PEOPLE have a natural tendency to put things into categories. It's a survival mechanism, I think. Either/or
society a tough mixThe caveman, seeing a large striped animal with large tusks, would categorize the beast as a Sabre-toothed tiger and run like hell. That response worked better than posing various theoretical questions such as, Is this a new type of vegetarian tiger? Are there good and bad tigers? And, if so, is this one of the good ones?
No. Experience taught the caveman that his best chance of survival was to lump all large, snarling, striped beasties with two sharp tusks in the category of "dangerous" and run like hell.
Today, we still have the tendency to categorize things. It makes us feel secure. It is a shortcut that saves us from a lot of mental homework. It provides a framework of support for our various prejudices and agendas.
There are many examples: liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, O.J. did it/O.J. didn't do it, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, football/soccer, big government/little government, baked/fried, Bill Clinton whipping out Mr. Happy in front of Paula Jones was a merely an inappropriate invitation for a date/Bill Clinton whipping out Mr. Happy in front of Paula Jones was sexual harassment, Macintosh/PCs, Newt's a jerk/Newt's a big jerk, Ted Koppel wears a rug/Ted Koppel has weird hair, UFOs exist/UFOs only exist for people who live in trailer parks, Elvis lives/Elvis rots, gays should marry/homosexuality is a sin, mayonnaise is delicious/mayo is intergalactic cosmic snot, Pauly Shore is not funny/Pauly Shore is the anti-Christ, and on and on.
We live in an either/or society.
It makes life easier for everyone this way. You don't have to think. All you need is a few clues and you can instantly label someone. Once you identify the person as someone who either agrees with you (friendly, intelligent, hip) or doesn't agree with you (idiot), no conversation is necessary.
Now, this is frustrating to those of us who like to have actual discussions. I'll take a certain position on an argument merely to spur lively debate. So it is extremely frustrating when the person with whom you are having a discussion suddenly says, "Oh, you're just a liberal", and assumes that every position you hold on any subject sprouts from that specific philosophical plant.
As a columnist, this gets pretty funny. I've been labeled just about everything. And it doesn't matter what your track record is on a given subject, you are your last column.
Some of the feedback in recent years:
Writing a column critical of the way the Office of Hawaiian Affairs conducts business brought letters saying "Haole Go Home."
The unfortunate fallout from this either/or fad, is that it emphasizes our differences instead of all the things we have in common. Voltaire supposedly once said, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Those were the days.