Student 64

Object 1: Baobab

The African Baobab, native to north Africa, is best known for its longevity (up to 3000 years), and astounding size. This specimen is important to me because of how I have been able to raise it a continent away from its home and watch it thrive regardless of circumstance. They grow to be 25 meters tall, and 15 meters in diameter, as such, they are commonly referred to as “baobab trees”.

This is a misnomer, as the Baobab is actually a plant very closely related to the hibiscus bush. The misconception persists in the ether, despite the availability of knowledge suggesting otherwise. This is because we are cognitive misers, and as such, anything tall, woody, and leaved becomes a tree, without any further thought. This saves time and effort in the short term, but it causes problems in the future. This incorrect notion reinforces the idea that outliers to our classification systems are problems to be solved.

As knowers, we feel more comfortable calling the baobab a tree, than we do calling it a plant, and allowing an outlier into our system. In the scientific community, we remove outliers from data, when in reality, outliers allow for further discovery. By sorting knowledge in a way that ignores the outliers, future knowers are left without an understanding of the true nature of certain things, but they are also less likely to question the ways they classify knowledge. This is not conducive to learning, because it maintains the status quo, even though it may not be appropriate. Decisions like the baobab may seem insignificant, but this same ideology has been applied to maintain the idea of the gender binary, or to make an entire generation believe that all fats are unhealthy. These ideas required much more time and effort to challenge because they defied our classification systems outliers. Had our systems been more comfortable with outliers, this new knowledge would have been far easier to disseminate, and these misconceptions would be less deeply rooted in our culture.

Object 2: Model of the Solar System

This sculpture is a model of the solar system as we know it today. Artistic liberties were taken. Regardless, it is a testament to human ingenuity and progress. This is important to me because it inspires me to stay curious, and to keep asking questions. This shows how our classification systems define our understanding of knowledge because we are incredibly confident in our perception of the solar system, and yet this confidence . The model shows eight planets, in circular orbits. This shows how our classification systems have damaged our understanding in two ways.

Firstly, the term “orbit” is attached to their paths. The word's classical meaning suggests a circular orbit, while in reality, the planets all follow elliptical patterns. As a result of its label, laypeople wrongly attribute a circular pattern to a planet’s path around the solar system. Secondly, people assume that our solar system has eight planets, when the label “planet” is entirely arbitrary. To be a planet, a body must have “sufficient mass”, how is sufficiency decided? This label influences our perceptions of our solar system, which influences people’s sense of place, and self. In addition, people are less confident in the classification system, because there is little reasoning behind the criteria. This habit of making decisions about the world positions us as curators of nature, rather than observers, which slows our learning.

Object 3: The DSM-5

The DSM-5 is a manual developed by the American Psychological Association used to classify mental disorders, and recommend diagnoses. It is important to me as a survivor of anorexia who was never able to receive care, and is widely regarded as the gold standard for psychological treatment.

This system of classifying the human experience into categories can be dangerous, regardless of its intention to help treat patients, because by assigning an arbitrary label to someone’s condition, their experience loses meaning, and is reduced to a few words. This can make patients feel less understood, because the labeling can be dehumanizing for them.

Labels can be useful as a tool to organize concepts, but when treating the mind, labeling can lead to less personalized care, and a heavy handed approach to their treatment. For people with severe conditions, they risk not receiving the appropriate treatment. For people with more mild behavior patterns, the medicalization of their mental health may lead to unnecessary treatment, or the development of more severe problems. These people may feel defined by labels that carry little meaning, harming their self perception, and leading to marginalization. When psychologists see their patients as a checklist of symptoms, rather than a human being, they lose knowledge about that person and the larger human condition that could aid in their treatment. In addition, patients may feel marginalized by the classification system that relies on people hitting all the marks of a checklist in order to receive care.

When people fall through the cracks of this system, they do not receive appropriate care. These outliers are disregarded by virtue of being atypical, when it should accommodate them. Systems like these limit knowledge about the human condition, because their need to assign labels ignores people’s humanity. This dehumanization not only prevents patients from getting proper care in the present, but it also sets a precedent for future knowers.