It is a minor thing, but I never like when things are defined by what they aren’t instead of by what they are. Non-fiction, for example. It turns “fiction” into the standard, leaving non-fiction to be the poor relation, the other.
(Yes, I do sit around and think about things like this. I’m such a nerd.)
Words, names, labels, they are powerful things. Does defining something by what it isn’t change how we approach the thing? Does an presumption of a default change our thinking? Why not “documentary”? Why not “existion” (to make up a word at random)?
Words, as you know better than most, are powerful. I believe you’re exactly right about how defining something as “not-” something else forms a (perhaps not so) subtle impression in someone’s mind about what is “standard” (or normal).
Labels are used everywhere, obviously. They’re simply nouns and are important to us in categorizing for the sake of quicker understanding. But, just as they can be useful and informative (and, indeed, necessary), they can likewise be hurtful and destructive (and possibly unnecessary).
Oh, you’re right that it’s not subtle, Denise.