OFFS – The Idiocy of Labels

Our trail boss and guide Derek asked if I was a golfer. “God, no,” was my immediate response. Was I into ATVs? Classic cars? None of the above. Apparently, I didn’t fit the profile of the typical Arizona retiree.

Derek had been asking questions like these of our group of seven riders on a sunset trail ride in Cave Creek. He’d established the other family was from Kansas City and that the dad was a big hunter and fisherman. Connection made! He asked if I was into fly fishing. Nope. Judy said I wasn’t very outdoorsy. I responded with my usual line, “I grew up in the ‘burbs — the only thing I ever hunted was chicks at the mall.” 

In fact, riding is probably the most outdoorsy thing I like to do. The horse does most of the work while I get to see the sights — kind of a mobile room with a view.

Derek took a selfie when we handed him the camera for the obligatory sunset photo.

The whole conversation got me thinking about labels and how they’re used to define us — and how we define ourselves.

Like most Americans, I used to label myself by what I did for a living. “Retired” is now one label that can be applied to me, but that, too, brings with it pre-conceived notions, exemplified by the exchange with Derek. One label is insufficient, as are others — labels are at odds with what one does during retirement. For example, I love to travel, but I’m no nomad. I love good food and  drink — cooking has become a bit of a hobby — but I’m no epicurean in the classic sense. I lift weights and walk to stay in shape, but I’m not a jock. I read voraciously and like to write every now and then, but I’m not an academic nor a raconteur.

It’s even worse in our highly charged political world. If you are a “Republican” you are instantly branded as a MAGA fascist by liberals. If you are a “Democrat” the conservatives will place you amongst Lenin and Trotsky on their lists of who not to invite to dinner. My world view is much broader, so I no longer identify with any one political party and am registered as “unaffiliated.” 

Two groups of people arguing at a political rally holding signs favoring Republican and Democratic parties
Can there really be debate when both sides assume the worst of the other? AI-generated image.

And don’t get me started on religion. 

Man looking at a Christian cross, Jewish menorah, Hindu Ganesh statue, prayer beads, and lotus candle holder
Faith — or even the lack thereof — is a deeply personal subject, yet the labels attached to religion and those who practice it have been the source of conflict for thousands of years. AI-generated image.

My friend Geoff Woliner wrote recently, “It’s fascinating that some people’s entire personality is framed around strong beliefs on an issue that they’ve never personally experienced, informed by people they’ve never met who’ve also never personally experienced the issue.”

I’m sure you’re already thinking of at least one person you know who thinks this way and has attached a label to their defining “cause.”

In an ideal world, we’d no longer define ourselves by labels, but by our actions. Establish a multi-dimensional identity by doing the things you like to do and in which you believe. Don’t do things just because others think you should. Do what you say you’ll do with honor and integrity. Don’t believe in something just because others think you should. Ground your beliefs on principles important to you. You can share your beliefs, but you must respect the beliefs of others. 

Judy and I would like to believe we strive for these ideals, but we are definitely not idealists. See what I mean about labels? Maybe the solution is longer answers to the questions posed by strangers. What do you think?

©Judy and Greg Romano – All rights reserved.

Leave a comment