The Continued Craze for Labels
Why Are You Calling Others “Vaccine Hesitant?”
What’s the Problem with Calling Someone “Vaccine Hesitant?”
There’s a new label increasing in discussions lately and it’s disturbing. With online discussions and videos, there’s an increasing occurrence of calling other individuals “vaccine hesitant.” Somehow this term is being deemed as an acceptable way for a person of one group (“vaccine choosing”) to identify someone outside of that group. It indicates that one group is dominant, or the majority, and those individuals outside of that group should be clustered into another identifiable group chosen by the majority.
So, does this mean that people who’ve been taking care of their own health for years without the assistance of pharmaceutical drugs, are going to be labeled this way? People who choose natural methods for their health and wellness are now going to be casually referred to as “hesitant?” A label the media or the powers-that-be deem to be the chosen term to mark what they believe is needed? A term based on the lack of accordance determined desired behavior of their chosen “in-group?”
Why do those who choose not to take a an experimental genetic therapy even need a label? Are we doing this for other groups and categories? Are we going to call vegans “animal hesitant” eaters now? Are we going to call single people “partner hesitant?” Are we going to call LGBTQ+ people “heterosexual hesitant” now? Do I need to continue with more examples to further make the point? I gather you can see the error in this kind of framing from these examples I’ve highlighted here. Why would this new example of labeling that’s being forced upon us be any different?
Awareness of the Misuse of Labels
It’s frightening that I see no criticism of this new terminology. I’m genuinely curious about what others think. Why isn’t this registering on your radar. When you speak of other individuals, do you follow the logic (or lack thereof) in the examples I just shared? Do you put people in a category using a term that they themselves would not use? Can you see how such changes within our language can be made without people being aware of the implications of those word choices.
Sure, using labels to describe something or someone is nothing new. For some people, it’s a faster way to describe or identify something. Most people are aware of instances in which labeling has been used negatively or in a maligning way. Therefore we must do this mindfully, and must not simply follow the lead of other’s using the term who aren’t being mindful.
From what I’ve witnessed (and I’m not saying this is100% of instances) I don’t see individuals referring to themself this way. Rather I see this term being used in how someone refers to another person. For the sake of this discussion, we can use the terms “in-group” and “out-group.” Since when is it okay for a prevailing entity or an “in-group” to choose the label for the grouping the have decided is going to be the “out-group.” This is the perfect set-up for maligning individuals, is it not?
Why Are Particular Individuals Being Labled?
Should we think about reframing this? What’s a good, simple phrase that captures people who don’t want the vaccine for themselves in a non suggestive and neutral way? While I think it’s great to question like this, why not begin with questioning if this terminology needs to be used to this degree.
Personally, I’m not so sure why there has to be a term for that grouping of people. I can see why a term be used while framing certain discussions where it would appear a need to do so. One could take the time to simply describe the behavior of the groupings one is looking at, rather than creating a labeling term. But if there is a label being used, how concise are we for it be casually used in the culture’s broader vernacular.
Like the other groupings/terms I used as examples above, we can see the flaws in labeling those individuals based on a behavior they’re not doing? In those examples, the terms and labels, were chosen by individuals in the manner in which they desire to be referred. These individuals have a say in what they would like to be called, and it highlights their chosen behavior — not the behavior that a different group thinks they should be doing.
With the example of labeling an individual as part of a “vaccine hesitant” group, this is a clear example of a chosen “in-group” categorizing an opposing “out-group.” But this is not the actual, natural framing for the individuals in this “hesitant” group. Relative to their own individual behavior, they could be simply living their lives as they always were. Now someone is going to call them a label based on some other external label? The people I know personally that have not chosen the experimental gene therapy, simply go by “natural.” I can ask them again specifically what they’d like to be called.
