Monday, February 16, 2009

Boxes, continued

I wasn't entirely satisfied with my post on boxes to start with, and then Michele (who's blog is awesome, by the way) brought up a good point, so I figured I'd add a bit to my original post.

It's true that labels can be useful. For instance, I call myself an unschooling vegetarian pagan anarchist hippie (or my new version, an unschooling soon-to-be-vegan animistic green anarchist hippie ;-)) in the hopes that people will get at least a bit of an idea of what I believe in, what my world view is. That said, I don't want anyone to base how they treat me on that; I want them to base their treatment of me on ME! That was my big point. By putting people in boxes, people often treat those people a certain way, based not on who they are as a person, but on what box they fit them into. Does that make sense? I think that whatever labels seem to fit a person, whatever box they're put into, that should be FAR less important than who they are as a person. Hmm... I still don't feel like I'm saying this right. I don't want people to not talk about controlling schooling methods to me BECAUSE I'm an unschooler, I do, however, not want them to talk about controlling schooling methods to me because it bothers me personally. By saying I'm an unschooler I let people know that it would probably bother me if people talk about coercive parenting or schooling to me, and this is what Michele was saying, but it's not the label that's important, it's my feelings about the subject. There, I think that's a better way of putting what I meant. :-)


1 comment:

  1. Good point. Like if someone is labelled 'chrsitian' we can't go to that person and just talk about gay-rights or abortion. But judging people is somehow bad too. Man life is complicated. By the way, just search for 'Shardhana Morgan' on Facebook..hehe