Political labels considered harmful

tags: opinions

I’m an anarcho-syndicalist, a reactionary, a classical liberal, a socialist! And the list goes on…

ideologue /ˈaɪ.di.ə.lɑɡ/: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.

— Merriam-Webster dictionary

My point is not to suggest that we shouldn’t discuss ideology or that ideology in and of itself is useless. My issue is the urge to attach labels, and people basing their whole identity around a set of labels, which results in more division, stifling free thought, and viewing things from an “us an them” standpoint.

Labels are restrictive, not descriptive

…because people are complex; so too, are their politics. As such, political labels tend to be more restrictive than descriptive and, ultimately, they miss a key point — people aren’t defined by politics; people define politics. Labels are no substitute for experience. Allowing them to become so has rendered possible many of our most divisive political issues — from identity politics and partisanship to fake news and echo chambers.

Too often, labels become an attempt to turn the complicated into the simple. And people and politics aren’t simple.

Individuals are incredibly diverse and often hold a wide-range of political views depending on the subject or circumstances. It’s why political labels need so many caveats and hyphens — Alt-right, Far Left (or Right), Progressive Liberal, Moderate Republican, etc. It’s also why political labels are rife for exploitation.

For many, the complexity and gravity of political issues leaves them perplexed and frustrated. Understandably, people assume labels to align with political ideologies in the hope of having their views represented; however, labels divide just as easily as they associate

Excerpts from this article

Labels as a tool for ostracization

Oftentimes we use labels to dismiss someone’s ideas. Say for example someone has views against immigration. An open-borders person’s first reaction would be to shout racist accusations at them, and thus label them as a racist, far-right, or what have you, without really judging their points based on merit or facts, but based on emotion and bias. This is a very simple an easy way to gain moral high ground in a debate or ostracize someone. And this has always happened. Christians, muslims, nazis, communists, all attaching labels to their enemies to portray them as undesirables and worthy of contempt.

Labels are not always attached to someone based on their actual views, but on someone else’s (usually limited) perception of their views. How does this make labelling at least accurate in the first place?

Between the 1940s and 1970s, Greece, my home country, had experienced a civil war, political persecution and a CIA-backed military junta. During the civil war, there were two camps you could join: the nationalists, backed by NATO, and communists, backed by the Soviet Union. Eventually, the communists lost, but polarization was so high, that persecution of them continued during the dictatorship (1967-1974). The issue was, that one was labelled arbitrarily, and simply landing on the “wrong” side was as easy as simply listening to the wrong music or having been born in a family with leftist ancestors. Others, snitched on their neighbours, or even family members, on suspicion of political heresy. Mind you, there were persecuted people that had nothing to do with leftism or communism, but not being sympathetic to the regime meant you were automatically a communist.

The reason behind this tangent is to give an example of how misleading labelling can be, and how easy it is to use it as a tool to dehumanize someone. In times of turmoil, labels are a weapon.

Another example is the Bolshevik regime using the term kulak to target dissident peasants:

Kulak, in particular, became a term of abuse directed by party propaganda against peasants who incurred the wrath of the authorities through failure to comply with demands for the delivery of grain.

— Edward Hallet Carr in “The Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalin, 1919-1927”

My proposal and personal approach

Whenever I get asked about my ideology, people who expect me to respond with a simplistic term such as “left” or “right”, are usually annoyed, or think I am just avoiding the question. For one, I really don’t think I 100% agree with any particular ideology, and second, I don’t want to reduce the capacity to think for myself to a political label and create all sorts of biases before I even start to express any view. I find it nearly impossible to explain my whole political worldview with just a term — and that’s not because I think I am some kind of intellectual with very unique thoughts, but because one’s politics really cannot be accurately defined with just a word.

There are ideologies which I think have more merit than others, that I’m more attracted towards and tend to agree with, but I don’t like the role-playing aspect of ideologies. It’s almost always the case that people who are keen on labelling are the most insufferable in a discussion, because their goal is not to have a healthy conversation, but to prove that their side is the right one.

So, what am I proposing, anyway? I think the single most important point I’d make is to develop critical and independent thinking. Blindly accepting or denying an idea because the ideology you’re subscribed to says so, is really no different than following a religion. Instead, my approach is to study and discuss various ideologies, extract the good things from each one of them, use my intuition and common sense, and form my own worldview.

Of course, anyone who takes a political stance does fall into some broad category, but there really is no point in obsessing over the label you go with, like it’s a football team.