Labels are a necessity in the organization of knowledge, but they also constrain our understanding. Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Labels are used to help us differentiate between distinct types of phenomena. Using la- bels is a way of categorizing objects, events, theories, and aspects into systemic criteria. Strict labeling may be a method of organization. The organization of knowledge helps facil- itate the process of obtaining knowledge. The use of labeling in different areas of knowl- edge may be compared and contrasted with regard to the organization of knowledge. Nonetheless, labels may prove to constrain the understanding of certain key aspects in particular areas of knowledge. Complex ideas may become oversimplified or distorted by the unnecessary and inadequate usage of labels. We must consider the benefits of using labels in psychology as an organization of knowledge device in the human sciences. It is crucial to investigate the advancement of the understanding of religious knowledge with the use of strict labelling. In human sciences and religious knowledge systems, labels can be shown to be advantageous in organizing knowledge. Contrarily, they can also turn out to be a handicap.

To what extent do labels do good to psychological methodology of conducting surveys and studies, and thus the acquisition of knowledge in the social sciences? Psychology is a human science, studying the mind and behavior. Due to the abundance of mental condi- tions that are prominent nowadays, psychologists frequently make use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to diagnose mental illnesses. The hand- book provides an insightful description of mental health disorders. In the manual, the dis- orders are strictly categorized and labeled according to the nature of the condition - e.g., illnesses are distinctively differentiated from personality disorders. This meticulous stan- dardization allows for the most accurate diagnosis and assessment of the issue. It helps the clinicians ensure the patients about the accuracy of the received treatment (Clarke & Kuhl, 2014). The organized categories of knowledge are a source of help for patients, cre- ating a common language for clinicians that does not constrain their understanding of the mental conditions. The described criteria can also provide advancement to the field of psy- chological research. Many disorders of the same category have overlapping symptoms. The classification system helps ensure the researchers that they are studying an exact condition in the mental health area. A number of research outcomes can and is measured by the DSM categories, providing a clearer interpretation of the results (Khoury, Langer, & Pagnini, 2014). Hence, the usage of labels in the field proves to be useful using the constructed common language of diagnostic criteria as a way of knowing.

On the other hand, labels can prove to be an impediment to our understanding in the human sciences, which can be seen on the example of stereotypes having negative im- pact on the results of studies in psychology. Stereotypes can be described as a precon- ceived label that is put onto a group of people. They are proven to show a distorted and biased representation of reality and are intended to make harmful generalizations (Popov, 2018 p. 62). Stereotypes can affect human behavior in a variety of ways. Stereotype threat refers to “being at risk of confirming, as a self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's social group” (Steele & Aronson, 1995). A study conducted by Steele and Aronson in 1995 among black and white participants showcases the influence stereotype threat has on performance, hence hinders the test results. Participants were told they were being tested on their intellectual ability which activated stereotype threat in black participants, making them perform worse. The stereotype threat faced by the participants resulted in result distortion. Another example of negative influence of stereotypes on psychology may be the so-called self-fulfilling prophecy. It can be defined as “a false definition of the situa- tion evoking a behavior which makes the originally false conception come true" (Merton, 1968 p. 477). This phenomenon was studied by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1965. The re- searchers, by providing school teachers with fictitious IQ test results of their students, cre- ated expectations about children’s academic performance. The changes in teachers’ be- haviors motivated by their expectations caused changes in the students’ achievements. In that manner, stereotypes appear to limit the organization of knowledge obtained by the re- searchers.

It can be clearly observed that the idea of labels has merit as an organization of knowl- edge device in psychology. The categorization of psychological syndromes, disorders, or illnesses creates a common language for clinicians to operate with. The usage of the stan- dardized diagnostic criteria furthers the understanding of mental conditions. On the other hand, labeling groups of people according to preconceived, oftentimes prejudiced notions, can lead to harmful behaviors in society. What is more, it can generate biased and distort- ed research results in the field of psychology. The weight of the evidence suggests that the influence of using labels on the organization of knowledge in psychology is to some de- gree ambiguous. It is crucial to notice that some of the labels prove to provide better in- sight than others.

How far is clear labelling of moral behaviors in religious systems beneficial to advancing understanding of religious knowledge and the regulation of behavior of an individual in the society? Religion can be defined as “an organized system of beliefs, practices, rituals, and symbols” (Thoresen, 1998, p. 415). Different religions provide us with different strictly la- beled moral systems or rule sets (e.g., the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Islam, etc.) It appears that, as the majority of the world population identifies as religious, the labeled value systems established by organized religions are beneficial to society. Past research shows that highly religious people (specifically Christians) are more likely to be happy, family-oriented, and charitable (U.S. Religious Landscape Study, 2014). The find- ings suggest that the labeled moral systems and sets of rules may be more understand- able to the general population, hence easier to practice. The rules set up a clear example of a morally right believer and as they oftentimes promote charity and goodwill, they bene- fit the general society. It seems as if putting a label on a person’s moral compass influ- ences them to act upon it, making it simpler than producing their own ethical rules. Many religions promote ethical decision-making. The 2018 research by Pathan and Subhan suggests that Muslims perceive the Five Pillars of Islam as compatible with human nature, hence more understandable and justifiable. Overall, using faith and its labeled value sys- tems as a way of knowing and indicator of morality is shown to be beneficial or necessary for the understanding of knowledge.

Nevertheless, the use of strictly labeled terminology in organized religions can lead to conflicts and arguments. Organized religions are oftentimes divided into denominations that come into mutual conflict. The problem is often with differences in interpretation of moral labels (for example, different Christian denominations interpret the Ten Command- ments differently, thus conflict arises between them). Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian denomination that follows a set of strict rules, one of which is staying away from non-Jeho- vah’s Witnesses (so-called ‘worldly people’). Contemporary research suggests that by avoiding contact with non-believers, the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Organiza- tion subject themselves to pathological societal and individual functioning patterns (Pietkiewicz, 2014). Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, due to the limited knowledge they are ex- posed to, often struggle with communication in their places of work, education, etc. The mere labeling of the organization as ‘The Anointed by God’ creates implausible expecta- tions for the members to obtain and understand knowledge exceeding their usual social scene. Similar patterns can be observed in the case of religion switching (Scheitle & Adamczyk, 2010) where the disfellowshipped or dissociated members have issues with

understanding the outside world. The rigorously labeled nature of the organization has proven to disappoint in 2016 when the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Re- sponses to Child Sexual Abuse has discovered that the limited interpretation of the Bible, encouraged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Organization, led to the disdain for numerous child abuse cases (McClellan, 2016). The established rule system restricted the members’ varied understanding of the complex issue that is child abuse. For people participating in organized religions, faith as a key way of knowing is a method of under- standing the world. However, it can be deemed as more or less accurate. Ultimately, la- beled faith and religious systems can obstruct one’s understanding of complex knowledge aspects.

The analysis of the presented body of research provides thorough, but complicated in- sight into the problem of labels prominent in religious knowledge systems. The organized system of beliefs and rules proves to bring societal benefits to the general population. The established moral systems help better understand the patterns behind human ethical be- havior. On the other hand, in specific examples, rigorous rule systems can limit the organi- zation of knowledge and understanding of people. Considering the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Organization, the restricted knowledge and understanding patterns can have a tragic influence on society. Research suggests that the use of labels in religious knowl- edge systems ought to be deliberative, in order to be profitable.

How far can we agree that labels are a necessity in the organization of knowledge? While considering psychology as a human science and Christianity and Islam as religious knowledge systems, it can be concluded that there is an extent to which labels aid, as well as hinder, the organization of knowledge. In psychology, labels can function as a universal language acting as a way of knowing. However, excessive labeling can also lead to restricted and prejudiced cognitive schemes. Strictly label religious moral systems can act as simplified moral compasses, hence facilitate the understanding of ethical rules. Nonetheless, in some cases the thinking patterns can become oversimplified, leading to a constricted organization of knowledge. In both cases, it appears that labels cannot be deemed ‘a necessity’ in the organization knowledge. After evaluating the arguments, it is vital to consider, if in real life labels tend to further or limit our understanding and organiza- tion of knowledge.

• 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study supplemental survey conducted Aug. 11-Sept. 3, 2014.
• Clarke, D. E., & Kuhl, E. A. (2014). DSM-5 cross-cutting symptom measures: A step towards the future of psychiatric care? World Psychiatry, 13(3), 314 -316. doi - 10.1002/ wps.20154
• Khoury, B., Langer, E. J., & Pagnini, F. (2014). The DSM: Mindful science or mindless power? A critical review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi -10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00602
• McClellan, P. (2016). Report of case study no. 29 - The response of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of sex- ual abuse. Sydney, NSW: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexu- al Abuse.
• Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (p. 477). New York: Free Press of Glencoe
• Pathan, P. D., & Subhan, M. H. (2018). Five Pillars of Islam and their Social Impacts. Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. I, Issue: I, I(II), 24 - 45. doi -10.33195/uochjrs - v1i2692018
• Pietkiewicz, I. J. (2014). Salutary, pathogenic, and pathoplastic aspects of the Jeho- vah’s Witness culture. Journal of Family Studies, 20(2), 148 -165. doi - 10.1080/13229400.2014.11082003
• Popov, A. (2018). IB Psychology Study Guide - Oxford IB Diploma Programme. (p. 62) Oxford - Oxford University Press.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Re- view, 3(1), 16 - 20. doi -10.1007/bf02322211
• Scheitle, C. P., & Adamczyk, A. (2010). High-cost Religion, Religious Switching, and Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(3), 325-342. doi - 10.1177/0022146510378236
• Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test perfor- mance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797- 811. doi -10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
• Thoresen, C.E. (1998) Spirituality, Health, and Science. The Coming Revival? In - Roth-Roemer, S., Kurpius, S.E.R. and Carmin, C.N., Eds., The Emerging Role of Coun- seling Psychology in Health Care, W. W. Norton, New York, 409 - 431.