The Tyranny of Labels

---

My NoSmalltalk session with Archana Dutta

by Albert Schiller

The Strategic Cost of Identity

In the modern arena of social change, identity has its price. We are encouraged, often required, to choose a label, to plant a flag, to declare our allegiance in an escalating war of ideas. But what is the strategic cost of such a declaration? Is the most powerful label in your arsenal the one you refuse to use? Archana Dutta, a woman whose work is fundamentally about creating equity, is wary of the word "feminist." This is not a rejection of the principle but a calculated rejection of the label itself. She has deconstructed the term to its modern utility and found it wanting. In her analysis, the word has acquired a "militant connotation," a linguistic charge so powerful that it short-circuits the conversations it is meant to start. The moment the flag is planted, the door is closed. The label, intended as a key, functions as a barrier, a pre-emptive strike in a dialogue that has not yet begun, and then never will. This is a crucial distinction for any leader who values outcomes over ideology. It is an acknowledgment that the language we use to define our mission can become the primary obstacle to achieving it.

Radical Humanism 

Dutta is not debating a dictionary definition that people recite at will. She is analyzing a tool's effect within an operational context. Her mission is not to preach to the converted but to engage the skeptical or resistant. In this specific environment, a label perceived as aggressive is a strategic liability. It triggers the ego, it activates tribal defenses, and it transforms a potential dialogue into a zero-sum battle for status. Her alternative is a strategic repositioning of the label of "humanist." This is not a softer version of the same idea, but a different approach engineered for her intricate purpose. Where "feminist" can be perceived as exclusive, focused on the grievances of a marginalized entity, "humanist" is her choice of being radically inclusive. It reframes the conversation around a universal, non-negotiable principle. Her act of ideological judo was designed to bypass the friction of a loaded term and find a shared foundation for more challenging conversations.

Disarming

This choice is the cornerstone of her "un-strategy" of influence. Her goal is not to win an argument but to create a psychologically "safe space" where an individual can begin the complex, internal work of questioning their own programming. A confrontational label can be perceived as a contaminant in such a space. It introduces the friction of judgment she works to eliminate. By choosing the language of humanism, she is not appeasing the opposition but disarming them. She uses the weight of an elementary principle to neutralize the defensiveness created by a tribal one. This makes the conditions for a difficult conversation to be built on shared ground rather than on the contested territory of identity politics. In this space, the goal is mutual understanding, not unconditional surrender, rectified through a convenient shift to morals. This methodology requires patience and a focus on the long-term transformation of an individual over the short-term gratification of winning a debate.

Activist or Operator? 

We are often so attached to our labels, so invested in the identity they confer, that we fail to analyze their contextual utility in and for the field. We mistake the symbol for the substance. Dutta’s mindset makes a clear, unsentimental distinction. The mission is the signal. The label is just a component. If that hardware creates more noise than signal, it derails the mission and must be replaced. Her methodology forces a critical and uncomfortable question upon any would-be agent of change. Is your primary loyalty to the label and the tribe it represents, or is it to the mission itself? The answer determines whether you are an activist or an operator.

5 Lessons with practical values-

Open Questions

1. At what point does the strategic refusal to use a label become an act of complicity with the system you are trying to change?

2. In a hyperpolarized world, is it still possible to build a "safe space" for dialogue, or is refusing to plant a flag seen as a hostile act in itself?