I am reminded of John Rawls's philosophy that an ethical and legal code should involve imagining that we have no control over the circumstances we might be born into (as we don't) in a word we create.
The labels don't help. But asking people to first recognize how much they're driven by their own identity, and then to reconsider that attachment, is an almost impossible task. Or in other words, for me, it's often a matter of "pick your battles."
One must indeed be careful about where to put their energy. But after a lifetime of trying, in various ways, to effect fundamental change in how folks relate to the land, I am increasingly convinced that it is impossible until people "do the work" of self-awareness and all that work entails. I am not against the incremental progress we sometimes make by persuasion, but real, lasting change seems to me to require that people embrace a new story.
Well stated. Personally, I try hard to avoid labeling myself, so the Golden Rule would suggest that I shouldn't label others either. The extreme but false dichotomy of Left vs Right (amplified and trumpeted by various self-serving "influencers," although that's yet another label) has, in my opinion, done extreme damage to the United States. A moratorium on those divisive terms, as you suggest, sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Being flexible and gracious, as Dave advises, are always in order, and they can lead to better communications among those who accept different labels. But I want to be more rebellious, suggesting that a system that produces so many labels, to which so many people become so adamantly attached, is not an open, generative system. It is a system that is collapsing on itself as people seek to hold onto something - an identity with a label - rather taking that uncomfortable step into the uncertainty we cannot well navigate while - see below - we are being pried apart.
Taking it one step further, I will suggest that labels tend to be part of binary thinking. One is either of the left or on the right. If one is not a capitalist, then they must be a Communist. So, beyond a moratorium on divisive terms, how about we all reject all binary choices?
The natural world and the range of human cultures both present us with a wonderful array of possibilities. Why are we so inclined to narrow all that down to two choices? I don't accept that binary thinking is hard-wired. I think it serves the interests of power. So let' stop doing it.
Okay, I'll go first, understanding I invite critiques and brickbats (which I thought MLB banned decades ago). Lee, I agree with you on the purpose of labels, why we need them, and how they help. How might you, Lee, and all of us, live more comfortably with labels? By being flexible and gracious enough to change them when people deviate from the labels we've slapped on them. And people DO deviate. And it's usually a pleasant surprise, after having assumed our labeling is spot on. I believe civic involvement in general--and land use planning in particular--are especially plagued with labels. But for me there's been much joy in finding how wrong my labels have been--thereby gaining more than a few lifelong friends. ... Okay, not always friends, but "enjoyable acquaintances"!
I am reminded of John Rawls's philosophy that an ethical and legal code should involve imagining that we have no control over the circumstances we might be born into (as we don't) in a word we create.
The labels don't help. But asking people to first recognize how much they're driven by their own identity, and then to reconsider that attachment, is an almost impossible task. Or in other words, for me, it's often a matter of "pick your battles."
Thanks for joining the thread!
One must indeed be careful about where to put their energy. But after a lifetime of trying, in various ways, to effect fundamental change in how folks relate to the land, I am increasingly convinced that it is impossible until people "do the work" of self-awareness and all that work entails. I am not against the incremental progress we sometimes make by persuasion, but real, lasting change seems to me to require that people embrace a new story.
I entirely agree with this. The change has to happen internally or it isn’t going to stick.
Well stated. Personally, I try hard to avoid labeling myself, so the Golden Rule would suggest that I shouldn't label others either. The extreme but false dichotomy of Left vs Right (amplified and trumpeted by various self-serving "influencers," although that's yet another label) has, in my opinion, done extreme damage to the United States. A moratorium on those divisive terms, as you suggest, sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Thanks Kenn!
Being flexible and gracious, as Dave advises, are always in order, and they can lead to better communications among those who accept different labels. But I want to be more rebellious, suggesting that a system that produces so many labels, to which so many people become so adamantly attached, is not an open, generative system. It is a system that is collapsing on itself as people seek to hold onto something - an identity with a label - rather taking that uncomfortable step into the uncertainty we cannot well navigate while - see below - we are being pried apart.
Taking it one step further, I will suggest that labels tend to be part of binary thinking. One is either of the left or on the right. If one is not a capitalist, then they must be a Communist. So, beyond a moratorium on divisive terms, how about we all reject all binary choices?
The natural world and the range of human cultures both present us with a wonderful array of possibilities. Why are we so inclined to narrow all that down to two choices? I don't accept that binary thinking is hard-wired. I think it serves the interests of power. So let' stop doing it.
Okay, I'll go first, understanding I invite critiques and brickbats (which I thought MLB banned decades ago). Lee, I agree with you on the purpose of labels, why we need them, and how they help. How might you, Lee, and all of us, live more comfortably with labels? By being flexible and gracious enough to change them when people deviate from the labels we've slapped on them. And people DO deviate. And it's usually a pleasant surprise, after having assumed our labeling is spot on. I believe civic involvement in general--and land use planning in particular--are especially plagued with labels. But for me there's been much joy in finding how wrong my labels have been--thereby gaining more than a few lifelong friends. ... Okay, not always friends, but "enjoyable acquaintances"!
Thanks Dave, hope is well with you. I am going to respond further in a reply to Kenn’s comment.