Some of my peers believe it is a moral obligation for bearers of labels (of sexuality, gender, race and so on) to accept these labels with weary resignation and wear them as evidence they accept themselves for being “different.”
Many use their labels to protest against those intolerants who dare to reject them, and this is certainly a compelling argument.
If people wear their labels proudly, it shows that now, in our new modern society, we accept everyone for who they are and are open-minded enough to accept our differences.
However by doing this, we stifle our individual identities.
By forcing people who exhibit a certain characteristic into conveniently labeled categories, we are denying them the right to be fully recognized as an ?individual.
You are no longer your own person, but a representative of a group you have some ties to.
That is not to say we should not and can not assign labels to people, but we should only assign those labels in the relevant ?contexts.
You can label a gay pride movement as such, but it would be foolish to call a large crowd of LGBT people a “Gay Pride Movement.”
The context is important, and context has a ?beginning and an end. Many modern black and LGBT writers have identified this as a source of ?contention.
They feel they are not expected to write about any other issues than being a black writer in a white-dominated society or being a gay writer in a predominantly heteronormative ?society. Are there circumstances when one should wear a label proudly to show ?solidarity?
Of course.
But this is not the case all the time.
In an interview, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie describes how she “used to insist that I (she) was simply a writer, that I (she) rejected tags before ‘writer,’ especially tags based on race like ‘black’ or ‘African,’ because they are not value-free.”
But, she continues, she realized she could not “be just a ‘writer’ all the time; there are situations in which I (she) will simply have to accept some tag ?before it.”
Here, the qualification hinges on the ?temporariness of the label.
Otherwise, the label becomes constricting rather than empowering.
Much of this conflict, in part, comes from the distinctly American way of simplifying issues to better manage them — you can either hide in shame of who you truly are or you can wear your heart on your sleeve. You either are or you are not.
But these two ?generalizations do not account for the complexity of the human race. Even the activist must go home and return to his day job.
In the end, I say we should resist any sort of ?categorization.
There are those who will take up the public battle against injustice and there are others ducking and weaving in and out of ?identities. In the end, we’re all individual units of developed life, and we will only be ?individuals.
Many individuals may unite under one common cause, but they are not that cause.
They are simply ?themselves.
allenjo@indiana.edu
