I read a poet that I've forgotten that the uniqueness of the poetic look was in the ability to look at things like the first time, something like the surprise that children have in the first contact with the world, let's say in a way.

As we know the world, we lose that capacity. From the moment we name something, the possibility of finding nuances of something is ttipified, because the denomination leads us to a fixed image, to the concept we have built inside, and to interest. Why are we going to make an effort to explore more in your personality, if we already know what it is?

We also use labels to name the world. But even though they help us save energy from long explanations, we don't want enough of those around us. They qualify us, they qualify us with simplifying and stereotyped definitions, and they have a sense of perpetuity that, indirectly, suggests that the possibility of change is not possible. The definition of what we believe we are is also done with the prophecy of what we must be, with the imposition of an expectation towards us. It's the weight.

We also tend to tag interpersonal relationships to sort them by type of relationship. And although it is only done with the objective of giving a descriptive explanation of what happens in a relationship (sister, mother, friend, teacher, loving, neighbor, partner, or couple), the use of labels should also be avoided, because the title has too much burden on our behavior and has a performative effect on us that leads us to relate based on the standardized and stereotyped forms of relationships. Almost unconsciously, we will act in the regulated form of these kinds of relationships, to which we always tend our automatic behaviors, unconscious reactions and involuntary thoughts. In our relationship with a person, it should be more determinant than the type of bond, feeling what we want and can live together, so that we can design the relationship together and tailor it.

Anywhere you can see the weight of the burden that labels have on us. In the case of women who have regretted motherhood, for example, many of them indicate a socially rigid maternal role, reason for their problematic experience. They have attachment to their children, because they really like it to the extent that they already exist, how not. But they recognize that they would rather step out of the stereotype role and relate them to their children.

In addition, standardized types of relationships greatly hinder deep encounter with people. In the school world, for example, they often relate differently to students inside or outside the classroom, because the role engulfs the person more than desired and because the role is difficult to recognize especially who we are, more than we are.

Perhaps the most influential area is that of affective relationships. It can happen, for example, that in a good bond and relationship you have difficulty feeling safe, because a concrete label does not define the relationship, that is, because it is not clear what they are. Or, simply, by sharing sexual intimacy, to feel that the script of a relationship has to change radically, by the temptation of a higher partner label that gives prestige and hegemonic distinctiveness.

Perhaps the relation with the lowest social load is the one that has the least regulation among friends. Well, let's give the label to people in our love network. Will we live better? Freer, at least.