mesotablar | Being Labeled (Reply)

I studied identity and self at university many years ago, so I have half remembered frameworks floating around in the back of my mind. I could do my research and find all my sources (because I still have all my readers, textbooks and work assignments) but I felt I just had to get this down in words or it would never happen. I can always come back and add references as I refine my ideas…

It can be understood that self has 2 basic components, an personal sense that you control by choices you make, and a external perception within society where other people make assumptions about you. Basically what you think about yourself and what other people think about you.

Labels can be ones you choose for yourself or are assigned to you by others. Labels are everywhere and most are not questioned or cause reaction. There is no reaction to these because you have in someway chosen or feel that they are accurate. Your job description, your generation moniker, your hair colour, your nationality.

But society works on defaults, so it is possible for externally applied labels to be ill-fitting or wrong, which leads to questioning. Finding a label can be cathartic, or bring a sense of freedom and community. That is when you are accepting a label you have found that fits your own sense of self.

When you are confronted by people in society labeling you with words defining their perception of you, things you may not have thought of (let alone questioned) or simply have a gut reaction against, things get painful*. Most of the discussion I have seen is in regards to gender and pronouns, but I remember a bit of argument just after I joined Arocalypse surrounding the use of alloromantic.

We are not only what we are, but we are also what we are not, what we reject. Aromantics are not romantic, then what do we call the romantics? Can’t call then non-aromantic because then there are issues for all the other a-spec but not aromantic people. Can’t call them ‘romantics’ because colloquial that already has meaning within the general population (darn english language where all the most accurate terms we need are already in inaccurate use, looking at you ‘Friends with Benefits’!). Alloromantic is a good a term as any, especially when talking in aspec spaces where we need a general term to refer to the majority of people in the world. I’ve never been in a situation where I would directly single out someone and specifically call them alloromantic. I think I would falter.

I would remember all the enforced rules against labeling others and test out the word, see if they agree or identify with the meaning, but I would not definitively state that is what they are.

I see this definite statement labeling people as cis much more than I would like to. Sure, if the person has come out saying what gender they are and that they are not trans/intersex then applying that label is probably fair use.

But being labeled by others can still hurt or be enraging.

Recently my newly arrived to Australia neighbour called me ‘white’. Almost 30 and this is the first time someone has labeled me that way and it made me feel ill-used and slightly angry. A class in highschool used the word ‘caucasian’ and several of us were very angry, a term created by a racist for eugenics reasons which is inaccurate anyway because no-one in the class had any heritage linked to that region (yes, it is a specific region in Europe, home to a specific group of people, the Caucasians). So is ‘white’ the new basic word for … for what?

Australia is not a place where you can judge someone’s identity by their skin colour, and if you do you are erasing history and reinforcing the racism. Sure, he may just be acknowledging that I present as ‘white’ so all the other ‘white’-type people will see me as being the same as them and give me those ‘white’ privilege perks (Australia has a really bad history with having racist policies, so I’m not denying there are perks that continue to echo throughout society [The White Australia policy is probably why some of the older ethnic communities get clocked as white now]).

To me, his use of the label ‘white’ just smacked of USA cultural terms, a term that homogenizes and erases cultural histories. As if the colour of my skin was the main defining feature of my racial identity, rather than the histories of my forebears. As if you can tell from the colour of their skin whether someone is proudly Afghan, Aboriginal, Jewish, or Gold-Rush Chinese.

Interestingly I have no negative reaction to being called a white-fella. Maybe it is because it is an Australian term, so in using it they acknowledge in the same breath that I am white and Australian, and to be Australian is to assume multiculturalism and migration. Maybe it is because I have only heard black-fella in relation to identifying Aboriginal people (African Americans get called ‘Black Brothers’), so white-fella is the negative term. I am non-black-fella, therefore I am white-fella. In the same way I accept I am non-trans/non-NB therefore I am cis. Maybe that is the whole issue, I don’t have a clear sense of being cis or a clear sense of being a white-fella, but because I can define them as being the negative of something else which is clearly defined I happily accept it. Where as ‘white’ assumes a sense of something, and I have no idea what that is meant to be, so it feels wrong.

I understand why people feel the need to label others, even if it simply is to give a shorthand way of putting someone in a group for comparison purposes. But unless the term is well understood by both parties there is the risk of causing offence or being misunderstood. My neighbour called me ‘white’ as part of a joke where he called himself ‘black’. His joke wasn’t funny and he inadvertently pushed me away with the black/white binary when in reality, both of us being from Australasia means I have more in common with him than someone in Poland (which is where my white skin comes from).

*That is why most forums have rules about labeling others, and pronouns are made explicit in introductions or profiles.