Labels, Language & Love

If one believes "those who know", or those who say they know, language is the foundation of intelligence. Supposedly, spoken language is what separates us from all other animals.

And if you think about it, there is some truth to this. What we call things - how
we label them - both reflects and shapes our view of reality.

When I say "chair", you at least have some idea of what I mean. Now, my chair may be an old, comfy leather chair meant for bourbon and cigar smoking, and your chair thought might be an overstuffed velvet chaise lounge, but both imply at least sitting or resting or something similar. And when we use language to communicate, to educate, to motivate - language can be a good thing.

Unfortunately, lIke any other tool, language and words are somewhat neutral until they are married to intention and purpose. Words take on meaning as we add context. Words, when spoken, are further shaped by tone and inflection.

My wife sometimes misses the meaning of my poems until I read them. Until she hears my emphasis and inflection, the words are incomplete.

Take the word "gay". Surely, a century ago, gay was a word with a certain connotation. One that implied light or happy or possibly even frivolous. That word now is used in a completely different way - with a completely different meaning. Although, a gay man (current context) could indeed be gay (past context). But I think you can see the point.

And pursuing this thought further, think of queer. It once meant odd, unexpected or unusual - such as a queer occurrence or a queer feeling. And I think you can begin to appreciate how words are used, then, to label a certain person or thing - with the intention of attaching to that person or thing all the implied meaning of the word's former definition.

A "straight" person might consider a non-straight person "queer", but not necessarily "gay" - depending on their vocabulary.

In these situations, more technical terms are sometimes helpful, i.e. - heterosexual versus homosexual. Similarly, penis is more clinical whereas "dick" is a slang word that can describe either the aforementioned sexual organ - or possibly a very annoying person.

Look at the attached photo. How would you describe to a blind person? Would you start with trees or sky? And how about the sculpture that a sculptor created? Would you say white sticks protruding from green grass at odd angles surrounded by trees and sky?

At this point, I think we can begin to see the limitation of language. It is rather limited in its ability to communicate complex ideas or even complex visuals. Can we agree on that?

If so, if we can agree that words are sometimes limited and that "a picture is worth a thousand words", lets now move on to discuss a certain kind of word that we briefly mentioned above - labels.

Labels are certainly useful to communicate a great deal of information very quickly. Really, labels are verbal "shorthand". To a child about to touch a red-hot stove, HOT can be very effective. Hot does to completely describe the type and model of stove, but this information is not as relevant in that moment as is "hot".

And, again, intention and context are so important when we are using labels, right? When we see a newborn baby for the first time, "adorable", "precious", and "cute" are all appropriate in communicating our affection and attention.

For a two year-old in the midst of a tantrum, we would probably use other words to label that behavior and communicate a different emotion we are feeling.

So, words spoken by someone eloquent - "I have a dream" can have an impact for good that long survives the speaker. Unfortunately, an eloquent speaker can also impact the word for evil purposes when the words are "final solution" or "colored" or "mixed race".

So in today's partisan, charged environment, it is important that we be aware of our words as well as our intention. It is just as easy to label those with whom we disagree as "deplorable" as it is to designate those with whom we agree as "real Americans".

As a word person, I pay great attention to my words and take notice of yours. If you sometimes use a word that can have multiple meanings, I may ask for clarification - lest I misunderstand you.

Years ago, when they were known for founding orphanages and hospitals, universities and retirement homes - Christian had a particular meaning. And, for some people, Christian still means that.

After the most recent election, for poor women or LGBT individuals, evangelical Christian now means "conservative Republican". Obviously, a very different label. But I think it safe to say no one thinks of conservative Republicans when thinking of orphanages or hospitals.

Another powerful example of labeling is in the political debate surrounding the legalization of abortion. Early on, the "anti-abortion" movement saw the power of being labelled "pro-life" - while labeling their opposition as "pro-abortion". Those supporters who favored the legalization of abortion referred to themselves as "pro choice" - saying that no one could really be "pro abortion", and that abortion - although a legal option - should not be seen as a primary form of birth control. So which is a more accurate label - Pro abortion or pro choice? I suppose it depends on your position on the matter, wouldn't it?

But, when one thoroughly examines the policies of conservative Republicans - particularly those policies impacting most women and children - and most specifically issues such as healthcare or nutrition assistance (another label) for poor children - is it accurate to refer to those positions as "pro-life"?

Nazi propaganda during and before World War 2 used words very effectively. Hitler had written extensively in Mein Kampf on the importance of propaganda to shape and steer public opinion to achieve his ends.

Hitler knew that many of us, when we are leaning towards are darker natures, always prefer a villain or scapegoat to blame for our woes rather than taking any personal responsibility for our plight.

Many Germans had once included Jewish Germans into their communities and called them neighbors. But, once Hitler's subtly crafted propaganda campaign was through, most Germans no longer considered their Jewish neighbors as fellow Germans. No, Hitler's evil plan had convinced them that only white Aryans were true Germans. All else were posers at best and evil collaborators with Germany's enemies at worst.

The road to Auschwitz would be paved with many small stones of propaganda and lies.

Because, you see, the main purpose of labels is to divide things into pieces. We could refer to all objects as plant or animal, as living or dead. That would communicate a great deal of information. And possibly even "eatable" or "toxic" for plants and "friendly" or "dangerous" for animals. That might be - really - all we'd need.

But labels have other purposes. When Jesus met the Samaritan Woman (two labels) at the well in the fourth chapter in the Gospel of John, his disciples were aghast that he was talking to either label - since many Jews of that day hated Samaritans and many Jewish men thought women cursed (reference Adam, Eve, Apple, Snake).

But, Jesus (remember, conservative Republicans, Jesus was a Jew) had no need for such labeling. He, like MLK, looked beneath the skin - the labels - and saw the heart. What the Good Teacher chose to see was not the town slut (label), but instead a person who had lived some life and made some mistakes. And, we have all made our share of mistakes, too. Haven't we?

And what this Divine One (all of us are to one extent or another) saw, was an open heart and mind. A welcoming person who - although not perfect - was aiming to be better. A person wise to the world (which is why she was filling her water pot in the heat of the day, avoiding other womenfolk) who had realized the world as it was presently configured didn't make much sense to her. Damn, I think that sometimes - don't you?

Jesus then proceeded to have a deep theological conversation with this human being that his "chosen disciples" could barely comprehend. Ironic, right?

Jesus also chose to stay in that town - with that woman - for several more days and was able to spread his good news unhindered by labels or prejudice.

And that is really the point, isn't it?

Labels and prejudice exist because of the human heart. Although capable of great heights, the human heart (reference Buchenwald) is capable of terrible evil, as well.

The only determining factor between the two is choice.

Ever day we have a multitude of choices - coffee or tea, sweetened or unsweetened, laugh or cry, accept or reject.

Our choices, obviously, are shaped by our heart - which is shaped by our experience - which is shaped by our family of origin - which is shaped by epigenetics - which is shaped by evolution - which is shaped by time and chance.

Every day we can choose to love or hate. To accept or reject. To label or refuse such meaningless divisiveness.

So, as in so many church services the world over, let's finish with a song.

Shall we? Please. Sing along. You know the words…

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say, but you can learn
How to play the game
It's easy.

Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do, but you can learn
How to be you in time
It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where
You're meant to be
It's easy.

The Beatles - All You Need Is Love Lyrics | MetroLyrics

dg

12/9/16

Sent from my iPad