To me, the "efficacy" of a label has to do with "pertinence."
If you don't know what those two words mean -- go look them up.
We need pertinent labels to enable us to be efficacious, relevant, and precise
in our communication -- to not waste the time of our communication partner or
our audience.
I currently do not have cancer and I do not relish the thought of having cancer
but you can darn well bet that if I do get "cancer" I want my doctor to start
slinging the word "cancer" around as directly and efficaciously as possible and
doing something about it instead of using euphemisms. If I later beat cancer --
then you can label me a "survivor." (I don't have cancer and that is just
an example.)
I do have lots of labels:
Daddy
Honey
Graduate
Professor
Disabled person
Deaf person
Geek
Man
Hero
Friend
And so forth.
Just as it would be inappropriate for me to insist my students call me "honey"
or "daddy" -- it would be a huge personal loss to shun the label "honey" or
daddy" completely since those terms are at times VERY gratifying and enjoyable
to me during my journey here on this earth (when interacting with my wife and
kids).
You can darn well bet I'm going to (and did) grab the "disabled" label and
plaster it on my shirt when it comes time to apply for Division of
Rehabilitation funding to go to college so I can get the "graduate" and
"professor" labels later on.
Thus, I have no problem with accurate, descriptive labels -- as long as we use
them in the right time, place, and application.
Sure, I get it -- if given a choice of labels for ourselves and others if all
other things are equal we should choose the label that is most likely to produce
a positive mental association, outlook, and outcome.
My two cents.
Dr. Bill
___________________
William G. Vicars Ed.D.
Notes:
Also see: "Deafness as a disability."