Welcome to the Era of Label Centrism and Label Privilege

If the bonsai is told by its pruner... that its tortured form nestled in a shallow pot is exquisite and beautiful... does it appreciate that its roots thirst to weave tapestries in the earth, its branches yearn to dance merrily within the heavens?

Indeed... if the aesthetic delight of a living organism can only be thoroughly relished when it is fastidiously delimited... what does that say about us and our meticulous delimitation of our selves and each other?

Verily... if labels fetter us as resolutely as they aggrandize us... are any of us any more free to weave tapestries in the earth, dance merrily within the heavens... than the bonsai?

--*--*--*--

While challenging the unassailable privilege of labels seems impossible... at the time, contemporaries of Copernicus couldn't imagine an era of popular acceptance of heliocentrism. Like label privilege, the visible and invisible forces that held heliocentrism at bay seemed indomitable.

Yet, here we are, in an era of heliocentrism.

Thus, isn't it possible, that in the future, the preeminence of our races, our socioeconomic statuses, our ages, our genders, our national origins, our religions, our marital statuses, our educational attainments, our sexual orientations, etc. -- will disintegrate under the stultifying dust of anachronism?

For label privilege to the human spirit is bonsai to trees. Callously occlusive and incalculably cruel.

Are labels real -- if the basis of such attestation is wholly of our devising?

Our labels are arbitrary delineations that bear no intrinsic meaning or value. Indeed, the meaning and value with which we imbue our labels is wholly determined by our selves and each other.

Thus, no label intrinsically brings us together and no label intrinsically tears us apart. In other words, our willingness to come together by label and our willingness to tear each other apart by label -- doesn't derive from our labels. Our willingness to come together by label and our willingness to tear each other apart by label -- derives from us.

We have no one to blame for our crusades in the name of [fill in the blank: #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.] -- than our selves.

Are label agendas, crusades, and wars justifiable -- if the cornerstone of such justification is privilege?

The sheer innocuity of arbitrary delineations renders labels inherently impotent. Therefore, we do more than simply determine the meaning of labels; we imbue them with extraordinarily intense emotional currency that magnifies their value. This valuation, wholly elevated and augmented by our selves and each other, fuels the transformation of harmless spectra into invisible knapsacks of unearned entitlements wholly determined by our selves and each other.

And, so?

By infusing mere categories with omnipotent privileges amplified by dogmatic valuations, we erect frameworks for idolatries of ignorance and intolerance that propel fanaticism and extremism with inexorable fervor.

Isn't this how we legitimize, champion, and sanction -- by nothing more credible than labels alone -- everything we are, everything we believe, and everything we do -- by label? Regardless of the incontrovertible reality that by doing so, we're concurrently legitimizing, championing, and sanctioning -- by nothing more substantive than labels alone -- the categorical oppression of everything we are, everything we believe, and everything we do -- vis a vis label?

Verily, when we acquiesce to label privilege -- of every label over every label -- we devolve into insular communities of authoritarian avidity blinded by ideological myopia. Consequently, we come together by complicit collusion and we tear each other apart by complicit collusion, in acquiescence to every ambition that -- advances our selves and each other and subjugates our selves and each other -- by label.

Needless to say: if the very ideologies that immure us are cultivated by none other than -- us -- who's responsible for our immurement masquerading as enlightened freedom?

Of despots and tyrants of every shape and stripe, is one shape or one stripe, superior to another? In fact, isn't despotism and tyranny of every shape and stripe, unconscionable in a society of the free?

Thus, totalitarian absolutism in the name of one #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. is no more superior, legitimate, or defensible than totalitarian absolutism in the name of another #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. -- regardless of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. or ideology of bigotry avowed by #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.

Period.

Yet, here we are, in an era of label centrism and rampant label privilege.

Where the preeminence of our races, our socioeconomic statuses, our ages, our genders, our national origins, our religions, our marital statuses, our educational attainments, our sexual orientations, etc. are so vaingloriously defended and so devotedly exulted, that we enthusiastically occlude and delimit our selves and each other by label, so that we may contrive a freedom that is but a farce of liberty.

More

Until we acknowledge the hero, the villain, and the victim in all of us, we will never face the truth of our oppression of our selves and each other.

For we are the pruner and the bonsai.

We are the villains that oppress us and the victims of our oppression.

But above all, we are the heroes of our freedom.

We can set aside our pruning shears; for our meticulous foliage doesn't make us beautiful; our unbridled hearts make us beautiful. We can break free of our shallow pots; for our tortuous containment doesn't make us exquisite; our unfettered souls make us exquisite.

The choice to relinquish label centrism and label privilege and flourish within the intangible ether of human hearts and human souls is wholly within our power. For the courage to be free is as inviolable as the dignity of life itself.

- M.

Addendum

We cannot have label cake and eat it too.

We cannot delimit others by label, while decrying the delimitation of ourselves by label. (e.g. If we're sick and tired of being condemned to caricatures of who we are by the ridiculously delimiting presumptions of 'race' -- why do we continue to agglomerate others by 'race'?! Are we not condemning each other to caricatures of who we are by the ridiculously delimiting presumptions of 'race' -- every time we agglomerate each other by 'race'?)

We cannot vilify, persecute, and maltreat others by label, while decrying the vilification, persecution, and maltreatment of ourselves by label. (e.g. If we're sick and tired of arbitrary maltreatment on the basis of nothing more credible than 'gender' -- why do we continue to agglomerate others by 'gender'?! Are we not ruthlessly disempowering each other on the basis of nothing more credible than 'gender' -- every time we agglomerate each other by 'gender'?)

No more than we can demand disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages for ourselves by label, while decrying disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages for others by label. (e.g. If we're sick and tired of cavalier cronyism that benefit those from specific 'socioeconomic classes' -- why do we continue to agglomerate each other by 'socioeconomic class'?! Are we not exercising the patently patronizing classification of each other by 'socioeconomic class' -- every time we agglomerate each other by 'socioeconomic class'?)

Much less excuse, rationalize, and justify our behavior by label, while decrying the excusal, rationalization, and justification of behavior of others by label. (e.g. If we're sick and tired of being subjected to bigotry by particular 'religions' and 'nationalists' on the basis of our 'religion' and 'national origin and/or affiliation' alone -- why do we continue to agglomerate each other by 'religion' and 'national origin and/or affiliation'?! Are we not upholding and perpetuating ignorance and intolerance towards our selves and each other on the basis of 'religion' and 'national origin and/or affiliation' alone -- every time we agglomerate our selves and each other by 'religion' and 'national origin and/or affiliation'?)

For when we appropriate for ourselves, for our agendas, crusades, and wars -- what we disallow for others, for their agendas, crusades, and wars: we become despots and tyrants who are no more noble nor more righteous than every despot and tyrant of every shape and stripe.

- M.

Note

Case in point: Woman Sentenced to 80 Years for 'Pure Evil', Acts of Enslaving, Stealing From the Disabled (from ABC News 11/5/2015).

Oh the irony of the charges to which she plead guilty:

"...racketeering conspiracy, kidnapping resulting in the death of the victim, forced human labor, involuntary servitude, multiple counts of murder in aid of racketeering, hate crime, violent crime in aid of racketeering, sex trafficking, kidnapping, theft of government funds, wire fraud, mail fraud, use of a firearm in furtherance of a violent crime and false statements." (select charges emboldened for emphasis)

How many of us, upon reading an account such as this one, assume that this one person represents everyone of the same #race, #gender, #age, #nationality, #educational attainment, #mental health status, etc.? More than a few of us do.

Moreover, how many of us, in everyday life, assume any one person embodies vital traits that are the same across everyone of the same presumed [fill in the blank: #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.]? Certainly, a lot of us do.

Isn't this why the Syrian refugee crisis is addressed differently now, after the recent acts of terrorism committed in Paris?

Yet, how many of us, in everyday life, resent the ignorance and intolerance to which we're relentlessly subjected, on the basis of nothing more credible than [fill in the blank: #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.]? Not to mention, our dumbfounded disbelief that others assume that we possess the same vital traits as someone or anyone or everyone with the same presumed [fill in the blank: #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.] on the basis of nothing more substantive than [fill in the blank: #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.]?

Seriously?

When we have label cake and eat it too -- we fatten ourselves -- at the expense of peace.

Case in point:

'F*** you, you filthy white f****!' Black Lives Matter protesters scream epithets at white students studying at Dartmouth Library (from The Daily Mail 11/16/2015). More: Dartmouth Admin APOLOGIZES To Protesters Who Menaced Students (from The Daily Caller 11/17/2015).

'Every one of you are terrorists': Virginia man disrupts public meeting about a Mosque and launches a 25-second tirade of hate denouncing all Muslims (from The Daily Mail 11/20/2015). More: Tension escalates at meeting on proposed spot for mosque in Spotsylvania (from Fredericksburg.com 11/17/2015).

- M.

Exposing the Invisible Knapsack: The Invisible Privilege of Labels

The power with which we imbue our labels is so extraordinarily pernicious, that our use of labels to align, identify, and categorize our selves and each other extends well beyond arbitrary delineations -- to overt and covert delimitations of who and how our selves and each other are.

Whosiwhatsit?

We erect communities solely on the basis of label ownership; we decree authoritarian norms of conformity solely on the basis of label ownership that we subsequently enforce through draconian censorship and expulsion solely on the basis of label ownership; and we espouse rancorous -isms that fuel ignorance, bigotry, and separatism solely on the basis of label ownership -- all in the name of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.

Do we not?

Otherwise, why does Rachel Dolezal's lack of label ownership preclude her membership to a label community on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label -- or delegitimize her deliberate conformity to label norms on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label -- or invalidate her unflinching espousal of rancorous label -isms on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label?

Needless to say, who among us is a deity of anyone, to omnipotently decree what is and isn't within the limits of permissibility and legitimacy vis a vis #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. for our selves and each other?

Which begs the question: aren't declarations of permissibility and legitimacy, i.e. what emphatically belongs to whom, what is incontrovertibly prohibited for whom, etc. -- by virtue of labels alone -- the very apotheoses of privilege?

Indeed, the power with which we imbue our labels is so extraordinarily pernicious, that we mask the malice of labels behind shameless pretensions of self-empowerment, self-righteousness, etc. In reality, labels are without exception privilege by another name. An invisible knapsack that label owners unequivocally avow grants totalitarian dominion over that which cannot be fettered in a conscionable society of the free: who and how our selves and each other are.

Verily, 'cultural appropriation' and 'cultural competence' are actuations of privilege:

Needless to say, the former is an unearned entitlement that grants unearned authority, on the basis of labels alone. While the latter is an unearned advantage that confers unearned authority, on the basis of labels alone.

And are not unearned entitlements and advantages -- exemplifications of privilege?

How many of us circumscribe where we go, who we associate with, and what we experience, on the basis of labels alone? Do we not acquiesce to social and behavioral norms of conformity or risk censorship and reprisal, on the basis of labels alone? Moreover, are we not prohibited from places, people, and experiences, on the basis of labels alone, especially when such prohibitions are grounded by attestations of 'cultural appropriation' (as well as overt and covert threats of sanction and retaliation for breaching authoritarian norms, on the basis of labels alone)?

Concurrently, how many of us assume where others go, who others associate with, and what others experience, on the basis of labels alone? Do we not presume that we and each other possess special expertise, by virtue of nothing more credible than labels alone, especially when such knowledge is grounded by attestations of 'cultural competence' (as well as overt and covert vociferance of ignorance masquerading as competence defended by unearned superiority, on the basis of labels alone)?

As long as we wield 'cultural appropriation', 'cultural competence', and other actuations of privilege as weapons of oppression that deprive our selves and each other of access to places, people, and experiences -- on the basis of labels alone -- our society will never achieve conscionable peace, freedom, and equality for all.

Ultimately, advocacy for labels and labels alone devolves into label oppression: 

Because the deafening laudation for labels comes at a price.

For labels are nothing more than vacuous attributions of meaningless authenticity that fuel label tyranny through the categorical circumscription of who and how our selves and each other are, through the blithe exercise of label privilege, whereby we imbue arbitrary delineations with limitless totalitarianism over our selves and each other, solely on the basis of labels.

When despotism is ubiquitous and has been subsequently internalized, our prevailing doctrine for empowering the disempowered is labels and labels alone. In our misguided zeal to reverse the alignment, identification, and categorization of our selves by others who seek to disenfranchise, segregate, and subjugate us -- we misappropriate the tactics of tyrants for our own self-empowerment, self-righteousness, self-advocacy, and self-aggrandizement vis a vis labels alone.

What else is our alignment, identification, and categorization of our selves and each other by label -- than the oppression of our selves and each other by label? Moreover, what else is our overt and covert delimitations of who and how our selves and each other are vis a vis label -- than the actuation of unearned label entitlements and privileges? And is not the actuation of unearned label entitlements and privileges nothing less than label tyranny?

By any other name:

What's in the invisible knapsack? The appalling arrogance with which we defend our employment of every spectrum of our devisement, to delimit and oppress our selves and each other, on the basis of nothing more credible than labels alone.

When we arbitrarily deny access -- when we unmistakably suppress self-expression -- when we disproportionately coerce and enforce delimitation of who and how our selves and each other are -- all in the name of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. --

are any of us free?

More

The color/gender of privilege is not the answer to the tyranny of oppression of our selves and each other.

Why not?

Because our unabashed zeal to remedy suffering by label -- leads to the passionate identification of antagonists -- by label.

This insidious bias -- that catastrophically saturates our ideological framework for 'the invisible knapsack' -- frees no one.

For the tyranny of label centrism indiscriminately imprisons every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc., while the ideological framework of 'the invisible knapsack' fuels the mercilessly rampant persecution of our selves and each other on the basis of nothing more substantive than race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.

Which begs the question: is the path to peace, freedom, and equality for all -- paved with label privilege? Or is label privilege -- tyranny masquerading as enlightened freedom?

- M.

Addendum

Peggy McIntosh articulated the ideology of 'the invisible knapsack' (more: Wiki) to address the marginalization of others via the unearned advantages of invisible privileges, namely 'white' and 'white male' privileges.

Hence, the proponents who espouse this ideology, do so under the presumption that this device exposes invisible privileges that disenfranchise everyone who is not a 'white male' or 'white' for the overt and covert benefit of 'white males' and 'whites'.

However, label privilege disenfranchises non label holders -- as well as noncompliant label brethren -- for the overt and covert benefit of label holders, of every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. -- over every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.

Thus, regardless of the explicit intent of such a device, in the end, the ideology of 'the invisible knapsack' perpetuates label privilege as unequivocally as any -ism, which ultimately dilutes any residual value gained from the lingering exposition of the invisible privilege of one color/one gender (which are hardly the only color/only gender who exercise invisible privilege).

Nevertheless, the deleterious potency of -isms within our society, is a repugnant reality. For -isms do exist, from the mildest careless stereotypes to the most vicious calculated savageries.

However, when we divest our selves and each other of our humanity, by ruthlessly reducing our currency as humans qua humans to that of labels and labels alone -- we wittingly deprive our selves and each other of our wherewithal to revel within the vast unbridled universe of the infinitude of truths of humans qua humans.

For our power -- our humanity -- resides within the infinitude of our truths -- not the delimitations of our labels.

- M.

Note

Label privilege is everywhere. Indeed, it's so omnipresent across popular social and mass media, that it suffocates our wherewithal to actively engage each other as humans qua humans:

Ex. The One Thing That Liberal White Folks Need To Stop Doing (by Aaron Barksdale from the Huffington Post 11/6/2015)

Sadly, personal experiences and sympathies invariably propel our crusades for the abolition of -isms, which habitually limit the scope and puissance of our best efforts.

Notwithstanding that even our best efforts unfailingly espouse -isms in order to oppose -isms:

Ex. How a Whites-Excluding Yoga Class Exposes the Absurdity of Identity Politics (by Lizzie Crocker from The Daily Beast 10/23/2015)

Needless to say, in our stalwart fervor to dismantle the intractable institutions that buttress our enduring legacy of -isms... we're astonishingly oblivious to the -isms and -ists that are vanquishing us all.

- M.

The Reign of -Isms: Having Label Cake and Eating It Too

Labels confer nothing meaningful.

That we assume they do -- does not make them so.

Does the fact that I've supped on barbecued chicken wings and corn on the cob infer a race? Does the fact that I've pored over racks at local thrift stores to stretch my budget infer a socioeconomic status? Does the fact that I prefer to wear as little as possible when I'm sweltering in the summer heat or at the beach infer an age? Does the fact that I'm as keen on fpss and mobas as mmorpgs infer a gender? Does the fact that I wouldn't trade my American citizenship for any other infer a national origin? Does the fact that I value the espousal of compassion for all human suffering by many religions infer a religion? Does the fact that I don't wear any symbols of marital union infer a marital status? Does the lack of prestige my day job is consistently accorded infer an educational attainment? Does my predilection for wearing men's clothing infer a sexual orientation?

Yet, without fail, we assume that race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. confer vital facts that we need to know about each other sans interactions in vivo.

However, if I were to disclose my race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. -- would you think more of me -- or less? If neither -- then what relevance do my labels retain? For labels reveal less than we would otherwise discover via real interactions sans label-centrism.

For what is label-centrism but an umbrella for -isms? When we align, identify, and categorize our selves and each other on the basis of labels alone -- are we not perpetuating -isms and constructing communities of -ists? For aren't communities self-established on the basis of labels alone -- communities of -ists?

If you and I share a gender and align ourselves with a gender-based label-centric cause -- are we not disseminating sexism within a self-established community of sexists? If you and I share a race and align ourselves with a race-based label-centric cause -- are we not disseminating racism within a self-established community of racists?

Likewise when we propel our label-centric agendas -- do we not also identify our antagonists by label alone? Thus, as sexists we perpetuate sexism by treating others as adversaries on the basis of gender alone; while, as racists we perpetuate racism by treating others as adversaries on the basis of race alone.

So: when -ists use -isms to denigrate our selves and each other as -ists -- at what point do we collectively rescind all defenses of -isms -- irrespective of label-centric moralizing and zealous extolment? For the reign of -isms is nothing more than having label cake and eating it too.

More

Until we resolve that the value and merit of our selves and each other rests within the intangible ether of human hearts and human souls -- we will cling to the vacuous authenticity of labels, label-centrism, and all label -isms with desperate sanctimony.

- M.

Addendum

The problem with labels is treacherously more insidious than their conferral of nothing meaningful: we imbue them with such intensely emotional social currency, that we mindlessly use them without challenging their accuracy, validity, or utility -- all the time.

How often do we presume factual truths about each other -- erroneously and deleteriously -- by virtue of nothing more substantive than [fill in the blank: race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.]?

How often do we surprise each other -- by being, expressing, or demonstrating -- feelings, thoughts, or actions -- incongruent with our entrenched expectations of each other vis a vis [fill in the blank: race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.]?

Isn't it possible that rather than ease and facilitate our interrelational interactions -- labels interfere with our eschewal of -isms?

Indeed: when we disguise our most pertinacious bigotries under the beguiling sacrosanctity of labels -- we're simply trading the ugliness of -isms for the hollow pretense of authenticity.

- M.

Note

We use labels to align, identify, and categorize our selves as much as we use labels to align, identify, and categorize each other. Hence, even those who aspire to live among us label-free, fail to escape the toxicity of label -isms from within label groups:

Ex. Raven-Symone Has Lost Her Damn Mind (by Stereo Williams from The Daily Beast 10/29/15)

While others fail to recognize label -isms directed mercilessly towards self-established label-brethren:

Ex. Why I will never work for a woman: After the Apprentice catfight, one very opinionated writer reveals she loathes 'cliquey, bullying' all-female offices (by Kelly Bradford from The Daily Mail 10/28/15)

Needless to say, if we struggle to muffle our own label -isms towards our own label-compatriots -- is it any wonder that we struggle to muffle the raucous interference of innumerable label -isms every time that we interact with any one?

- M.