Categorization

Why is categorization stupid? The ultimate procrastination rant...
Started on 27/4/06, fully fleshed out on 24/6/07 – ie just before the May block of assessments last year, and within my midyears this year

You know, on April 27th 2006 I wrote in my diary that Mr W had made particularly irate. He had the nerve to taunt me with kissing noises just because I said I liked Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting and then proceed to exclaim surprise at my being so typical, “so adolescent”. Allow me to take the liberty to have a rant about LABELING like this. Why is – CATEGORIZATION – so stupid?

1. It creates social conflict
2. It causes mental instability and discontent
3. It’s so superficial!!
4. It cheapens our individuality

Part 1

Categorisation is a major cause of conflict in societies. If we could all simply see ourselves as humans, ignoring racial/religious differences, let’s list the wars that wouldn't have happened.

1. The Crusades (what's with converting the heathen?)
2. The pillaging, plundering and burning between the ancient civilizations...which I will not bother to list properly (Romans, Britons, Spartans, Athenians, Egyptians, Nubians, Macedonians, Mycenaeans, Cretins – lol do the Cretins come from Crete, really? Ok digression is BAD this early in a rant...)
3. The Cold War (oh the memories of 10th grade...)
4. The Korean war/the Vietnam war (north vs south...so sad...)
5. WWII (Nazis =/= better than everyone)
6. The French revolution
7. The Russian revolution
8. Actually any revolution where the “working class” usurped the “upper class”

I haven’t done history for 3 years so I can’t think of any more. But as we all know, intolerance drive people to clash culturally with other people. If we didn’t classify people as “poor” and “rich”, or “black” and “white” as we do today, I don’t think most of the wars on earth would have happened.

I don’t care how much you claim war contributes to human development. “The crusades brought medicine to medieval Europe.” Wah. If we’d all been tolerant of each other, information would have been freely shared and global progress would have been even faster. Oh and “War brings out the best in people?” So we need to kill a couple of people for the good of all? Sounds decidedly utilitarian.

Also I don’t give a damn about the economy...ok I may not be a commerce-y major but I'm pretty sure war isn’t the ONLY way of improving a country’s economical status, I’m sure there are ways of doing it without sacking priceless human lives. Incidentally, I'm not a communist either. Admittedly communism is a nice idea, but given the way humans function, it isn’t going to work. Remind me of this one day and you'll get to hear another raving rant.

Back to the topic: Without war, there would have been fewer lives lost, and we wouldn't have lost any potential “great minds”, who could have accelerated our collective advancement. Let’s all be friendly happy chappies. Ok so it’s not that simple, but we could at least try a bit harder? The end.

Part 2

Now categorization causes pure, unadulterated misery. In the past we saw it through open conflict. Today teenage angst is caused by our tendency to throw people into groups. “Emo” kids descend further into darkness, feeling they have a right and or responsibility to now, simply because people see them as “emo”. Nerds ostracize themselves because they have a preconception that nobody will understand them. The “popular kids” are pressured to maintain the qualities which are associated with “popular kids”, lest they fall from this category.

In more serious terms, Anorexia is caused by an obsession with wanting to belong to the “thin” group. And what about the communities that throw people out who have disabilities or different sexual tendencies? Makes life miserable for everyone – both the categorized and the categorizers – it’s all a matter of perspective! This stems from the problem that any category or group is not only defined by who is in it, but by who isn’t in it, which delegates superior connotations to one, and inferior to the other.

Part 3

Categories created by society are fleeting but few people manage to see this. For example, the thin/fat dichotomy which brings about incredible divisions in today’s world was only manufactured in modern times. Only a few hundred years ago, fat meant you were wealthy and cool, whereas thin meant you were destitute. You may argue that a category will always EXIST, but its meaning may change, but then doesn’t that seem to make the category MEANINGLESS anyway? Hmm...

Part 4

If you know me really well, you’ll realize that as much as PMS makes me whine about my shortcomings, I am actually fairly happy with who I am, and I rarely care how people try to make me out. I recognize that my favorite things can be attributed to certain teenage stereotypes, each one of which is so superficial that it can be summed up in 3 words (see part 3). For example:

• My poetry = angsty emo escapist
• My love of music = Asian music geek
• My obsession with Johnny Depp = squealing teenage fangurl
• My book collecting = four-eyed bookworm
• My technophile-ness = yuppie with vaio (or ipod)
• My vegetarianism = annoying animal activist
• My dress sense = Buddhist boho pacifist
• My rants = ruthlessly ambitious feminist

I am also sure I am not one of the only people who can simultaneously be a teacher’s pet and a teacher’s nightmare at once. And last but not least, I may drive a car, work, have moved out of my family home, cook for myself, not drink at parties to watch out for my friends AND I may go around the party house the morning after cleaning up for them (Hayden: “you’re too domesticated!”)...BUT I still get mistaken for a twelve-year-old because of my raw, childish energy (and tactlessness, I unfortunately suspect). That and my height. But that’s another story.

The point I was trying to make in the first place though, was that categorization disregards our individuality. Not only are categories vast generalizations, but you should remember that Nature bestowed upon you a genetic code unlike anybody else’s – when you become a part of a group, you are seen only as a member of that group, rather than a discrete entity. Although part of being human is having companionship and forming social networks, part of being human is also having a separate consciousness of your own. So yes, go ahead and “belong” to your groups, but don’t forget to see yourself as an individual in a GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this terribly well – but I sort of want to make the point that we should be taking a slightly different perspective on the concept of a “group” (or category).

Conclusion:

So this has turned into a rant about me! Ok I’m really sorry – but I really did want to show how proud I was that I can’t be fully classified into any group – and I want you guys to be proud of yourselves too. It’s been said so many times, but too many very intelligent people around me waste their energy trying to conform – because “what’s wrong with being in a group?” I’ve told you.

I will also tell you to leave me alone if you can’t accept me the way I am, a collage of idiosyncrasies and memories which was never meant to be fully worked out. Don’t think I'm a social retard just because I'm computer obsessed, or emo just because I write angsty poetry. Don’t label me a drama queen just because I talk and sing loudly. Don’t call me a baby just because I don’t know what a “boat race” is. Don’t suppose I'm a lesbian just because I make snide comments about the patriarchy and don't do the whole dating/hookups thing. Don’t assume I’m making plans to be a vet just because I don’t eat meat and happen to stand up for goldfish rights (coming later). Don’t exclude me from beach outings just because I like my study time. Don’t look so surprised when I play a wicked Chopin nocturne on piano after getting too familiar with my pop music voice. And, for fuck’s sake, don’t call me a typical, teenage, mainstream, predictable adolescent on the basis of admiring Matt Damon!