**Proper Names:** According to Searle, proper names function by referring to an entity through an indefinite set of descriptors or features. This set is not fixed and can evolve over time. The meaning of a proper name is not just a matter of a strict, unchanging definition but is about the entity it refers to, which can be understood in many different ways (Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. _Mind_, 67(266), 166-173). **Labels:** Labels, in contrast, are generally understood to have more finite, specific definitions. They categorize or identify entities based on a relatively fixed set of characteristics or criteria. ### Application to Political Ideology and Gender/Sexual Identity **Political Ideology:** When applying Searle’s framework, political ideologies like being a “Democrat” can be seen as a form of proper name rather than a mere label. A political identity encapsulates a broad, evolving set of beliefs, values, and attitudes. This set is not rigid; it can change and adapt to new circumstances, personal experiences, or evolving societal norms. **Gender/Sexual Identity:** Similarly, gender and sexual identities (such as queer, transgender, or gender fluid) can also be conceptualized using Searle’s proper names paradigm. These identities are not confined to a strict set of descriptors. Instead, they represent a dynamic and personalized amalgamation of experiences, feelings, and self-understandings. ### Implications **Fluidity and Evolution:** This perspective acknowledges the fluidity and evolution in our understanding of complex social constructs like political beliefs or gender identity. It challenges the notion of static definitions and emphasizes personal experiences and perceptions. **Unique and Personalized Understanding:** It highlights that each individual’s understanding and expression of their identity or beliefs are unique and cannot be fully captured by a rigid or finite set of descriptors. **No Single Defining Descriptor:** The approach also means there’s no need to prioritize one descriptor over others, allowing for a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of identities. ### Conclusion The application of Searle’s distinction between proper names and labels to areas like political ideologies and gender or sexual identities demonstrates the complexity and fluid nature of these concepts. This perspective encourages a more personalized and evolving understanding of identities, moving away from rigid categorizations. ### References Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. _Mind_, 67(266), 166-173.