What do these words have in common: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Pansexual, Omnisexual, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Loyalist, Royalist, Environmentalist, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Evolutionist, and Creationist? The answer: They, as well as many others, are all self-created terms used as human concepts to define and describe people.
Humans constantly seek definition and understanding while still needing kinship and acceptance, but in a larger scale we seek individuality at a reckless pace. As a result, we constantly redefine who we are on a categorical level in order to shape our perceived self-image. At the most specific level we divide ourselves as individuals by nomenclature or “name”. Take the example of a man named “John Michael Smith II”. That name specifies an individual within the “Smith” family, who is named John, that is also named Michael, who has only one direct ancestor with the same name. In a sense you might argue that the full name could be Animalia>Chordata>Mammalia>Primates>Hominidae>Homo>Homo sapiens> Smith>John>Michael II. This scientific name refers objectively to a specific individual. As we step beyond the individual however, we covertly drop objectivity and instead rely on a subconscious “people sorting”. Initially we do this to ourselves. If our friend John Michael Smith II is only attracted to women and is himself a man (forgive the non-inclusion of the non-binary genders for the sake of simplicity) he might describe his preference as heterosexual. Should he one day realize and self-acknowledge, an attraction towards another individual man, however, a new word will join his mental self-identity: except. It is this word that I want to address. All of these categorical titles though obfuscated by objectivity are actually derogatory and divisive. Heterosexual could be defined as, “Human, except, having a general preference in sexual or romantic partner that is of the opposite to their gender”. Just as homosexual could be defined as, “Human, except, having a general preference in sexual or romantic partner that is of the same gender”. As we become more specific, we discover more “excepts”. Here is my point: When we interact with other humans, by seeking to identify and categorize people, we are inherently asking, “How are they different?”
As humans, it is our nature to understand by division; to categorize. Yet, when we are the ones being categorized, we resent it. “Well, I tend to vote Democrat/Republican, except…” or “I consider myself _____, except…”. Only when a category exists that exactly matches our perceived self-image are we content to accept the categorization. Yet, we do not offer the same courtesy to others that we expect and demand. How many times have you said, “All Democrats” or “All Republicans”? How many times can you think of when you have used the word “all” referring to another human when it was accurate? “All” is understood as an over-generalization and is generally and frequently accepted to be so. Yet, how often when you use it to refer to a category to which you do not identify, do you think of it literally? Imagine for a moment how history might have changed if when two peoples met, they looked for similarities instead of differences.
Whenever humanity has imagined scenarios and civilization beyond earth, we generally stand united as a planet and frequently as a species. The subtle suggestion here is, according to our own expectation if we are going to expand beyond the earth we will first need to unite. I believe the first step towards that goal, is to cease asking how we are different, and begin asking how we are the same. In order to begin that outlook we must be aware and sensitive to our categorizing of people; to stop seeking words that imply “except”. To turn a phrase, we need to change “except” into “accept”. This is not a call to action, but rather a call to consideration. Now is the time to initiate the self-awareness required to foster these changes in human cognition, and through it, our interaction and behavior. It is quite easy to reject Republicans or Democrats or homosexuals or heterosexuals as it has a very low cost to our perceived self-image. It is considerably more difficult to objectively reject John Michael Smith II, a fellow human.