Unjust use of 'labels', we have sometimes thought, could be remedied by making the 'labels' more exact. For example, we might say that the label 'charedi' is problematic because it's not perfectly clear to whom it applies. Imagine the questions you might ask to demonstrate the label's ambiguity.
Similarly, we have sometimes undermined generalizations and stereotypes by demonstrating exceptions. For example, I might protest, 'So-and-so is "charedi" and he listens to the Rolling Stones'. The exception may be taken to invalidate the 'label' -- 'well, then I guess my concept of "charedi" was incorrect' -- or, it may be discounted -- 'well, if he listens to the Rolling Stones then he can't be charedi'.
Is 'charedi' is too ephemeral? -- One can easily switch his poseq, his clothes, whatever we make it depend on. But we can play the same game with more concrete(?) labels. 'African-Americans are stupid.' 'But Colin Powell is intelligent.' 'Well, I guess my stereotype was wrong.' Or, 'Well, he's an Uncle Tom, a white black, so he doesn't count.' In both responses, the categories are validated: I want to think using the category 'African-American', I want to think using my conception of intelligence, ... .
I heard, Romanian immigrants to the US in the first part of the 20th century were not 'white'. -- 'But that was just prejudice.' Against whom -- the Romanians or the whites? Is this the sort of question that is resolved through more exacting standards?
However we define 'cheredi', 'white', 'black', 'Romanian', 'Rolling Stones', 'Colin Powell' -- the problem is the value judgement attached to the category. 'But that was just prejudice.' 'Against the Romanians or the whites?' 'The Romanians.' 'How?' 'It was considered better to be white.' Or, 'It was better to be considered white.'
Are there real categories? Are there no African-Americans? no Chicanos? no WASPs? no Asians? Surely there are people who live in Asia! Are there no Israelis? no Jews? (But I was certain about the Elders of Zion...)
I believe that many people who lived in Africa were kidnapped and brought to America, that they were enslaved there, etc., that millions of their descendants live in America. The boundaries, whether biological or cultural or linguistic or whatever, of 'African-American' are very blurry. (What about people who came through the Carribean? Who also have Spanish and/or French ancestory? Who claim descendancy from lost tribes -- I mean they might have been in Africa at some point but they're from Israel, right? What about citizens of South Africa -- whatever color you like -- who took up residency in America in June of 2004?) But that's not the problem. Exacting boundaries, as demonstrated by the Nazis(?), do not birth justice. One can approach perfect logic and perfect inhumanity at the same time. This is a feature of paranoia.
Is lashon ha-Qodesh (the language of the Torah, the language of God) the set of 'real' categories? or a set of 'real' categories? (What does 'real' mean here?)
Suppose we did have perfectly exact labels -- names, perhaps, uniquely identifying every individual, even every individual in every particular stage of his existence (etc.) -- we are still able to sneer through them. Many of the nasty things said of groups are also said of individuals. What does it mean to dress up those nasty comments in statistics?
Take 'So-and-so' as a perfectly exact label.
'So-and-so always...', 'So-and-so never' -- as though he has no freedom of will.
'I hate So-and-so!' -- as though I hated him and not what he had done, suppose he had pleased me instead.
'So-and-so did it!' -- as though blaming helped, as though his guilt exonerates me, as though I need not focus on what I can do now.
'So-and-so makes me angry!' -- as though he has power over me.
In each case, even though my label is exact, I am far from truth.
But now, this hardly seems to be a problem in labeling. What is the problem?
How am I thinking? Does such-and-such the category help me think, or hurt me thinking? Am I thinking the way I want to when I think this category? How do I want to think? What is good thinking?
How does good thinking relate to lashon ha-Qodesh?
Some things I say and hear bring me positive feelings, and some - negative feelings. For example, I feel hope, joy, and faith (positive feelings) when I think 'If I have the power to choose egocentrically, I must also have the power to choose to give and respond righteously'. Some things I say and hear that bring me positive feelings may bring another negative feelings, and some that bring me negative feelings may bring another positive feelings. For example, 'Just do it'. And the same thing said in one context might bring me positive feelings, and in another - negative feelings. And I might be able to choose what things mean, to change through my will whether a thing I hear brings me positive feelings or negative feelings.
What is a positive feeling? What is a negative feeling? Suppose I am depressed or angry. Is this negative? bad? wrong? I want to say, what matters is what I choose to do within my situation, not my situation in itself. Is it evil to have stolen? No, it is evil to steal. Once it has already happened, I can choose from within my situation to do good, lashuv (return, repent, respond), or to do evil, deny my error. Is it bad to have become angry? No, it is bad to willfully continue my anger (at least when the anger comes from gaawa - arrogance). Once I am angry, I have sign for how I can do something good in the world: the anger is a sign for me to uproot gaawa from my soul. Are distracting thoughts during prayer or thoughts in which I blame my problems on others bad? Challenging situations. It is bad to choose to persist in them, it is good to confront them. Even having failed to do teshuva is not bad in itself, it is only bad to choose to continue the situation.
Suppose I am happy. Is this good? positive? right? correct? This is harder for me to answer. I am inclined to say yes; 'mitzva gedola l'hiot b'simcha tamid - God obligates us big time to be joyful constantly'. See also Deuteronomy 28:47.
What's the difference between negative and positive? Why choose one rather than the other? 'Today I place before you blessing and curse... Choose life.'
Some of the things that can be said or heard are names (or labels). A name may bring positive or negative feelings. 'Charedi', 'Ultra-Orthodox', and 'Reform', for example, usually bring me negative feelings. 'Sefardi', 'Jew', and 'goy' however, do not tear me up in the same way.
When I hear some labels, I fill up with thoughts that they oppose or prevent what I want, that I can't because of them. My specific feelings vary: 'charedi' -- I feel dragged down or alienated, 'Reform' -- I feel deceived, 'Christian' -- I feel endangered, 'Muslim' -- I feel anger and hate, 'capitalist' -- I feel weak, deceived, and jealous.
When I hear other labels, I am not thrown off balance, or at least, not as much. When a person is labeled 'charedi', I've already written him off; but when the same person is 'Jewish', I think about how we have work to do, what I want to impress upon him, what I may learn from him, etc. When another person is a 'goy', he is not in my group, and he is not supposed to be, he should be a great goy.
It seems to me that names, with which I feel balanced, permit me my sense of individuality, my sense of other's independence, and my sense of our harmony. When names throw me off, I lose one and then all of these.
But is it the names that throw me off? The things I can say and hear that cause negative feelings, do they themselves cause those feelings? Why should they cause negative feelings, what gives them power?
The what that gives them power, that's what I want to work on.
What do my language-emotions reveal? Perhaps, my will to connect with others? This can be my focus, instead of speaking in a politically or statistically correct way.
Are there 'labels', names, or utterances of any kind that are in themselves bad? Maybe 'A-mal-eq' and 'Ham-an'. Whether there are is interesting but not more than that. Why focus only on the the end results of a deep process?
It might be good to try to speak using only language in which I maintain my balance. For example, I can hardly refer to a Jew as 'Reform' without becoming subtly angry; until I accept with love the instance of providence to which this name refers, I will refrain from using it. I seem mostly already able to speak about 'Jews'. (Can I speak any single word fully balanced before I can speak all words with my whole-heart?)
I can choose destructive relationships to people and to the world (and to God (?)), and those relationships will be evidenced in language. At the same time, I believe, I can choose life-affirming relationships, and that those too are evidenced in language. A wonderful thing is that even the negative is revealed in language. If I listen, then I'll learn what to do.
Rabbi Aqiba: Every detail of the Torah may be expounded.
Rabbi Yishma'el: 'God speaks in the language of man.'
Chassidic Interpretation: Man is the language of God.
