[Buddha-l] Jinapanjaram

[Richard Hayes]

On May 16, 2010, at 9:32 AM, sjziobro at cs.com wrote:

> Part of my thinking about names and naming, pejoratively termed "labels" and "labeling," is that, as nouns, they are essential for our ability to conceive, reason, and communicate the realities and rationales of things with others in both daily and technical registers of discourse.  The problem does not originate in names and naming so much as in how we choose to interact with others by our use or manipulation of these names.

I think thee has put thy finger exactly on what those who use the term "labels" pejoratively are pejorating. It is not the use of terms as such that anyone decries; for heaven's sake, EVERYONE knows that labels and other linguistic items are handy on moving day. It will never do just to toss things into boxes without a hint of which box contains the box opener.

When people caution against labeling, they are warning not against using language at all, but against taking labels as absolutes or as etiquettes written in indelible ink that cannot be washed off.

>  The question, then, pertains primarily to the ethical or moral sphere, the sphere of right action, with attending questions of responsibility, loving, etc., though it is clearly allied to right thought forming the theoretical basis of action.

Yes, exactly. It is when a label becomes an excuse for not loving, or for not respecting or for not having compassion, that it is pernicious. (Admittedly, only Republicans use labels in that pernicious way.) 

When Stephen Batchelor was here, someone in the audience from a local Vipassanā group was terribly worried about what Stephen was saying, since she did not think it sounded enough like Buddhism. Then when David Loy was here, the same woman was terribly worried that what he was saying sounded too much like Mahāyāna (and it was pretty clear from her comments that anything that wears the Mahāyāna label probably doesn't deserve to wear the Buddhism label.) THAT sort of hand-wringing about labels, where one concludes that someone is not wearing the right label and thus cannot be saying anything worth hearing, is what gets in the way of getting on with getting on with the way. Of course, we see plenty of this counterproductive labeling in American politics. Put the label "socialist" or "liberal" on a policy, and you can be sure 49.5% of Americans will immediately revile it. Take off the label "inheritance tax" and replace it with "death tax", and some people will grind their teeth until they spit blood. In the circles I run around in (and believe me, I do run around in circles), labels like "conservative" or "capitalist" bring on all manner of perfectly idiotic reactions that make one ashamed of being part of the same species as those who are reacting.

The kind of irrational reaction that can be labeled "labeling" is not restricted to the application of words, of course. Some time ago I recall a number of Quakers expressing deep reservations about meeting in a Protestant church, because there was a small cross in the entrance way, and the building had a steeple. The presence of a cross was immediately seen as just the kind of "idolatry" that 17th century Quakers despised, and a building with a steeple is a "church", and any bloody fool knows that Quakers do not worship in churches but choose instead to worship in meeting houses. This kind of "reasoning" keeps reasonable men and women away in droves, methinks, and, unfortunately, such "reasoning" is so commonplace in organized religions as to seem almost essential to institutional survival. This could be why so many people these days are hankering for disorganized religion.

Richard