Is the ‘ist’ harming the ‘ism’?

Humans are complex beings. Every one of us is a unique product of our evolved genetics combined with the learning and experiences of our lives so far. But this diversity makes it difficult for us as humans to quickly appraise each other, and therefore it has become part of our nature to ‘label’ people. Labelling to some degree is essential, as it feeds our intuition which has helped our species survive for as long as it has. Recognising and communicating about ‘dangerous’ wild animals, for instance, certainly helped our prehistoric ancestors to avoid being eaten. Labels often have importance to us as individuals too, helping us to establish who we are personally.

But labels in modern society can do more harm than good when people start using or abusing them to describe each other. Labelling people doesn’t just categorise a broad spectrum of human characteristics into more manageable ‘boxes’. It also carries with it the judgements we and others have assigned to that ‘box’. Throughout history, people of social power have used this concept to attach negative stigmas to a label, and then apply it to anyone who does not agree with them, quite literally seeking to divide a population and thus conquer them.

We all judge. We can’t help it. Some are more prudent than others, but even so our judgments, together with the judgements of others, affect how we perceive anyone to whom we have applied a label, even before we have met them personally. Numerous studies have been carried out showing that social stereotypes that have been attached to labels directly affect our opinion about an individual. One such notable study from 1983 by John Darley and Paget Gross¹ regarded a young girl who was considered to be an ‘average’ academic performer. She was filmed answering a series of achievement test questions. The video was shown to college students, half of whom were lead to believe she was from a poorer background, and the other half that she was from a more affluent family. The label ‘poor’ lead the first half to judge, on the basis of her answers to the test questions, that she was an under-achiever, while the other half who had given her the ‘middle-class’ label saw her as an over-achiever.

Now lets look at this in the context of naturism. At the risk of preaching to the converted, naturism is a life philosophy that involves going about life without clothing. To the uninitiated this sounds a little pointless, but most who have tried it will understand the addictive sense of freedom and joy it brings to even the most menial of tasks. However even the word ‘naturist’ is a label, and one which has so far retained its “one who believes or engages in…” etymological roots. Because the flip-side of the ‘-ists’ and ‘-isms’ is “one who displays prejudiced views towards…”; for example feminism/feminist falls in the ‘believes or engages’ category whereas sexism/sexist falls into the ‘prejudiced views’ category. The example of feminist was chosen because it also highlights how such labels can used against those who believe in something. Those that consider themselves as fighting for the feminist cause wear the label with pride. But there are some who do not agree with the concepts encapsulated by feminism, or even if they do, they are clouded by the negative stereotype that has come to be attached to the label in wider society, and thus use it in a derogatory sense.

The word naturist is also in this category of ‘ists’ that have taken on a dual life. It is also a label worn with pride (metaphorically speaking, obviously) by some who practice a clothing-optional way of life. But in wider society it more often than not carries a stigma of being the reserve of dirty minded old men. A negative stereotype that implies seediness, immorality, and even explicit pornography. The online video age has only helped to entrench this, with pornographers using the labels ‘nudist’ and ‘naturist’ as metaphors for outdoor or voyeuristic porn.

And herein lies the point. To those that may cautiously and secretly be trying out spending their time without clothes, they can be put off taking that step of talking about it to anyone, let alone going to a ‘naturist’ social event, simply out of fear of being labelled a ‘naturist’. Helen initially decided she would not like to be described as a naturist, despite the turn of events that saw her enjoying naturism. She could still remember the negative connotations associated with the label. Those that have been subscribers to the life philosophy for a number of years do tend to forget what it means when the average person talks about ‘those naturists’.

So the use of the word ‘naturist’ should be used with caution. And ‘nudist’ for that matter – everything discussed here applies equally to both words. Yes, they should be reclaimed for their true meaning as “one who believes in a clothing optional life philosophy”. But that can not happen until attitudes towards nudity in general change. All the time nudity is seen as funny or disgusting, the words ‘naturist’ and ‘nudist’ will portray a funny or disgusting person. Ultimately, we would like everyone to look at their own and other peoples’ bodies with respect and acceptance, but that will require a careful use of relatable language to achieve the necessary shift in social attitudes.

Credits
“Why It's Dangerous to Label People” - Adam Alter, Psychology Today, May 2010
“-ism and -ist: helpful suffixes” - Sara Thorne, Sara Thorne English Language, May 2013

1. ↩ Darley, J.M., Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.