the community embeddedness of naming
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Recently my daughter was playing with our names, making abbreviated versions of each of the family’s first names. Being exceptionally interesting to me at the time it lead me down this rabbit hole of a thought.
My name is Jonathan, though I have been called many things over the years. I’m also rather peculiar about who calls me what. Here’s an example, back when I knew my bride in high school, her and a few others began calling me Jon. I didn’t mind, or rather I wasn’t going to argue with a cute girl over what she called me.
So I then slowly became known as Jon to a circle of friends. This was fine until a new person came along, then being introduced as Jon seemed not quite right. After getting married, I’ve talked with her about how I prefer being introduced as Jonathan to others, even if she calls me Jon at home.
My thesis is that naming can only happen in relationship, only through experience with another do we gain the ability (knowing what they should be named) and the authority (that people would acknowledge the name as legitimate).
We have many different names depending on the relationship; son/daughter, sister/brother, father/mother, employee/employer, etc. In each of the roles we gain a new name. I might go by Jonathan in each of the roles, but what it is that people are naming is going to be different. The call of my wife would be quite different than the call of a patron at a restaurant if I was a waiter; each is calling for a different Jonathan in a different role.
I believe this is why nick names are so dear to people & relationships. That name speaks of a certain relationship between the parties. The names given not only speak of that person in that role, but the whole of the relation. Think of a famous person with a nickname, does not just thinking of their nickname bring a flash of other related images?
Another example is from grade school. Back then I was a scrawny awkward kid—completely different that I am now—so as you can imagine I was picked on a lot. As a result I had quite a few {not-so-nice} nicknames; a few of the most memorable being Johnny (Apple Seed) and Ghost. The latter is probably the stranger of the two. It was done by a few hispanic kids, who enjoyed poking fun at the white kid—though I’ve always tanned quickly so wasn’t the pasty white kid. The former, also done by the same group of kids, started as reading a short story about the original Johnny.
I haven’t experienced anyone calling me Ghost since 4-5th grade, but Johnny is a different story. It apart from my experience it is a rather fun playful variant. It even has greats associated with it, Johnny Cash & Johnny Carson coming quickly to mind. So people have used the name in this playful manner though, I tend to snap at this naming. I am unable to disassociate that naming from the bitter persecution I received years ago.
And isn’t this how it is? We could all probably sit and tell stories all day, just simply deriving them from the names we have picked up over the years. The names we receive and those we give don’t just simply designate people but create the story which live.
No. 1 — June 14th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Good post Jonathan. Your ideas bring to mind some other, perhaps unintended consequences of naming persons, places or things.
Isn’t it true that most times when we name something, either subconsciously or consciously, we’re implying a sense of ownership? This isn’t always bad and in most cases, as you point out, is meant as a sign affection. But of course it can also be interpreted as a sign of domination over that person, place or thing. For example just apply this thinking to the naming of God. In fact we could say that every time we name God we are saying something about ourselves (or who we want to be). Maybe this is true for all the other labels we hand out? Who knows?
No. 2 — June 16th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Yeah Jesse that is taking my thought further, but it seems to exemplify my thought further. To say that naming implies a sense of ownership can have the negative, which you mention of power & domination over the named by the namer. We definitely do this so often through the use of generalities & labels: oh they are just a jock, nerd, harlot, etc. This is definitely the heart of negative theology, where the theologian denies any naming of God, because any naming is false and distracts us from that which is unknowable beyond comprehension.
This bleeds right into the whole conception of the ‘other’, how we can’t ever get inside we are always looking from without. So we rob them of their subjectivity and objectify them through names.
It is easy to get very negative with this. I was attempting to show a positive creational/bringing-forth aspect of the community. It is in the community that our identity is born–maybe not perfectly, but through that naming possibilities & relationships are opened up.
Following my recent thoughts on responsibility, could it not also be a sign of a positive ownership. Father/Mother – Son/Daughter relationships seem to be the perfect example. To call this child mine, that they aren’t simply a child but rather my child something happens to the relationship. I take a responsibility for their upbringing in a way that I don’t for the neighbors child.