On Language and Labelling
Revelling in abstract labels diverts us from public debate and the essence of a discussed matter.
I will admit: it is not uncommon that I get called ‘the language guy’ from time to time, since my sense of the grammatical rules of my native tongue and the extent of my active vocabulary seem to stand above average. For me, however, being ‘a language guy’ means something different – a man of language is one who understands that it is words that creates reality or, to be more precise, the way we name a thing often determines what we see it as. The glass can be ‘hall full’ or ‘half empty’, whatever idea in the society can be supported by ‘only a half of those polled’ or ‘as many as half of those polled’. Language makes it easy to pass judgement and is manipulated around us all the time. When the store says, ‘Buy one, get another for free’, what it usually means is that ‘the price of one includes the cost of two’. We are so used to such things that we hardly notice them anymore. Yet in the recent years, I’ve become increasingly disturbed by some casual phrases we employ in our public sphere without, it seems, much thought to their real meaning. Moreover, they seem to belong to the ever-widening cancel culture – an attitude that once you’re on ‘the right side’, dialogue can be forfeited and there is no further need to understand one whose world is different from yours. The result is a world divided into tribes and camps.

First of all, there seems to be a lot of ‘phobes’ out there. And not to say there aren’t intolerant people in the world or those heavily prejudiced towards some particular group, but it is not always clear what the label of ‘a phobe’ is socially supposed to mean. Who exactly is a homophobe, for example? Someone who in such dread of a contact with a homosexual that he shies away from one at all cost (‘a phobia’, after all, denoting an obsessive fear)? Or perhaps someone who just believes a traditional family should retain its distinguishable identity in the society? With the first constituting, surely, a very small and decreasing minority, I believe the label will easily be thrown around for both. The picture is ever more vague since it doesn’t seem that any clear lines between a necessary protection and outright promotion of a minority have been set in most cases and countries. Say, is a grandpa walking the streets in his undies in front of cheering children necessarily a symbol of our pivoting freedom or, perhaps, an actual case of impropriety? And yet, with more hate speech laws and such coming to power, it is probably not beyond reality to be criminally charged for asking for these distinctions. So how is, one could argue, that ‘diversity matters’, but a traditional family should not distinguished from a same-sex one? Is this really a phobia – and not just a case of ‘traditionalism’ or ‘support of a traditional family’? Even ‘an old-fashioned person’ wouldn’t sound rather different from a condenscending ‘phobe’.
A widespread term created by the Covid-crisis of the past years is of course ‘an anti-vaxxer’. Again, it begs to be asked what is such person really up against? Lacking distinction, the language seems to let us presume that it is someone who opposes vaccines on principle and thinks any of those shouldn’t be administered to anybody under any circumstance. However, even if a small group of such people might exist, in reality the term has got thrown around also for people who only opposed the particularly novel Covid-vaccines, or even those who were vaccinated, but thought everyone should retain freedom in choosing to use it or not. Levelling all out by the first definition, all were often pointed out as unintelligent or defiant, and Merriam-Webster dictionary, for one, is now willingly including a mere objection to mandating vaccinations as ‘anti-vaxx’. The truth that the thing the vast majority of so-called anti-vaxxers really ‘anti’ of, was coercion, seems to have got smudged in the process. However, if it were true that these people were not really ‘anti-vaxx’, but ‘anti-coercion’, it would define their opponents as ‘pro-coercion’, or effectually suggest that one’s body should prerogatively be owned by the state. And that doesn’t sound quite the same, does it?
But perhaps the most confusing of these broad-sweep terms for me is ‘a climate denier’. Following the logic of the language, the way an atheist could be described as ‘a God denier’, for example, the name should denote a person who denies there is such a thing as climate – and of course, that cannot be a very intelligent take on things. Yet in reality, who is there who would really disclaim the existence of climate – how could even be disclaimed? However, even if the term were to be understood as ‘a climate change denier’, it seems easy enough to be labelled as such already by mere questioning of the overwhelming role of C0₂ emissions in the change. Or even when accepting the latter, but seeking ways to combat the change beyond the usual mechanics of the political ‘green deal’ – be it, for example, by concerns for the general state of the world’s forest or marine life, or for the economic welfare of people amidst the drastic changes. And where the usual label couldn’t truthfully be applied, extensions like ‘a new climate denial’ seem to spring up in its stead.

The last in the list of such off-hand terms or labels for me is the word ‘progressive’ – a word eagerly employed today, but passing real social debate or definition. Moreover, I am yet to see hardly anyone employ it for any other worldview than his or her own, often enough not even asking what the goal that is being progressed towards is or what is it that turns ‘a change’ into ‘progress’.
The above, and many others, (with surely not all of them placed on the left – even these examples, perhaps, are), are labels that are easy to belittle, ridicule or exclude the other with. Such act of labelling usually allows the one carrying it out feel himself, or herself, morally superior and possessing greater meaning or reason. Yet even a need for such an act is, at closer inspection, rather a witness to one’s inner void or vacuum, in an attempt to be fill it with a seemingly communal and worth-invested language. Labelling can thus also be a way of hiding the real shortcomings of a society.
It is also possible to see the labels ‘in reverse’ – imagine we would call progressivism ‘a lust for change’, science-driven mechanistic worldview ‘a denial of immensity’, inflation ‘a bloating of price’, tax rate ‘a level of de-appropriation’, etc. Each time we give in to any label, could we stop and think for a moment what an opposite label would look like and how it would feel to us?
To conclude, there are always people who stand at the extremes, but we need not align by them. It is better to just be conscious of the ways how language is used to exert influence on us, what is the power of a word from the beginning, and most of all, to give up looking for an enemy amongst ourselves. ‘Divide and conquer’ is an age-old strategy since divided people are always easier to govern and control than a tightly united lot – the latter will spot the rulers’ oversights much quicker and better. Labelling is surely an distraction for any real public debate and diverts our attention from the essence of a matter. It holds no avail to anyone expect, perhaps, those seeking to benefit from the ensuing confusion.