Labels are liable to libel
Are you a Shark or a Jet? A Hatfield or a McCoy? A Montague or a Capulet? Can you imagine how silly, mundane and unproductive life would be if we reduced ourselves to two theoretical boxes, to a polarized place where “ne’er the twain shall meet?” I’m sad to say that I see us doing this to ourselves and to each other every single day.
That line is from a Rudyard Kipling poem and is often quoted to represent two polar points that will never be joined, but the poem is actually about the joining of those two seemingly opposite characters. The poem is called “The Ballad of East and West” and starts like so:
“Oh, east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet,
Till earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat;
But there is neither east nor west, border, nor breed, nor birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”
Every time there is a new divisive development on the political front I am reminded of that singular line, and it is a rare and beautiful thing to see the completion of the passage, where two strong people can stand face to face in conversation. Yes, I’ve talked about it before, but after observing the last week or so of political dialogue, I think the topic bears repeating.
The reduction to two theoretical boxes is alive and well in our society and it’s high time we quit it.
As I watch us go at each other with “The Democrats this…” or “The Republicans that…” I am shocked by how often we feel that simply starting a sentence in that way and completing it with some general formula used to define that “team” and how the problem is “their fault” is a topicsolving observation. It’s as though we feel that listing the ingredients on the label we have boxed our opponent into is a logical and productive conclusion to a conversation.
I’m here to tell you, it is not. We get nowhere in these reductive diatribes! If we cannot find a way to respectfully discuss difficult subjects we are only going to get weaker and weaker as a society. When we place simplistic labels on our friends and fellow humans we are eliminating the opportunity to understand the complexity that makes their perspective unique. When we reduce complicated topics to sound bites, we give up the opportunity to unpack nuances that can actually lead to solutions.
“Either, either, neither, neither. Let’s call the whole thing off.” George Gershwin makes light of the subtle differences between two people in this duet from the 1937 film “Shall We Dance,” poking fun at the way that they could use minor symbols of class difference to end the whole romance.
I have been very clear for some time about my centrist perspective on politics and life. I believe that the truth is nearly always somewhere in the messy middle and that clinging to one side or the other is a cowardly way to avoid getting down and dirty in the uncomfortable facts. When a friend lumps me into a liberal or conservative category when I merely challenge their conservative- or liberalleaning assertion, it reduces my perspective to a set of ingredients that rarely work to truly define where I stand. You might as well put a ketchup label on a jar of salsa for the lack of reality in that label you are placing on me. It leaves me feeling we should just call the whole discussion off, because how are we going to get anywhere good?
You are literally libeling me by labeling me in a way that makes you feel comfortable in dismissing my perspective.
What would it be like if we tried discussing a political issue without using the Democrat/Republican and conservative/ liberal labels? It would be excruciating for many of us, kind of like challenging a teenager to remove “like” from their vernacular. Could we do it?
When people ask me about why I write this column, I generally describe my goal to be talking about good citizenship, about the ways we can make the world and our community a better place. I avoid politics, typically, because I want us to think about our relationship to the world and each other in a broader way, a way that rises above such topics. That is my intention with this very challenge. Can we rise above political theory and talk to each other beyond labels? There are so many labels we place on each other it would be difficult at best.
The beer company Heineken orchestrated a clever example of this idea in a commercial they produced last year titled “Worlds Apart: An Experiment.” The premise was to bring two people who have very polar perspectives together to get to know each other before revealing their earlier recorded statements of opposition. Once those perspectives are revealed, they are given the opportunity to leave or to stay and discuss their differences over a Heineken. In each of the three stories, they appear to realize that the perspective they have firmly held becomes small when faced with a humanizing look at the opposing side. In each case they decide to stay, to continue to talk.
Is it possible to rip off the labels and talk to each other simply as fellow humans? I dare say it is, but it will not be easy. It will uncover truths that are hard to juxtapose with what we find comfortable, it will force us to grow and learn new things, but most importantly and productively, it will put us in a position of finding our shared reality, of realizing that we are all humans trying to survive the best we can.