Laura Hegarty | Contributing Writer
‘Pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’. ‘Pro-Palestine’ or ‘pro-Israel’. ‘Feminist’ or ‘Absolutely Not a Feminist’.
Why are these decisions that we are seemingly forced to make today? None of these oversimplified labels could ever reflect my true personal opinion. No issue is ever so black and white that public opinion can be divided and polarised in such a manner. In the same way that referenda are an inadequate means of ascertaining the true view of the people, such labels come from a vocabulary capable only of depicting the most extreme and/or simple of views.
Having an absolute and unqualified view is often a sign that one does not fully understand the issue at hand
For example, the ‘I am not a feminist because…’ movement was based on the premise of women (for the most part) publicly saying that they were not feminists for a variety of reasons. Why is it a matter of being a feminist or being against feminists? Why did they feel the need to socially and intellectually limit themselves in such a way? These people are doing themselves a disservice. This is a toxic attitude to have considering that the majority of women would be, to different degrees, in support of certain beliefs of both the ‘feminist’ and ‘anti-feminist’ groups.
Emma Watson’s now-famous HeForShe speech to members of the UN has drawn a lot of attention and has been rightfully praised for the points she made in it. One part that particularly struck me was when she said “It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of two sets of opposing ideals. If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be freer…” This idea of a ‘spectrum’ is something that we should incorporate into other areas, along with that of gender identity.
There will always be a spectrum when it comes to having an opinion, especially on a controversial topic. When does one ever express oneself in a heated debate without using caveat words such as ‘but’ or ‘except’ or ‘although’? These are the admissions and exceptions that make the debate heated, the words that make an opinion nuanced. Having an absolute and unqualified view is often a sign that one does not fully understand the issue at hand. Thus labelling our opinions in such a manner cheapens them – they lose their unique elements and they lose the quirks and insights that make them ours.
Why then do we try and place people in these unrealistic opposing camps?
Such labels come from a vocabulary capable only of depicting the most extreme and/or simple of views.
Perhaps it could be seen as a mechanism for attempting to better understand what is going on around us. In a world that has become one large ‘grey area’, making the big issues appear black and white makes them more easily processed. Perhaps it stems from our need, as millennials, to slot people easily into one box or another. Maybe in a transparent world of status updates and public posts, having a complicated opinion personal to you is just too much for some to deal with.
Or does this approach simply make it easier to argue against the view of our intellectual opponents? The first of Schopenhauer’s thirty-eight stratagems to win an argument from ‘The Art of Controversy’, is as follows, ‘carry your opponent’s argument beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find with it. The more restricted or narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.’ Labelling someone as ‘pro-choice’ and throwing at them the most heinous or extremist examples of views held by certain people at this end of the spectrum makes arguing opposing ideas much less difficult. In this way, one must only confront the general and overarching issues associated with particular groups, rather than tackling the intricacies of that particular person’s argument.
One thing is for sure – slapping a simplistic label on an opinion sucks out the intelligence and individuality. Anyone with an opinion worth listening to will need more than two hyphenated words to express it.
Photo by Eugen Naiman at https://www.flickr.com/photos/enaiman/8895491980/
