There is always going to be a gap, a metaphysical distance between the signifier and the signified. Between the object 'tree' and our notion of it. We are given to understand and interpret it the way we want to. The word 'tree' will evoke different images in our mind not one single tree. All these trees that come to our mind are merely notions of the 'tree' but how do we say with certitude that our notion of the tree represents the tree's entire reality? We are not the tree, we can never be the tree hence we can never know the entire truth of the tree. By labeling it as tree, we are in fact limiting it, restricting, it confining it to our idea of what we understand as 'tree'. Meaning thus becomes evasive. We create realities by creating meanings through language.

Language belongs to some not all. It puts certain groups at an advantage over others. It's a vehicle of the ones that are at the top of the hierarchy and is thus representative of their point of view, the way they perceive something. Take the word 'baanjh' in Hindi for instance used to describe a 'childless' woman. 'Baanj' if etymologically traced originates from 'banjar' meaning infertile referring to a piece of land implying an absence of something. It certainly doesn't bring to mind positive images. 'Childless', 'infertile' also revolves around similar visual metaphors. Such kinds of labels do two things: they confine and limit the infinite and try to contain it within boundaries that are inadequate and they determine hierarchy and position people and groups in a specific order. They take us further from the truth, by creating a truth and sealing it with a word dissuading us from exploring reality beyond the label.