While labeling a can of food can have a great advantage, the labeling of people is attended with life-changing consequences.
Throughout his life, Abraham Lincoln suffered recurrent periods of severe depression. At age 29, he was plunged into a deep depression by the death of Ann Rutledge, his first love.
Lincoln became distracted, wandering aimlessly about the banks of the Sangamon River. Believing that he might be suicidal, friends deprived him of knives and razors. Photographs taken throughout Lincoln's life show only the profoundly sad look characteristic of depression.
In 1972, Thomas Eagleton was removed as a vice presidential candidate from the Democratic ticket when it was discovered that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for mental depression. Yet, one in five Americans will experience a major depressive episode sometime in their lives. Would Abraham Lincoln be ruled out as a presidential candidate today because of the stigma associated with a mental health label?
Just how helpful are labels? Most of us had our first experience with labels on the school playground. It was there that we first came into contact with the "name-calling" that rooted itself in identifying a weakness or a difference in another child. Labels are rarely positive. They cause people to be thought of only in terms of the label, they isolate individuals as they are stigmatized by the label, and they often cause those who are labeled to think less of themselves and perform in accordance with the label.
In such cases, the label becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even young people who are status offenders (those who engage in behaviors which, if performed by adults, would not be illegal) come to think of themselves in terms of the label placed upon them. A child who is labeled bad, deviant, or delinquent may become bad, defining him or herself and performing in terms of those expectations. In addition, there is overwhelming research to show that people with labels are automatically treated differently by other people; and no one can be treated differently without becoming different.
The credit goes to educators for taking the first serious steps to overcome the label liability. They simply asked, "Do we want to study and classify people, or do we want to help people; do we want to ostracize and embarrass them, or do we want to include and accept them?" In this fashion, educators were the first to suggest; Instead of labeling, why not just describe the actual behavior or performance of the individual in ordinary words, then design the most appropriate educational plan or behavioral remedy?
No one should have to be stuck with a label. Somehow, I think Jesus would applaud an effort designed to remove stigma, to include, to heal, and to help, while doing so in the least embarrassing manner. None of us want to be thought of in terms of how we are different, or in terms of our weakest point. Let's face it, a label can change your life -- for the worse. If we're intending to help, we can do it without a label. If we're not intending to help, then the idea of a label is superfluous in the first place.