When Labels Matter: Impacts to Mental Health and Self Identity

What are labels? The Cambridge dictionary describes the term 'Label', (2025) as 'the characteristics or qualities of people, activities or things'

In all societies, labels are frequently used to help unburden the mental load of describing what we are talking about, like a shortcut from A to C, skipping the messiness of B. Imagine how time-consuming it is to describe a tree to every single person you meet. However, it is within the messiness of 'B' that we begin to see the messy, beautiful details in between.

For me, some example labels like "Neurodivergent", "Autistic", and "Counsellor" only scratch the surface. They do not really capture the full nuance scope of what these labels serve to umbrella over. Yet I would use these in my own dialogue. However, I also notice from myself and others that relying too much on these labels, we risk reducing ourselves to others to just a few words, when in reality, each of us is so much more.

So, what is the harm of labels? Well, robust research shows it is not the label itself that shapes us; it is how others interpret and respond to our labels that can influence our sense of self (Hacking, 2006; Goffman, 1956). The double-edged sword of labels is that they can provide identity and community, but the lack of nuance can also make them vulnerable to stereotypes and misunderstanding (Barron and Bollen, 2021; Crocetti et al., 2022). When we choose to self-identify with certain labels, we might not always recognise how deeply those choices are influenced by the culture around us, or how much power those labels hold in shaping how others see and treat us. Sometimes, we find ourselves using a label that carries meanings or expectations that we may not personally agree with, simply because it is the closest fit available within our cultural framework (Ray, 2024).

Consider for a moment if there are labels you might use to self-identify that mean something differently to you than they do to others.

Psychological terminologies such as "OCD", "ADHD", "anxiety", and "depression" are commonly used outside clinical settings and within media such as online social media platforms like TikTok or Instagram. The increased usage of psychological terminologies raises awareness but can also lead to misunderstanding or trivialization of serious conditions, with the risk that the line between normal emotional responses and clinical conditions becomes blurred.

When I was employed at a local charity, I would often hear along the lines "I went to my GP for help, they said I had anxiety and referred me for counselling." While this openness is a positive step, highlighting that we're becoming a more emotionally aware society where more people should feel comfortable reaching out, there is an underlying challenge that I haven't seen being addressed. In our efforts to destigmatise and address mental health, we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that anxiety is, in many cases, a normal and healthy response to stress.

For example, mental health charities often see an influx of student referrals during exam season, when stress and worry are not only common but often necessary for motivation and preparation. In these situations, anxiety can be seen as a healthy mind at work, mobilising emotional energy to help us meet challenges.

However, when we label normal stress as "anxiety" in a clinical sense, we risk pathologising ordinary experiences. This can then place undue pressure on individuals to "not be anxious", rather than addressing the root causes, such as the structural consequences of failure or prolonged stress that deregulates the brain. The issue is not anxiety itself, but the environment and expectations that make anxiety overwhelming.

I want to be explicit that this is a 'low' risk demonstration of the dual role that anxiety can serve, being a normal reaction, and a clinical concern. The severity of anxiety is what often distinguishes individuals' experiences, and this is inherently subjective; we all experience and struggle with anxiety in our own way.

Instead of simply telling students what anxiety is or isn't, I've found it more helpful to encourage them to reflect on their own experiences: "What does YOUR anxiety mean for YOU?". This can help allow each individual to explore their feelings and responses in a way that makes sense to them. If something doesn't make sense at first, it opens the door for them to provide context and meaning to their experiences on their own terms.

Okay, so ultimately, what's the big deal, and why does this topic warrant this article's attention?

Because every moment of our lives, we are absorbing, processing, filtering and manipulating data. A substantial body of research (Kahneman, 2011; Sweller, Ayres and Kalyuga, 2011; Sapolsky, 2017) demonstrates that, as highly social animals, we are deeply influenced by our environment. With the rapid rise of social media, we are now processing more information than ever before, and naturally, our brains can become overwhelmed and prone to errors. As the ancient Athenian scholar Socrates suggested, these "slip-ups" can be seen as moments when our critical thinking falters. When information carries emotional weight, it can bypass our logical faculties and shape our perceptions without us even realising it.

This process has profound implications for how we understand and use labels. Initially, we may be aware of the cultural power and meaning behind certain labels, but as we absorb more information, often unconsciously, these labels can begin to influence us in ways we no longer notice. The less we guard our critical thinking, the more susceptible we become to the subtle, sometimes harmful effects of labels and their embedded cultural narratives.

So by writing about this topic, we can shine a light on how easily labels can shape our identity and world view, especially in an age of information overload. That is not to say that all labels are inherently good or bad; rather, it is our culture, background and world-view that gives them their power. In a sense, a label is like a hammer: it can be used to build or to destroy, depending on who wields it. The most important takeaway is to ensure that you are the one using the hammer, not the hammer using you.

How did you find this article? Leave a comment and let me know if you want to hear more about this topic or if you have a certain topic you'd like me to give my perspective on.

References:

Cambridge Dictionary. (2025). Label. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/label (Accessed: 2 June 2025)..

Barron, A.T.J. and Bollen, J. (2021). Quantifying Collective Identity Online From Self-defining Hashtags. ResearchGate. doi:https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-960863/v1.

Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Meeus, W. and Rubini, M. (2022). Identities: A developmental social-psychological perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), pp.1–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2104987.

Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. [online] Monoskop. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf.

Hacking, I. (2006). Making Up People. [online] London Review of Books. Available at: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Ray, S. (2024). What is in a Label? Exploring how labelling shapes refugees’ experiences. Essex Student Journal, [online] 16(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.5526/esj.403.

Sapolsky, R. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. London: Vintage.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. [online] New York, Ny: Springer New York. Available at: http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/54490/1/23.pdf.