To what extent do names and labels affect the conclusions we reach in our pursuit of knowledge?

"On September 11 2001, freedom fighters attacked the American infidels, by bombing the World Trade Center Towers, symbols of their corrupt capitalistic society."

"On the infamous day of September 11, in the year 2001, fanatic Muslim terrorists hijacked several passenger planes and flew them into the World Trade Center Towers, killing thousands of innocent civilians."

Which sentiment might future students read in their history books? Perhaps it will depend on what country they are studying in. The words that make the statements seem so different include names and labels: freedom fighters, infidels, corrupt capitalistic society, innocent civilians, fanatic, and terrorists. If a student were trying to determine what happened that day, they might reach very different conclusions as to the motivations behind the actions of those involved.

To begin with, we must examine what the differences are between a name and a label- *Name: a word or set of words by which someone or something is known, addressed, or referred to. *Label: a classifying name applied to a person or thing, especially inaccurately; to assign to a category. Therefore, Muslim would be a name, whereas fanatic and infidel would both be labels. Whether or not a label or name is correctly applied to a person or situation, those seeking knowledge may cease to examine the particular subject closely, as they rely on the categorical stereotypes associated with that label:

"In so far as we regard the category of person as displaying strongly predictable attributes or behaviour, the category may harden into a stereotype, an extremely simplified mental model which fails to see individual features, only the values that are believed to be appropriate to the type... essentially the things we see and think about are constructed according to a scheme of values, not entities directly perceived."

--Language in the News

In one of his seminars, Yahn Lovelock spoke about the limitations of language and its labels, in that it often conceals the individuality of the object being described or named. For example, many children think of their parents only in terms of that identity, so they are often shocked when they realize that their mum and dad have different relationships with other people that are independent of their role as providers.

It is important to note that there are also other factors that determine the result of research, besides names and labels, such as the utilization of other sources in order to differentiate between opinion and fact, and how conscious the reader is of the bias behind the terminology. It is also dependent on what sort of knowledge is being pursued, and in what manner it is being explored.

Types of Knowledge

There are several categories into which `knowledge' might fall. These include history, mathematics, the arts, ethics, natural sciences, and human sciences. The role of labels and names would not play quite as large a role in the pursuit of mathematical knowledge, which utilizes logic to give a deductive knowledge. Also, in the natural sciences, most of the knowledge comes from the scientific approach, which is methodical, though not always fool-proof. If there was a bias, it would usually be seen in what is put in or left out of one's research, and not so much in the labels and names given. Of course, if one were reading a textbook, that would be slightly different, as instead of firsthand experience, one must rely on the interpretation of the author, and the selection of reading materials by the teacher or professor. On the other hand, history and ethics are incredibly susceptible to influence specifically by an authors choice of words. When studying political history, terms such as dictatorship, left-wing, and revolutionaries all carry rather ambiguous definitions, whilst names such as democracies, communism, and senator similarly invoke various responses from those who are studying the subject.

Within the context of history, religious knowledge also plays an important role, and is equally subject to misapplied (or broadly defined) stereotypes and categorizations. By simply naming a faith or one of its denominations or sects, countless things are implied, often irrespective of the author's intentions:

**Words are defined by their difference from other words, and any meaning is endlessly deferred as each word leads us on to another word in the signifying system**

It is important to note that even if completely impartial terminology is used (if that is at all possible), a statement can still be made by leaving certain things unsaid. One can pick up a newspaper and discover which political slant it is representing just by observing what is and is not included as `news'- reform measures to be passed, a hate crime, or even simply different perspectives on an international crisis.

The Problem of Perception

In pursuing knowledge, our perceptions are coloured by beliefs, opinions, and personal experience. Therefore, someone from a higher economic sphere might look at the environmental problems of using gasoline in a different light from that of someone who has never driven a car, or of someone who is in the midst of a war over oil. In another case, if one is of a certain faith, and you are learning about other religions, we might have associations with specific names that may or may not be accurate. For example, while researching the role of saints in the Roman Catholic Church, I had to address my own pre-conceived notions regarding the veneration of saints. Due to my Protestant background, the word saint immediately had the connotation of idolatry linked to it, which I realized was for the most part an unfounded bias, though rooted in something as far back as the Reformation- something I discovered after extensive research of sources from varied backgrounds.

Sources of Knowledge

Just as there are multiple categories of knowledge, there are numerous sources of information as well, and some are more prone than others to bias from names and labels. In subjects such as history, religion, and ethics, school textbooks are breeding grounds for ignorance and broad categorization, which can be quite misleading for students (and teachers!). On the other hand, scientific knowledge is often acquired after many experiments have been run, or after extensive observations have been made. Therefore, through this personal experience of the scientific method, scientists can avoid troublesome names and labels that have various meanings. Historical documents and holy scriptures also pose a lesser threat, as the researcher tends to naturally take into account the bias of the writers, and their motivations for writing. Another source of stereotypes and misinformation is the media, which some say is limited by the government and those with power, who want certain labels to be maintained. Noam Chomsky has written several books on the subject, many of which are widely unknown by the mainstream public, as he has been labeled an extreme Marxist by many capitalist societies. This alone shows the power of a label, and of a name.

To What Extent?

The language used in identifying certain concepts or people in sources such as the newspapers and textbooks can greatly influence the deductions one makes in their pursuit of knowledge, though it really does depend on what sort of knowledge is being explored, and by what medium it is researched. In most cases, the bias of the writer can be easily transferred to the reader through the subtle nuances created by names and labels, even if the author is trying to remain neutral. Therefore, by being aware of the bias of those who name and label things, one can decrease the sway that is inherently present.

Sources: *Oxford Concise Dictionary
Language in the News
**Jacques Derrida