The Labeling Dilemma

June 4, 2010

A Conversation with Carlos E. Cortés
Professor Emeritus of History – University of California, Riverside
carlos.cortes@ucr.edu

Let’s talk about labeling.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid put his foot in it when he referred to Barack Obama as “light-skinned” and having “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” These quotes surfaced this year in the book, Game Change, which dealt with the 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of the flap focused on Reid’s choice of the word, “Negro.” But that flap also raised a larger issue, the labeling of societal groups.

Well, since group labels can be so problematic, why don’t we just stop using them?

I’ve heard speakers, including diversity trainers, recommend such an approach. Get real!

We can’t live without group labels — for people, for other animals, for things. Labels are vital to communication. We couldn’t speak or write about groups without using labels.

  • We don’t just buy cars. We buy Fords and Toyotas and Volkswagens. And we use group labels to talk about them.
  • We don’t just write “fruits and vegetables” on our shopping lists. We use group labels to specify apples or bananas or beans or broccoli.
  • People don’t just have dogs. They have Dachshunds, Cocker Spaniels, and German Shepherds.
  • Tigger isn’t just our kitty. He’s an Ocicat.

We couldn’t talk about a group’s history or culture if we didn’t use a label to specify what group we’re talking about. When we discuss intergroup relations, we use labels for the groups that are interacting.

Group labels are integral to life and communication. On college campuses we use them constantly, such as:

  • when describing the demographic make-up of our institutions.
  • when talking about generations – Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials.
  • when referring to some student groups or student centers.
  • when titling courses and academic programs.

Group labels inevitably give rise to controversies, often heated ones.

Some labels are clearly wrong, mainly historically-grounded epithets used to disparage and insult a group of people. But the opposite of wrong isn’t always right. It may just be preferred, and preferences change, constantly. These changing preferences should be respected. Yet sometimes multiple labels for the same group may end up co-existing, often without any single label emerging triumphant.

Group labels change. In 1969 my campus, the University of California, Riverside, established the Mexican-American Studies Program, with support from UMAS (the United Mexican-American Students). UMAS then became MeCHA, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanos de Aztlán. After I became Program Chair in 1972, a group of students came to me, demanding that we change the name of our program from Mexican-American (passé) to Chicano (more in vogue). I told them they didn’t need to demand, just ask. We voted to change the label and the university approved.

Label preferences change and negative epithets become labels of pride. When I was growing up in Kansas City, Missouri, during the 1940’s, you could insult people by calling them “queer.” Although that term is still controversial, we now have college courses on Queer Theory, Queer History, and Queer Literature.

Change happens. Handicap gives way to disability and, in some situations, to special needs. Each label reflects a distinct way of envisioning the group and the changing world around it.

Multiple labels for the same group sometimes co-exist. Students take Native American History classes while using books published by the American Indian Historical Society. I attend Latino conferences, read Hispanic and Hispanic Business magazines, and contribute to the National Council of La Raza.

Labels can be a puzzlement. Don’t become disoriented if the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People celebrates Black History Month by holding an African American Unity Dinner to raise money for the United Negro College Fund. One of Harry Reid’s blunders was being asleep at the switch, linguistically. But we all make labeling mistakes. It’s inevitable.

So what should student affairs professionals do? A few suggestions.

  • Don’t be afraid of group labels. They’re necessary for communication.
  • Avoid historically-grounded negative group epithets, unless they have morphed into labels of group pride.
  • Remain alert to changing group preferences and respect those changes. But don’t expect to find a permanent, change-resistant right word.
  • Cut other folks some slack. None of us can be up-to-date on changing preferences for every group. We’ll make “mistakes.”
  • Don’t play group label “gotcha,” because constantly correcting others throws cold water on communication.
  • Pick your moments to explain label changes. Usually it’s better to do it one-on-one, not in group discussions to embarrass others and show off your supposed labeling superiority.

Group labels are inevitable and necessary. Try to use them in ways that connote respect rather than disparagement. But realize that nobody ever achieves labeling perfection.

You won’t always be right. In fact, you can’t always be right because sometimes there isn’t any right. We’ve got to learn to live with that dilemma.

I’d like to hear your thoughts about labeling.

ShareShare on TwitterPin It
Tags:
  • Andrew

    I believe you are saying the meaning of a label is entirely dependent upon the perceived meaning of the “labeling word” to the supposedly labeled person or group. Since perceptions constantly shift due to any number of reasons, there is no way to be sure of any audience’s appreciation for that label. The hope is that no perception of disparagement occurs upon using a label, but there are way too many moving parts to be certain beforehand.

    I appreciate your suggestions on dealing with labels, because it really has to be a methodology that combines knowledge and the assumption that we just do not always know what is right. Despite the fact experience helps avoid being offensive, we cannot deny the fact we may be ignorant to mal-perceived aspects in the labels we use. As an example, sometimes administrators overcompensate with a label that is “too PC,” and almost create the same ostracizing effect as a truly malevolent label might.

    But isn’t a label, in itself, ostracizing to both the group and those outside the group intrinsically? I agree we cannot live without group labels, but as much as a label reflects “a distinct way of envisioning the group and the changing world around it,” does it not also define a border that reminds us to regard one another differently based on a group rather than an individual?

« Return Home