On the Morality of Labels

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the term label as:

"A narrow slip of silk, paper or parchment, containing a name or title, and affixed to any thing, denoting its contents."

Today it obviously has a slightly different meaning. There can be conceptual labels now, not only those made of silk, paper, or parchment. A man could be labelled a Chauvinist for instance. What does that mean? Is it a literal label, like a scarlet letter, that he wears around for all to see? No, surely it is not that, for what man wears a tag which labels him a seemingly negative thing. Is it a conceptual label, an idea that others apply to him based upon his actions and stated beliefs? Surely this seems the most logical explanation.

The term 'Chauvinist' is the name or title that this concept is defined as, and when one is labelled as such, it denotes the contents of the person. What is implied by this label imposed upon this man by his peers? Understanding this can help us comprehend what such a label infers as to the contents of a person. The suffix '-ist' in the English language denotes, "a follower of". So a Marxist is a follower of Marx, a Ventriloquist is a follower of the art of Ventriloquism. A Taoist is a follower of the Tao. So a Chauvinist is a follower of Chauvin. So who was he?

Nicolas Chauvin was a mythical soldier used in propaganda by Napoleon. He exemplified an excess of nationalism in a way similar to how Uncle Sam was later used in the United States, as a recruiting tool. According to the myths, Chauvin enlisted into Napoleon's Army at 18 and in the subsequent years was wounded 17 times, yet he continued his service to his country despite gross disfigurement. His loyalty did not change even as he became impoverished, ridiculed, and humiliated as sentiment in favour of Napoleon deteriorated. After Bonapart fell from grace and was exiled, Vaudeville plays developed which depicted him as the butt of everyone's jokes. Imagine if you will, following the Bush Administration, people poking fun at those who stayed loyal to Bush until the end, despite his obvious faults. Someone who fails to see anything but patriotism and devotion to Bush. Such a person I can imagine would be ridiculed as well. In France the term Chauvinist means extreme nationalism. The seeming ideal of Patriotism. Someone who lives their life for their country first, with a firm belief that their country is the best country. During the 1960s, Feminists took the term and applied it to males, instead of thinking one's nation as best, it began to denote that one's gender is best, implying that other gender's are inferior.

You can see how words lose their meaning, can you not? If a man is labelled a chauvinist, it should mean that he is like Chauvin and a loyal patriot who will not desert his leader and his country, feeling they are superior to all others. This surely isn't an evil thing, or a bad thing. But today it is a term which denotes sexism. If you label a man a Chauvinist, what are you saying about his contents? Could it mean either definition... or both even... No. It completely depends upon the perception of those around him. Many are ignorant to the fact of the origin of the term, to them it means a concept they have defined in their heads by hearing the term applied to certain behaviour. To some, a chauvinist could be a man who lusts after women, to others it is someone who finds pleasure in demeaning women, for others it is a man who enjoys dominating women in bed. The man's peers have their own ideas of what the term means and they label him as they see fit! Yet they are labelling him by a term that has lost its original meaning, and with time will likely evolve into something else entirely. It could come to simply represent guys who enjoy going bowling together... or the fact that there are separate NBA and WNBA leagues.

What is interesting is that the term has only been commandeered by one group, feminists. If one reduces chauvinism to its base components and filters out nationalism, you could reduce it to:

"One who elevates a social group they belong to above all other competition, remaining loyal to that ideal even in the face of annihilation."

So why have African Americans not utilized this term to refer to Caucasians? Why have homosexuals not utilized this term to refer to heterosexuals? Why have non-Christians not utilized this term to refer to Christians. It escapes reason. If it is right for feminists to use the term in such a general manner, why do they have a monopoly on how people perceive the term? It seems that the ideal they truly are trying to identify has already been introduced to the English speaking world, the notion they try and twist Chauvinism into is what we already called Elitism.

So why not call men: Male Elitist Pigs? Simple. The term elitism is easily understood to mean the generalized concept the Feminists wanted to use. Chauvin is a figure not involved in the English language, a figure we could not identify with any set values. If one is called an elitist, they may even agree that it is true. But if one is called a term they do not know, which is stated in relation to the word pig, it automatically is implied that it is something bad, even though they know nothing about what the term means.

So if labels can be put upon people by others, outside of their will, and those labels can be so off base, representing notions which are in conflict with what the term literally means. How can this be right? Is it right for a man to be told by others what he is at all? Do the opinions of others shape a man, or does a man shape himself in the image he best sees fit, or still yet, does God shape man in the image he wishes to see? Should my opinion of you, or your opinion of me, change who I fundamentally am? What if you were to base such a judgement as calling me a Chauvinist because I enjoy playing in a band whose members are all men. Should your opinion of me, the label you write and stick upon me, should it have more say over what my contents are than myself or God? Surely not!

The greatest hypocrisy of all this is in the fact that when one labels another a Chauvinist, they themselves are acting as elitists! For how can any man judge another, unless he himself feels he is superior!

The question now becomes, is it wrong to be an elitist? To say elitism is wrong would be to say that the lowest elements of a society are completely equal with the highest elements. Mozart is equal to a feudal serf. The pious priest is equal to the serial murderer. The victors of war are equal to the defeated. To abandon elitism completely would be to oppose all conflict, all punishment, all accomplishments, and even all morals. The mantra of anti-elitism would be equality in every situation at all costs. Surely the vile are not the same as the holy. Surely the Devil is not the same as God. If God is better than the devil, if the victors are better than the defeated, if the priest is better than the murderer, then elitism is not only right, but an implicit factor in all morals. How can we say one action is good and another is wrong without some form of elitism? Elitism must be at the very least permissible, or else all morality would be meaningless.

So where is the wrong in labeling others? The evil in it is the hypocracy. To call others elitist while one must be an elitist to even judge others is a contradiction of a grand magnitude. To call one an elitist becomes a slander that the slanderer is also guilty of, something that one believes in but persecutes others for believing in as well. It places guilt fully upon their own shoulders, a burden they have no interest in even acknowledging. This concept is best illustrated by the words of Christ himself during his sermon on the mount:

"'Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
-Matthew 7:1-5

If elitism is so wrong in your own eye, then cease being an elitist yourself! And if you do cease to be an elitist, how could you even go about judging others and criticizing others for being an elitist. Lead by example if you find it to be wrong. But keep in mind what abandoning elitism necessarily must result in. It will dissolve all morals. It will destroy all judgments. It will only result in extreme Marxism (the idea that all men are equal and they should all be treated and compensated equally, regardless of talents, regardless of ability, regardless of performance). And if this is a result you can live with, that you feel would be better than the alternative, then by all means, embrace it! Live it! Be an example to all! But to try and judge others who disagree with you on this, you would become an elitist for the anti-elitist ideal, and in turn, you would do great harm to your very cause. If you reject this ideal of Marxism, then be an elitist and embrace it! If you believe that some have better talent, better ability, better performance than others. If you believe you excel at your work. If you believe you are better than the murderer. Then by all means be an elitist. And as an elitist, cease listening to the griping of hypocrites.

Who does elitism benefit? The best, the strongest, the hardest working, the smartest, the wisest, the fastest... the elite. And the inverse? Who does anti-elitism benefit? The least, the weak, the lazy, the ignorant, the idiots, the slowest, and the self-hating. For why would someone who has superior talent sell himself short if he did not have some deep seeded self-depreciating issues himself? Why would the pious proclaim that they are equal to the vile? Why would God decree that he was equal to the Devil? Why would the good wish to be equal to the bad? It is only the one who has ability and lacks the determination to exercise his abilities that would commit such a grievous error.

In making this statement, I give myself away. My statements give you an impression as to which camp I myself lie in. By these statements, you now have the ability to label me. So when is it acceptable to label others? Only when it does not contradict who and what you are. If you are an elitist, then do not label others as elitist. If you are weak, do not label others as weak. If you are a monster, do not label others as monsters. It is only justifiable to label others when they are what you are not, with one notable exception, the instance of anti-elitism as I have already spoken at length about. But the strong, they have every reason to label others as weak. The rich have every reason to label others as poor. And the opposite is also true. The poor have the right to label the rich as what they are, based upon their contents. But only if they acknowledge elitism and the fact that they are not of the elite, accepting their lot in life, accepting the fact that they are lesser than the elite. The poor man who acknowledges his poverty. But for a poor man to criticize his neighbour who is just as poor as he is, this is out of line.

In summation, we all can see clearly that Marxism is an agent of the dissolution of all morals. We can see that a moral man must believe in elitism as a necessary function of morality. We also can understand that labelling others is only moral when elitism is acknowledged and when hypocrisy is out of the picture. Conscious Elitism is the only morality. Without acknowledging elitism, there is no moral premise which is valid, making elitism intrinsically bound to morals. We can go further and push forward the proposition that Elitism is the cause of all Morals, Morality is only the effect of what any society deems best overcoming what a society views as the worst. Therefore a moral life is a life where one's elitism is fully acknowledged and embraced. Where the moral man literally feels... no... where the moral man literally knows that he is better than the immoral man. Only in such a system, where elitism is openly accepted, can labelling and morality be permissible.

Author's Note

The funny part is... I am an anti-elitist, a marxist, and a immoralist... So... yeah... I like playing devil's advocate.

Reviews

[Coyote Poetry]

"'Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
The above words need to be understood and lived. People with too much time to create hate like to create problems and turmoil. I enjoyed this story. You taught a History fan some new lessons. Thank you. Thank you for the excellent story.
Coyote