The understanding and interpretation of knowledge majorly depend on the way it is perceived; it can be taken as a compact meaning or either changed into a vast concept of knowledge. And to conceptualize these meanings ‘Labels’ are used. It can be defined as a process of coinage knowledge into a phrase or a word.

 

This process can be regarded as a necessity in the organization of knowledge as labels aid in depicting knowledge easily. Further, when these interpretations become easy to comprehend, people start adding their perceptions or biases to the previous knowledge, influenced by the cultures and environment they belong to. Hence, these perceptions with organic social interaction eliminate, or change the authentic meaning of original knowledge and we may state that labels 'constraint understanding’ due to the alteration of meaning with evolution.

 

On the contrary, labels having confined connotations retain the original definitions, help understand the knowledge at its root, and reduce the element of confusion. These ‘flexible’ Labels prevent knowledge from becoming redundant and make it relevant to changing times and expectations.

 

Moreover, to discuss how the variation of perspectives in the labelling of knowledge affects its understanding and organization, the areas of knowledge employed will be Linguistics and Psychology.

​

Linguistics plays an adequate role in the organization of knowledge through its study of the origin and classification of words. The claim here is that semantic knowledge of labels leads to restrained and/or encourages differential interpretation of words from their original usage, causing confusion.

 

This present semantic knowledge is historically developed over time. Like, the word ‘gay’ originated from the French in the 14th century, and was meant as “jolly” or “light-hearted”, but, in the 19th century, negative connotations such as hedonism were inculcated in ‘gay’ through pejoration.

 

This leads to another description of gay as prostitutes or male homosexuals. In the early 20th century, the homophile community used ‘gay’ for recognition in the society.

 

Due to this, dictionaries added the primary meaning of gay as male homosexual, leading towards a common perception around the world (Lalor and Rendle-Short,2007). Further, studies carried out by Lalor and Rendle-Short (2007) aimed to observe teenagers’ holistic understanding of gay as compared to older people by defining contextual meaning, while, another study focused on the fourth meaning of gay as 'weird' and its practice in different contexts.

 

Study 1 results showed that people whose age ranges from 18-30 interpret meaning as negative, and above 30 states it as homosexual, while those 50 and above connotate positive meaning. Then, study 2 results state that participants were confused with the meaning and either interpreted it as weird or hedonistic. Others used their historical lenses to depict meaning from the modifiers and structure of sentences.

 

Moreover, this variation in historical development, in Etymology, eventually constrains the understanding and clarity of words due to varying meanings attached to them over time. Thus, this explains that due to labels held at different stages of historical development, people's perception of the resultant knowledge leads to the identification of a restricted meaning or confusion in their comprehension.

​

On the contrary, the creation and retention of labels across different eras and parts of the world, aid in understanding the true meaning of words, while adhering to similar characteristics for a particular label over a period of time. For example, the word ‘alcohol’ originates from different cultures, primarily having different meanings. Some states that alcohol was derived from the Arabic words ‘Al-koh’l’, a powdery substance or a paint and ‘Al-ghawl’, a demon-producing intoxication, mentioned in the Quran (Eplett, 2016).

 

In English, while using the word Al-koh’l, language borrowed from French and Latin was used to formulate the word ‘Alcohol’. In the 16th century, Oxford dictionaries state alcohol originated from Al-koh’l because of its meaning as a fine powder from a black mineral stibnite (Troy, 2016). However, Indians state ‘alcohol’ acquired from “Kohala” (कोहल) a Sanskrit word used for making alcohol in Ayurvedic medicines (Agarwal, 2016). Furthermore, Hassan (2012) states that alcohol stemmed from the Chinese Language.

 

In Chinese culture, the word ‘Ek-Chhi’ or cosmic soul means that it is the source of Human existence in all matters and energy. Whereas, in Arabic Al- Iksir is the word to refer to the soul as fine dust of matter. This idea of the soul was supported by a Physician named Paracelsus, who states it was the first creative energy in mankind and a dust powder as collyrium. She named this concept “Alcool’’ by merging the above Arabic and Chinese words. Later, chemists verify ‘’Alcool” as collyrium, by stating it as one of the finest substances.

 

The word Collyrium has its origination form Arabic i.e. Al-kohl. But the Chinese state that this word is Arabicized as it is borrowed from their word Kho-Lu where ho means black and Lu means pot. Then, alcohol also consists of its scientific classification as ‘Ethanol’ in Chemistry (Troy, 2016). Its origination is also linked with the mythology of Perseus i.e. Algol, a deadly star in astrology.

 

Thus, the study of labels i.e. Alcohol at different times, in different cultures and subject areas, helps in deciphering its overlapping characteristics into a range of contexts despite the controversy regarding its origin. The mere fact that the word (label) has a similar root originating in different cultures with somewhat similar meanings and connotations attached, makes it a common term across these cultures and eventually results in ease and clarity of acquisition comprehension.

​

In addition, Psychology illustrates the perception of knowledge while apprehending how the human mind is affected by its culture, environment and genetics in different ways. In cognitive Psychology, the concept of schemas i.e. (mental representation of mind, evolves from different experiences and knowledge to simplify surroundings in their own way) may lead to constraining knowledge of labels as it is majorly affected by human perceptions. To support this claim, a study carried out by Hussain et al. (2015) investigates the role of families in developing gender stereotypical schemas.

 

The findings clearly showed the development of gender-stereotypical schemas, is significant due to the inculcation of gender differences by culturally ‘gender appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ behaviour. Moreover, the female gender was labelled as weak, emotional and dependent; and strong, aggressive, and independent labels were associated with the male gender. These gender differences are inculcated by gender socialization where females are prompted more towards domestic chores and males are responsible to employ in jobs by having greater opportunities.

 

Also, this limits the label of gender knowledge on the basis of stereotypical differences of a boy being ‘dominating’ and a girl as ‘weak’. Thus, this showcases how knowledge influenced by cultures leads to the development of constricted schemas while having biased or restrained perceptions of the world around them.

 

Conversely, in Psychology the utility of Labels increases with the increase in the variety of meanings attached; using similar terms but with the differential meaning of knowledge. This phenomenon can be linked with a mental disease explored by different researchers i.e. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

 

This exploration aids in the understanding of the disease from different perspectives, resulting in an all-comprehensive and effective manner. In the biological approach to MDD, Kendler et al (2006) emphasize the role of genetic predisposition, which found a higher rate of depression in females than males due to greater genetic vulnerability i.e. 44% in monozygotic twins and 16% in dizygotic twins. Moreover, to propagate other aspects of depression, cognitive theories explain the effect of negative cognitions, distortion and irrational beliefs that primes the human mind into such mental diseases. Aaron Beck’s theory of MDD shows enriched development in conceptual knowledge of depression involving thought processes and emotions. It includes the cognitive triad i.e. possessing negative thinking about oneself, the world and the future.

 

Dysfunctional beliefs talk about negative schemas triggered by negative life events and other irrational beliefs i.e. baseless cognitive biases due to the involvement of high thinking processes in the brain. Also, the concept of depression is expanded as it is linked with other socio-cultural aspects. Brown & Harris (1978) introduces a vulnerability model of depression based on ‘environmental stressors’ that strengthen depression. It includes protective factors of stressful life events and vulnerability factors i.e. other provoking agents of ongoing stress that lead to risk in increasing this disorder.

 

Thus, it can be stated that while the meanings attached to the label of Depression from different perspectives expand, this expansion helps in understanding knowledge in an in-depth and thorough manner highlighting multiple factors causing the ailment. This not only aids in the comprehension of knowledge exhaustively but aids our varied interpretation of the same knowledge in different scenarios.

​

Conclusion: 

​

Conclusively, Labels interplay a significant positive and/or negative role in the conception and comprehension of knowledge; leading to easier interpretation or aggravating confusion. In the essay, Labels are consecutively explained with prior and semantic knowledge, to present how it constrains or at times help in understanding knowledge. Semantic and prior knowledge majorly depends upon human perception because it's the human notion to congregate and title a piece of information and on the other hand, it is we the humans who absorb and interpret these labels. The information labelled might contain researcher biases or may be impartial towards it. Additionally, the interpretation may comprise changing biases with time and process an inclusive perception of knowledge. However, these biases depend upon different cultures, societies and approaches. Thus, the result is either a constraining or enhancing effect of the cognizance of labels, depending upon the variety of scenarios.

​