Who's Calling Who "Hesitant?"

Should it be self-referential when choosing the word “hesitant” as an identifier?

There’s a new label increasingly used in discussions these days and it’s disturbing. Have you noticed an uptick in the occurrence of hearing other individuals being called “vaccine hesitant?” Somehow this term is being deemed as an acceptable way for a person of one group (that promotes vaccination) to identify someone outside of that group. It indicates how a dominant group decides how those individuals outside of that group should be clustered into some other identifiable category chosen by the dominant group.

So, does this mean that people who’ve been taking care of their own health for years, without the assistance of pharmaceutical drugs, are going to be labeled this way? People who choose natural methods for their health and wellness are now going to be casually referred to as “hesitant?” A label the media or the “powers-that-be” deem to be the chosen term to mark what they believe is a fitting reference? A term based on the lack of accordance with the determined desired behavior of their “in-group?”

Why do those who choose not to take a an experimental genetic therapy need a label? Are we doing this for other groups and categories? Are we going to call vegans “animal hesitant” eaters now? Are we going to call single people “partner hesitant?” Are we going to call LGBTQ+ people “heterosexual hesitant” now? Shall I continue with more examples to further make the point? I gather you can see the error in this kind of framing from the examples I’ve highlighted. Why would the growing use of this new example of labeling be any different?

Awareness of the Misuse of Labels

It's frightening to see the lack of criticism of this new terminology. I'm genuinely curious about what others think. Is this misuse of language and categorization registering on your radar? Have you considered the problem with calling someone “vaccine hesitant?” Do you follow the logic (or lack thereof) in the examples I shared? Can you see how such changes within our language can be made without people being aware of the implications of those word choices?

Sure, using labels to describe something or someone is nothing new. For some people, it’s a faster way to describe or summarize something. Most people are aware of instances in which labeling has been used negatively or in a maligning way. From what I've witnessed, I don't see individuals referring to themself in this way (although I’m aware of some exceptions). Rather I see this term being used in how someone refers to another person.

For the sake of this discussion, we can use the terms “in-group” and “out-group.” Since when is it okay for a prevailing entity or an “in-group” to choose the label for the grouping they are choosing to be the “out-group?” This is the perfect set-up for maligning individuals, is it not?

Why Are Particular Individuals Being Labled?

Should we think about reframing this? What’s a good, simple phrase to use to signify an individual or group of people who refrain from getting a vaccine in the form of a genetic therapy? A term that describes their true positioning in a more neutral way. One that’s not intentionally suggesting something in which they are not doing? Isn’t it important to question whether such terminology needs to be used to this degree?

Personally, I'm not so sure why “hesitant” has to be an overarching term for this grouping of people. I can see why a term be used while framing certain discussions where it would appear needed to do so, like in a scientific study. One could take the time to simply describe the behavior of the groupings one is witnessing, rather than creating a labeling term. If there is a label being used, how conscious are we for it to be casually used within a culture’s broader vernacular?

Like the other groupings/terms I used as examples above, we can see the flaws in labeling those individuals based on a behavior they're not doing? Let’s say this again: Why would you label someone by the behavior they’re not doing?

In those other examples, the terms and labels are chosen by individuals in the manner in which they desire to be referred. These individuals have a say in what they would like to be called, and it highlights their chosen behavior. They aren’t referenced by the behavior a different group thinks they should be doing.

Labeling an individual as part of a “vaccine hesitant’ group is a clear example of a chosen “in-group” categorizing what they perceive as an opposing “out-group.” This is not the actual, natural framing for the individuals in this “hesitant” grouping. Relative to their own individual behavior, they could be simply living their lives as they always were. Now someone is going to call them a label based on some other external factor?

Is "Hesitant" a Mis-categorization?

The people I know personally who have chosen not to partake in the experimental gene therapy, simply go by "natural." I can ask them again specifically what they'd like to be called. I’m aware of what’s being said by those who feel they’re being mis-categorized. The term can be dismissive and diminutive. The term imposes the implication that the individual will come around eventually, when that is not the case.

People are now commonly using the term ‘vaccine hesitant’ suggesting that someone is indecisive. Yet, it’s clear to me, these individuals made a decision. Their answer was “no.” Why is this not a case of “no means no” with regard to this issue? Using “hesitant,” while implying that they would get it eventually, seems coercive. One can speculate, is this the reason media propaganda is pushing this kind of labeling onto society? It’s misrepresenting people who have made a firm choice of “no” by relegating them to someone else's perception in deeming them ‘hesitant.'

This says something about people using the term. Are they doing it mindfully or are they allowing themselves to get programmed with someone else’s rhetoric? If we’re going to keep recreating vernacular for these discussions, then I’d like to add “logic hesitant” and “sensibility hesitant” to the lexicon. I’d prefer not to though, as I’m not a fan of this “hesitant” labeling trend.