to prove themselves right. And in the process of "poking the dog" they might achieve the satisfaction of having some of their less flattering labels validated. Nobody likes to be poked, and if you weren't grumpy, mean or unkind before that label adhered, you just might be after the prodding takes place.
Then you'll have a hard time getting rid of the label. You can yank it off and toss it in the trash, but that glue really adheres, and try as you might you could be wearing the leftover sticky residue for a long time.
That gluey residue might make the child you decided was "the pretty one" feel that she has to work harder to be taken seriously and be seen as someone who has talents and thoughts and feelings.
The truth of the matter is that nobody deserves to be quickly summarized, or to have a label slapped on their back. Every one of us is an individual comprised of all kinds of traits, experiences and abilities. People don't need to be neatly sorted into categories like "attractive" or "intelligent" or "amusing", let alone boxed in negatively by the words " mean" or "fat" or "stupid". I'd even take it so far as to say that none of us should be seen as merely "gay" or "straight" or "Catholic" or "Mormon".
As for race, I've had the experience where some over-the-top politically correct person has described every single feature of a person in order to avoid telling me the individual was black. And when I finally figured out who they were talking about I thought, "Why didn't you just make it easy and say he was black, since he's the only black guy in the room?" I'm just practical that way. Besides, I have no objection to being referred to as white, or a redhead. Those are obvious physical traits, not affixed labels. Still, I completely agree that nobody should be stigmatized on the sole basis of skin color or hair color (and as fair haired person I can say I don't appreciate blond jokes at all).
We are all more than how we look.
We are all more than our greatest talent and more than our biggest failing.
We are all more than how we acted during our most negative exchanges, or during our standing ovations.
We are all more than "smart" or "funny" or "kind" or "difficult".
Describing someone is one thing, but sticking them with a single, one word summary is another.
Put away that DYMO label-maker, and dig a little deeper to see just how many wonderful, terrible and amazing experiences and characteristics make up the people around you. You'll be surprised.
We are all more.
No comments:
Post a Comment