A Rose, By Any Other Name...
American Heritage Dictionary defines paradigm as, "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline." At least, that's one of the definitions. When it comes to thought processes, paradigms are (generally) a good thing. Our brains use paradigms to classify things, so we can understand them. Really, when you think about it, they're all around us. They exist as labels, names, generalities, and such. These paradigms, these labels, help us understand the world around us.
Occidental culture is especially obsessed with applying labels to things. Everything is categorized; assigned it's own slot. If there isn't a category for it, a new category is created. Again, a good thing, because it helps us understand stuff. (Almost) everyone knows what a gas is, what a solid is, what a liquid is. We identify an animal as a mammal, we know it has certain characteristics. Reptiles too have their own characteristics that distinguish; make them unique.
Labels really are a boon to communication. But, there are times when they can be a hindrance... If I say I have a dog, I assume that you know what a dog is. But, what if your perception of the label is different? The communication can break down. You and I would have to normalize what we know a dog to be; fill in the gaps, so to speak. So, at the end of the day, we both understand what it is when we use the word dog.
But, there's another problem with labels.
So wrote Shakespeare. The key line, "... A rose by any other name..." really says something. Just because we choose to apply a label to something, doesn't change it's characteristics. Something is what it is, regardless of what we choose to call it. Beyond that, were I to start referring to roses as carnations, it would cause problems. To everyone I spoke, whenever I used the word carnation, the listener wouldn't understand what I meant.
Then there are the times where labels are used to justify something. They are used to make something acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable. One person's terrorist might be another person's freedom fighter. The thing is, who is to say which label is appropriate?
My father used to say, "If everyone on the subway is looking at you... It ain't them." So, if society (or at least your culture) defines a label as having certain characteristics, who are you to redefine it? Worse yet, if something exhibits all the characteristics of a label, isn't it such? I mean, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be, well, a duck.
That's the essence of political correctness, I suppose. We find new labels to apply, to soften the meaning. Of someone is vertically challenged, they're short. Doesn't matter what you say, they're still short. But, we use PC to feel better about ourselves. We can apply a label that, somehow, implies something isn't as bad. Or, it implies that something isn't what it actually is. We can then reconcile with ourselves that something is ok.
Hitler was a master of this. He committed genocide. In his mind, it was cleansing a nation (world?). But, to the Jews (and the rest of the world), it was still genocide. It doesn't matter how it was termed, a lot of people died for no good reason.
And, I guess that's where I'm going with all this... You can apply a label to something, or insist that a label doesn't apply, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast. A thing is what it is, regardless of how it is labeled. Just because we choose to label something, or apply a completely different label to it, doesn't change anything. A rose, by any other name...
Occidental culture is especially obsessed with applying labels to things. Everything is categorized; assigned it's own slot. If there isn't a category for it, a new category is created. Again, a good thing, because it helps us understand stuff. (Almost) everyone knows what a gas is, what a solid is, what a liquid is. We identify an animal as a mammal, we know it has certain characteristics. Reptiles too have their own characteristics that distinguish; make them unique.
Labels really are a boon to communication. But, there are times when they can be a hindrance... If I say I have a dog, I assume that you know what a dog is. But, what if your perception of the label is different? The communication can break down. You and I would have to normalize what we know a dog to be; fill in the gaps, so to speak. So, at the end of the day, we both understand what it is when we use the word dog.
But, there's another problem with labels.
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
So wrote Shakespeare. The key line, "... A rose by any other name..." really says something. Just because we choose to apply a label to something, doesn't change it's characteristics. Something is what it is, regardless of what we choose to call it. Beyond that, were I to start referring to roses as carnations, it would cause problems. To everyone I spoke, whenever I used the word carnation, the listener wouldn't understand what I meant.
Then there are the times where labels are used to justify something. They are used to make something acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable. One person's terrorist might be another person's freedom fighter. The thing is, who is to say which label is appropriate?
My father used to say, "If everyone on the subway is looking at you... It ain't them." So, if society (or at least your culture) defines a label as having certain characteristics, who are you to redefine it? Worse yet, if something exhibits all the characteristics of a label, isn't it such? I mean, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be, well, a duck.
That's the essence of political correctness, I suppose. We find new labels to apply, to soften the meaning. Of someone is vertically challenged, they're short. Doesn't matter what you say, they're still short. But, we use PC to feel better about ourselves. We can apply a label that, somehow, implies something isn't as bad. Or, it implies that something isn't what it actually is. We can then reconcile with ourselves that something is ok.
Hitler was a master of this. He committed genocide. In his mind, it was cleansing a nation (world?). But, to the Jews (and the rest of the world), it was still genocide. It doesn't matter how it was termed, a lot of people died for no good reason.
And, I guess that's where I'm going with all this... You can apply a label to something, or insist that a label doesn't apply, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast. A thing is what it is, regardless of how it is labeled. Just because we choose to label something, or apply a completely different label to it, doesn't change anything. A rose, by any other name...
