• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Tuesday, November 26, 1996

LOYALTY:

Using labels to describe a person misses the underlying individual

"I've got a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it."

­ Groucho Marx

Well kiddos, today's subject is about group membership and labels.

Personally, I think we should attempt to rise above such crutches to protect those who are hurt by the side effects, but groups are so comforting and helpful that I doubt that will ever happen.

Human society was based on social interaction; without it, this species would not be ruling the planet as we do, with our Iron Opposable Thumb. Social interaction is so necessary that individuals can go insane if left in isolation.

If you ask someone about themselves, they will usually give you names of groups or categories into which they fall: occupations, ages, genders, political parties, etc. Some social groups people choose to join; others are forced upon them.

Since most people prefer to feel good about themselves, and have positive self-conceptions (with some exceptions, of course), they will usually choose to have positive feelings about their group; since the group becomes so intertwined with one's self, to belong to a bad group is almost equivalent to being a bad person. So you will generally believe that your group is good. But this belief has consequences. "Good," like any adjective, lacks meaning unless related to something else. Your group cannot be good unless they are "better" than other groups. Therefore if you believe that your group is good, you implicitly believe that you and your group are better than others and their groups; perhaps you even think that other groups are bad.

Group affiliation also leads to nationalism, pride in country and war. People believe themselves to be part of a country-group, an association dear to many people's hearts (not mine ­ I simply feel I was born between a few arbitrarily-drawn lines on a map). They feel pride in their country-group, its heritage, their own connection to it, and the whole "love it or leave it" mentality. In an area the size of the United States, calling the citizens a "group" is almost laughable. The populace is so varied that there is almost nothing that we all have in common.

And I think it is easy to see that this pride in country and disdain, or even hatred, for other countries can easily turn to violence.

Interestingly, groups are both real and imaginary at the same time. Groups and labels would not exist without a human brain to make the distinctions.

But once enough people accept the same imaginary construct, and act as though it were true, it becomes a social reality. For example, let's say that you don't believe in race; all people are just people, and you are truly colorblind. But in your life, you will have to interact with people who do believe in this concept and will take "your race" into consideration when they have dealings with you. Illusion becomes reality.

Let me put it in terms more familiar to you now. As a student here at UCLA, most of you consider yourselves "Bruins." You all eagerly make your affiliation with this university important to your life and your identity.

To prove your loyalty to yourself and others, you daily wear a different article of clothing with some UCLA slogan smeared across it. You cheer at the football games and hate USC. What school spirit.

I'm not sure why you all do this. I am a guy who goes to UCLA. That is as far as my affiliation goes. I don't prefer UCLA students to other people; I don't feel a warm rush at the sight of Royce Hall, I don't get excited by combinations of blue and gold. I don't know how to do the "eight clap." These trappings do not interest me.

I was utterly amazed at the outpouring of letters from the students protesting the ill-named "Bearwear" store. There wasn't this much debate over the CIA crack scandal. This is what's important to you? It's a clothing store for Christ's sake! I am glad know where your values stand: cute little store names are more important than death, suffering and governmental corruption.

Obviously, you have all fallen prey to the Cult of School Spirit. You are the school; the school is you. Certainly UCLA encourages the students to have this pride in their school so that they will spend money on T-shirts and bumper stickers. New students fall for it, fearful and desperate to fit in; they generally keep up their habits for their entire stay.

You all seem to believe that the official sports teams of UCLA represent the student body, that somehow we're interlinked, one and the same. I'll focus on football, since that seems to be the most popular sport. Everyone is very happy when "our" team wins and sad when "our" team loses. "We lost the big game" everyone whines. We? Unless you are on the team, you shouldn't really be using that pronoun.

"They" won the game; "you" sat on your ass eating nachos. The football team consists of something like 40 guys. I don't know any of them; to me, they are simply guys who play football who happen to go to the same school as I do. Likewise, I don't know anybody on any of the other football teams that the UCLA team might play against. And, in a football game, someone wins and someone loses. Since I don't know any of the participants, I don't much care who is the victor.

You are all being duped: your emotions manipulated, your passions enflamed, your money gobbled.

Ever since realizing the nature of groups and group affiliation, I have attempted to remove myself from all groups. I'm not a Bruin. I'm not an American. I'm not male. I'm not white. I'm not a part of any group. It doesn't always work; it's hard to overcome these powerful social forces. At times I do feel a part of something, or feel that certain labels apply.

Of course, the flaw in this isolationist plan is that by denying all groups, I have become a group of one, with the entire world lying outside of my group. This suits me fine. I'll confess here:

I really don't like people.

There is a difference between "don't like" and "dislike": the first is neutral, the second is negative ("dislike" means "aversion to;" "don't like" simply means "not having a positive feeling for"). I "don't like" most of the people I meet. But overhearing other people's conversations, seeing the things they do, wear, the ways they act, I'm glad that I don't know more of you.

Generally speaking, I think that people are a bunch of narrow-minded, Alanis-worshipping, Hootie-purchasing, "Friends"-watching, Macarena-dancing imbeciles, and I'd appreciate y'all staying the hell away from me.

There. I feel cleansed.

I think that's all I have to say for now.

This is my last article, by the way.

I have applied to be a columnist again next quarter. If you would like me to continue writing columns, e-mail the Viewpoint editors at:

viewpoint@media.asucla.ucla.edu

If you would not like me to continue writing columns, e-mail the Viewpoint editors at: viewpoint@media.asucla.ucla.edu. Put something like "Death to Jake!" as the subject.

Please send comments, questions or requests to buy kerosene-soaked effigies of yours truly to: jsexton@ucla.edu

Discussion helps us both out. You can write to me even if my column is not renewed.

I'm glad to have had this chance to try to spread a little information and challenge some of your beliefs. Thank you to everyone who wrote to me (well, everyone except that one guy). I've learned a lot as well, even made a few friends. Thanks to Adam for helping this particular article gain something resembling coherence.

Today's recommended reading: don't read today. Think. What if something that you were absolutely sure of turned out to be untrue? What if everything you thought you knew was wrong? That's all I ask, people. Don't just accept. Think.

Jake Sexton doesn't know you, but if he met you, he probably wouldn't like you.