In reading what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have to say about making distinctions (labels) AND receiving a myriad of constructive criticism from The Crow, I've decided to try move in a different direction in my writings and speaking. What you see below is a rough draft of my Pencil Shavings column for the January 25-31 edition of Greener Times, a newsletter I publish and edit.
For years, I've thrown around a variety of labels: Green, leftist, socialist and progressive. Like most people, I use these labels as a sort of shorthand because it's so much easier than having to explain my political perspective in detail every time someone asks. Beginning today, however, I'm going to try to move beyond such labels here in my Pencil Shavings column and in life, in general.
Why am I taking this drastic step? Because each of those four words has NO UNIVERSAL MEANING. Each of those words means different things to different people and different things to the same people at different times.
Take, for example, the label Green. Some people self-identify as a Green and yet they drive a Hummer or some other gas guzzler. Other people claim to be Greens, yet support the US strategy of trying to blow up the world country by country. Some people claim to be devout Greens who will only support candidates who advocate strong environmental laws and regulations, yet they vote for Democrats and Republicans who only pay lip service to such things. So, what in the heck does Green really mean?
What does it mean to be a leftist? Left of what? The middle ground of political discourse in this nation has been moving to the right for the past 20 years or so. To be left of today's middle ground starts in the territory of what was once considered a moderate Democrat.
What does it mean to be a socialist? There are about as many varieties of socialist as there are Christian denominations and, just like the myriad of denominations, all these groups and parties can't seem to agree on much of anything. I mean, if there wasn't so much disagreement on what it meant to be a Red, there wouldn't be so many different groups in the first place.
But the one word I'm really going to try to stay away from is progressive. It has always been a vague and nebulous term. And it means so many different things to different people. There are folks who have voted a straight Democratic Party ticket their entire voting lives who consider themselves die-hard progressives. There are people who have supported every war the US has fought or threatens to fight who will tell you that they are as progressive as they come. There are activists who support/oppose the death penalty, a woman's right to choose, gay rights, universal health care, labor rights and a plethora of other issues and, regardless of which side they take on these issues and more, each will tell you that he or she is progressive.
In each case, these labels don't really tell any of us that much about a person's political leanings. We each filter those labels through our own lens, but the other person's lens may be altogether different. So, we think we understand each other when, in reality, we're really speaking foreign languages. All it inevitably leads to is arguments and conflict -- arguments like who is the most Green, left, red or progressive.
It was delightful and refreshing to read your draft!
ReplyDeleteI once had my truck insured by Progressive, not any more...
Now it's a frog like company who call themselves Geico, cheaper and friendlier. But that is beside the point.
I very much like your attempt to declassify and remodel standardized idioms with new inspiration and new wordings.
I think you are onto something there, and if you can publish it and people can read it...even better!
Keep up the good work, and thanks for your comment.
Lukas.
Before Obama was even on the ticket, I was chatting (in China) with a German about his prospects. I said I thought he was perhaps too green. She said, "Oh, no, he's not green enough!"
ReplyDeleteOf course I meant inexperienced, she meant environmentally correct. Now I think we may both be right. (That is, not wrong.)
I like it.
ReplyDeleteGive yourself a label and someone is bound to start shooting at you.
I liked you so much more before you started labelling yourself.
Not that you should pay a moment's notice to anything as annoying as a crow.
But then again...
Good post :)
Zee,
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping in. Please say hi to the frog-like gecko next time ya see 'em!
Baroness,
Yes, I would agree. I think you were each correct in your own way.
Crow,
Sometimes a squawking bird is just what a fellow needs...
How about Marxism-Leninism? I think that has a pretty well-defined meaning that doesn't drift with the times.
ReplyDeleteCB,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I don't think that's well-defined either. For one thing, Lenin thought he was being true to Marx, so he didn't label his political philosophy as Marxist-Leninist. (Sort of like Jesus never considered himself a Christian.)
For another, there are scads of political organizations across the globe that consider themselves M-L, but they disagree with each other on policy and strategy.
True, but it is *relatively* precise, such that it tells us something meaningful about the person's political leanings. As for people disagreeing about what Marxism-Leninism means, at least there is a benchmark they can all agree upon: their relative correctness or incorrectness stands or falls upon their loyalty to the theories of Marx and Lenin. Of course, if you don't hold to those theories (I don't know if you do or not), there's no reason to call yourself one, but I do think some labels can be helpful in alerting people to the general direction of your Weltanschauung.
ReplyDeleteWell said. Labels are way over-rated anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe labels most often applied to yours truly are inappropriate for use in polite company.
@ cloudberry--
ReplyDelete'some labels can be helpful in alerting people to the general direction of your Weltanschauung.'
Like...I'm a Taoist....
He was talking about political labels. Perhaps Taoist can be construed as a political label, but I assume that was not what he meant when he said "I'm going to try to move beyond such labels", since he still calls himself a Taoist.
ReplyDelete