By Kevin Currie-Knight
___
“I ponder if we are going to ever cease placing folks into these classes. May we ever simply enable folks to be people?”
The coed mentioned this as we had been speaking after class. What began off as a dialog about class, the place we had been discussing the politics of banning books in faculties, turned a dialog about LGBTQ points. The coed in query identifies with a number of of these letters, however was involved that even on this group, there’s a strain to label oneself and act based on the label.
What I feel the scholar was actually getting at was that if labels restrict us (and typically trigger us to restrict our personal actions to accord with the label), can’t we simply dispose of most or all id labels? (To preview, my quick reply is “no, not if we need to stay human.”)
I do know some readers will likely be skeptical concerning the very act of id labels: why does one must label themselves as ‘nonbinary’ or ‘demisexual’ or ‘Latinx’ anyway? Isn’t {that a} fairly self-indulgent act? Whereas I see the purpose, I’d reply roughly the best way Zygmunt Bauman does, by noting that with the fashionable and postmodern age proliferating our choices (typically to the purpose the place we really feel overwhelmed and groundless), labels assist us make sense of ourselves in a world that more and more leaves these selections to us. As Bauman writes: “As soon as id loses the social anchors that made it look ‘pure’, predetermined and non-negotiable, ‘identification’ turns into ever extra vital for the people desperately in search of a ‘we’ to which they might bid for entry.” I’d simply add that on this world of accelerating alternative and lowering pure constraints, id categorization could also be significantly vital for many who match much less simply (if in any respect) into dominant social norms: heterosexuality doesn’t turn into a label (relatively than simply “the best way all of us are”), till homosexuality is recognized as an possibility. Nobody was consciously cisgender till we began taking the thought of being transgender significantly.
With that compulsory throat clearing out of the best way, right here was my pessimistic response to the scholar. I instructed them that I feel people want id classes an excessive amount of. People naturally categorize their environment – different folks included – as a method to dwell extra simply on this planet. Even when classes are limiting, additionally they contribute to creating an impossibly difficult world extra manageable. (I might have paraphrased Foucault and talked about that classes are as limiting as they’re formative, as a result of restriction is a part of formation.)
Right here’s the elaboration I didn’t give to the scholar, principally as a result of I might see the frustration with that pessimistic reply. (I feel the scholar thought I used to be saying that human beings are too flawed to be above categorization, when what I used to be saying was that categorization helps us be extra human.)
Let’s think about, I might have instructed the scholar, that all of us stopped figuring out by intercourse, sexuality, and gender labels. And correspondingly, suppose we undid all norms associated to intercourse, gender, and sexual orientation. Think about how laborious that may make the already tough act of courting. You see somebody you have an interest in, as an illustration, and haven’t any method to inform (or approximate) by sight whether or not they’re male or feminine, whether or not they’re straight, homosexual, bisexual, or one thing else, whether or not they’re trans or cis.
To count on this to be a livable world, we’d must do both cease having preferences and/or we’d have to simply accept the concept the one method to inform “what an individual is” is by partaking them in quest of their rationalization of who they’re (and good luck doing that with out recourse to the language of classes).
Gender norms may be the obvious illustration. While you categorize somebody on sight as male or feminine, you’re possible not ascertaining their intercourse, however merely studying cues about their gender presentation. I’ll classify that individual as feminine as a result of she is sporting a gown and has the kind of hair, make-up, and vocal pitch I count on of females. Sure, these norms have fuzzy borders and are restrictive; we should always attempt to loosen them, particularly for individuals who expertise hardship in conforming to them. However that doesn’t imply the norms are ineffective; they developed, not less than partially, as a result of they served some human use of constructing folks simpler to categorize by sight.
Once more, there’s a Foucauldian level right here. The explanation Foucault didn’t have a lot enthusiasm for liberatory politics is as a result of he realized that norms serve capabilities, and after we liberate ourselves from some, we inevitably bind ourselves to others. His Historical past of Sexuality was an illustration: after we stopped policing sexual conduct on spiritual grounds, we began policing it on scientific and medical grounds.
I believe the scholar’s zeal for an age after we not categorize by intercourse, sexuality, or gender got here from two sources. I’ve talked about the primary already: it may be robust, typically unbearably so, being somebody who doesn’t match into the dominant social norms. From there, it’s simple to seek out (sincere) solace in an id label. But when one felt restricted by making an attempt to suit right into a dominant social label, even a extra correct label can come to really feel constricting, particularly if one continues to be understanding whether or not one matches neatly into any pre-given class.
The second cause label-abolition could appear enticing is extra educational. We begin by noting that x label isn’t – not less than for the sake of argument – a lot a pure type as a contingent social development. However we regularly transfer too rapidly, I feel, from that to the concept x label serves no use that we will’t (simply) serve with out it. “Race isn’t a pure type,” turns into “there may be nothing vital the thought of race does, so we will simply cease all this silliness.” Since binary gender is a social assemble, absolutely we will transfer on to a day the place we cease labeling and figuring out into genders.
This isn’t a lot essentially false as it’s a non-sequitur. Anthropology at its finest has a prepared response: have a look at what functions this tradition’s classes serve, and you will note some interior logic to it. It could be relative and it could be a contingent social development, however there are in all probability functions it serves. This doesn’t imply you’ll be able to’t or shouldn’t eliminate this scheme of categorization. However it does imply that if you do, you would possibly have to fill the perform(s) it served another method.
To be clear, this doesn’t commit me to, and I don’t want to argue for, a conservative place that defends no matter classes exist in opposition to change. That I may be misunderstood – that I’d must do an excessive amount of clarifying – is why I mentioned virtually none of this to the scholar. However once I do have time and house to make clear, I body the factor as a human ambivalence: we’d like classes on the identical time we and our understandings are constrained by them. That doesn’t imply any current set of classes ought to ever be settled, but when the sport is to outrun all categorization (even inside a single area, like gender or sexuality), it’s a race categorization will simply win. The classes themselves might (and let me stress once more, typically ought to) change, however the mandatory capabilities of categorization will stay.
