Why People Name Themselves - Essay Example

WHY DO WE NAME OURSELVES: FIRST NAMES Introduction “Proper names, particularly the act of naming, is a well-established research topic in disciplines as diverse as anthropolocy, history, law, linguistics, philosophy, social psychology and sociology” (Valentine, Brennen & Bredart 1). A series of international Congresses of Onomastic Sciences facilitate discussion among researchers from various disciplines on their work on proper names including first names. Various criteria are taken into consideration, such as the interdependence of naming and social structure in various cultures, the relation between cultural history and the choice of a name, the poetics of name-giving or the logical status of lierary names, proper names and lexicography, the legal aspects of naming, and the study of words which have been formed based on proper names. Thus, naming is a significant feature, which has been found to have long-term effects for the owner of the name, and their life prospects. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate why people name themselves; and examine the significance of first names from various perspectives. Naming and Identity are Inter-Related Names shape our daily lives in an endless variety of ways. Kaplan and Bernays (p.22) state that names are profoundly linked to identity and to an individual’s portrayal of self image both in public as well as privately. Thus, names have considerable power in influencing a person’s approach to oneself, and consequently to others. In contemporary society, naming is related to class structure, ethnic and religious practices, manners, and other factors. The historical importance of naming is underscored by Wilson (p.12), who states that names have never been given accidentally. They are chosen and bestowed along culturally acceptable guidelines reflecting core features of the society and culture of the people. The social history of ancient civilizations to the societies of the present day reveal different naming practices related to identity formation. Kissling and Defrancisco (p.29) present their own personal case studies and discuss their drive to change their names according to their preference. Comparing their stories of naming, it is evident that there is a common theme of identity concerns which manifested in different ways. Both considered it important to form their own identity by renaming themselves, but seeking identity through name also made the process more difficult. Most of their anxieties were centred on what people would say. Though both ladies were white feminists in the protected, liberal world of academics, they went through a stage of apprehension regarding their intention to change their names. They realized that the attachment of name to identity is culturally specific and strongly constructed. Despite the sense of ownership and identity closely associated with the naming process it is contradictory that people are not free to change their names whenever they so desire. Regardless of their final decisions on the subject, the “emotional, personal, political, and ideological links between naming and identity made the process both stressful and rewarding” for them, state Kissling & Defrancisco (p.33). Because of these stresses, and the issue of change of identity, one of the authors chose to change her name, while the other chose to retain her name. Victoria wanted a new self-image with an identity of her own making, while Elizabeth elected to retain her original identity. They shared their personal stories and vulnerabilities to help others be more informed and prepared to enjoy the privilege of naming themselves. Stereotypes Associated with Given Names Name stereotypes were once referred to as the neglected social variable (Albott & Bruning 527). However, there are now substantial literature on the stereotypes pertaining to given names. The evidence indicates that common, more familiar names are evaluated more positively, while people with unusual and less attractive names are more likely to change their name or use an alternative form of address such as a nickname. Popular names are considered as more attractive in terms of the greater exposure they have; however differences in the popularity of first names may be based on a preference-feedback mechanism. “The preference-feedback mechanism argues that overexposure to a popular name may lead to a decline in its popularity and hence the popularity of first names may be cyclical” (Erwin (1) 513). As a result, the popularity of a first name within a culture changes over time, and people of different ages within a culture may assess the same name differently. Erwin (2) (p.41) argued that the “stereotypes associated with given names are relatively stable, have different evaluative consequences for the individual, result in differential expectations and treatmen of the individual”, and result in psychological and behavioral differences associated with the stereotypic evaluation. This is based on evidence from several research studies on various aspects of social and cognitive functioning; the studies however did not have consistent results, and could be further improved methodologically. Name stereotype effects have been noted on aspects of personality, personal adjustment and psychopathology, perceptions of physical attractiveness, social success and popularity, self-concept and self-esteem, academic achievement, evaluations of academic work and performance, and the tendency to drop out of college (Erwin (2) 50). Although a large amount of evidence indicates the benefits of a popular, attractive given name, it is essential to take into consideration the fact that in some circumstances the holders of more unusual names may be benefited. For example, where a name is being evaluated on class, race, or gender, individuals with more unique names may be more noticeable and memorable. Overall, more popular names are evaluated more positively; however there exists a sex difference in name preferences. Male common names are generally more positively rated than female common names, while female uncommon names are more positively rated than uncommon male names. This may be reflected in the fact that men are more likely than women to be named after their same-sex parent; and males prefer more common and dated names. On the other hand, females prefer relatively rare and unusual names. Moreover, the desirability of given names is also in conjunction with their ratings of masculinity or femininity; thus “more desirable names are generally more strongly gender stereotyped (Erwin (2) 51). Although a name stereotypes in chidren have been investigated, the implications of androgynous name, despite their current popularity have not been studied. Hence, Erwin (1) 515) examines children’s evaluative name stereotypes associated with masculine, feminine, and androgynous names when attributed to both boys and girls. The possibility of a simple gender prejudic in name preferences was also investigated. The author hypothesized that boys and girls will differ in their assessments of names, differences will exist based on gender associations, and that attractive names would have more positive general assessments than unattractive names. Evidence from the research indicates that although names do vary in evaluative dimensions, gender associations are considerably more significant and influential in evaluations than other criteria. Evaluations were also found to be impacted by age, purpose of the evaluation such as whether overall and general approach or pertained to a specific ability. The stereotyping observed in perspectives towards names is explained by psychology. Psychological Factors Contributing to First Name Preferences Personal names are of great psychological significance, as suggested by anecdotal and anthropological research. There appears to be a strong correlation between the familiarity of first names and the extent to which they are liked. Evidence from research carried out in England and Australia reveal that there is a high level of tendency for first names to be preferred in direct proportion to their familiarity. It was found that generally, “the most familiar names tend to be best liked and the least familiar names to be strongly disliked” (Colman, Hargreaves & Sluckin 113). However, changing preferences with the passage of time is likely to have brought about different approaches to the extent of approval given to familiar and unfamiliar names. However, a cyclical trend has been identified by the authors, in the general public’s liking for particular first names. The Sociological Perspective to Personal Names A significant concept is that there is a wide variety of alternate terms and usages applicable to any particular kind of person as a relative. That is, there are more kinship terms and nomenclature for kinsmen than there are kinds of kinsmen, or categories of kinsmen. In a child’s socialization to family life, and while growing up he/ she learns that various terms are applicable to the same person. For example, “mother may be called as “mother”, “mom”, “ma”, “mummy”, “mama”, or in some cultures by her first name, nickname, a diminutive, or a variety of other designations, including unique or idiosyncratic appellations, sometimes related to baby-talk” (Berger 83). Similarly, father may be called “father”, “pop:, “pa”, “dad”, “daddy”, “boss”, or by his first name, nickname, a diminutive, or various other less commonly used designations including distinctive or characteristic appellations. This holds good for other relatives also. Grandparents may be called “grandma”, “grandpa”, “gramma”, “grapa”, “nana”. Alternatively, last names may be added to differentiate “Gramma Jones” from “Gramma Smith”. Cousins are usually addressed by their first name, nickname, a diminutive, or other personal types of designation, or as cousing-plus-first-name for example “Cousin Jill”. Son may be called “son”, “sonny”, “kid”, “kiddy”, “boy”, or by his first name, nickname, or diminutive, or other terms of personal designation. Similarly, daughter may be called “girl”, “daughter”, by her first name, nickname, a diminutive, or sister-plus-first-name for example “Sister Jane”. Besides these terms, there may be idiosyncratic and personal appellations used. “Kid” as a term for child does not distinguish son from daughter. Brother may be called “brother”, brother-plus-first-name, first name alone, nickname, diminutives, or personal forms. In the same way, sister may be “sister”, sister-plus-first-name, first name alone, nick-name, diminutives, or personal forms of nomenclature (Berger 83). The possible referential alternatives need to be studied further, with the researcher investigating their systematic procedural basis in family interaction. By examining their conversational use, the child’s practices of selecting identifications for others in the family household can be determined. A further procedure for the child involves his knowing an identification term for all the family members as a particular unit of membership. For example, he can refer to his family as “my family, or “our family”; his family’s residence as “my house” or “our house”. This adds the locational or territorial aspect to the referential procedure. According to Schneider (p.30), “members of a family” can be differentiated from “the family as a cultural unit”. That is, from one approach, the child learns that all of his relatives: a term for a whole collection of familially related individuals, are distinguishable referentially in relation to the unit he calls “family”. This term embodies for the child a range of categories used in everyday interaction with household members. In families where extended relatives such as grandparents or uncles are permanent household residents, the child learns additional categorials as suitable methods of reference. According to Berger (pp.83-84), this means that “the composition of the unit he calls his family consists of various stable identifiable members whose daily presence establishes interactional requirements for the child’s use of referential procedures”. This means that referential demands are place upon his speech interaction relative to each and every member. Thus, the child’s socialization to family life includes how competently he uses referential terms for relevant others in the family membership unit. The right use of referential procedures for naming others comprises one part of the child’s cultural apparatus pertaining to characteristic family arrangements and to the structure of social relationships these arrangements encompass. The requirements for the child’s use of referential procedures is thus emphasized. According to this approach, referential demands are placed on the child’s speech interaction in relation to each member of the family. Hence, it is clear that a predominant problem in the child’s socialization to family life is how he competently used referential terms for relevant others in the family membership unit. The correct use of referential procedures for naming others constitutes one aspect of the child’s cultural mechanism relating to “typical family arrangements and to the structure of social relationships these arrangements encompass” (Berger 84). Conclusion This paper has highlighted first names, and investigated why people name themselves, and examined the significance of first names from different approaches. The evidence indicates that name and identity are closely associated. For this reason, some individuals try to reinvent themselves by changing their name to one that they prefer. However, the changing of one’s name is not easily done, since various aspects such as social, legal, and cultural issues have to be taken into account. Further, stereotypes associated with different names and the psychological factors behind naming have been identified. It is clear that more familiar, attractive names are better liked than unfamiliar attractive ones, particularly for men. At the same time, unfamiliar women’s names are preferred to unfamiliar men’s names. Similarly, when race, class, gender, and other issues play a part in the evaluation, attractive and unique names are preferred to the popular names. The sociological aspect of names underscores the fact that every individual has several names correlating with various relationships with other family members. Thus, during the process of a young child’s socialization into the family, he/ she learns the different names that each family member is bestowed with. This helps the child to develop competence to use referential terms for relevant others in the family unit. It is concluded that when first names are bestowed on children by their parents when they are christened, the prevailing cultural, societal, psychological, and possibly historical significances are taken into consideration. Therefore, because first names influence people’s lives profoundly, they are chosen with care to optimise life chances and to achieve successful outcomes. --------------------------------------- Works Cited Albott, W.L. & Bruning, J.L. Given names: A neglected social variable. The Psychological Record, 20 (1970): pp.527-533. Berger, Brigitte. Readings in Sociology: A biographical approach. New York: Basic Books Publications. (1974). Colman, Andrew M., Hargreave, David J. & Sluckin, Wladyslaw. Psychological factors Affecting preferences for first names. (1976). Retrieved on 1st December, 2011 from: http://www.le.ac.uk/psychology/amc/psycfact.pdf Erwin, Philip G. (1). Children’s evaluative stereotypes of masculine, feminine and androgynous first names. The Psychological Record, 56.4 (2006): pp.513-519. Erwin, Philip G. (2). A review of the effects of personal name stereotypes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 20 (1995): pp.41-52. Kaplan, Justin & Bernays, Anne. The language of names: What we call ourselves and why it matters. The United States of America: Simon and Schuster. (1999). Kissling, Elizabeth A. & Defrancisco, Victoria L. Naming our selves. Women and Language, 16.2 (1993): pp.29-33. Schneider, David M. American kinship: A cultural account. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. (1968). Valentine, Tim, Brennen, Tim & Bredart, Serge. The cognitive psychology of proper names: On the importance of being Ernest. New York: Routledge. (1996). Wilson, Stephen. The means of naming: A social and cultural history of personal naming in western Europe. New York: UCL Press. (1998). Read More