What’s in a name?
On Practices of Discriminatory Naming
A name typically has two parts- a forename and a surname. German Sociologist Norbert Elias in his book The Society of Individuals noted that forenames are the individualised part of the persons’ identity whereas surnames signal ‘we’ identities. For example, in my name Nikhita stands for my own individualised identity and my surname Jindal suggests the larger lineage, caste group and the nation that I belong to.
The uniqueness of my identity- my individuality- arises from the coincidence of my forename-plus-surname as a label applied to my face and body as the visible, tangible and distinctive surfaces of myself.
But why is it really important to scrutinise naming and the consequences of names? A name has the potential to suggest how society views the individual. It has embedded within it systems of kinship behaviour, sex, gender, class, race and ethnicity.
A recent study by Dr. Marijuana Pepsi (PhD) who herself grew up with an unusual name went on to research and find that school teachers generally make fun of students with unique names and hyper-focus on them. In America, black children often have names which clearly distinguish them from white children, making them objects of ridicule. Researchers have found this discrimination based on how white or black a name sounds in the employment market as well. Another researcher, Jane Pilcher has shown through her research that forenaming and surnaming practices are core to the production and reproduction of binary sex categories, and to gendered identities, difference, hierarchies, and inequalities which she termed as “gendered embodied named identities”. She has also noted that girls in general have a greater variability in names than boys, a point I shall come back to after a discussion of my own national context.
India is a particularly diverse country where differences of caste, class, gender, race, ethnicity, ability, and kinship are acute because of resource crunch and clear discrimination between different groups of people. There is an overwhelming bias for the male child and adult which reflects in nearly all demographic parameters of the country. The 2011 Census shows a sex ratio of 940 females per 1000 males.The Economic Survey of 2018, by the Government of India, mentions a ‘meta’ preference for son, referring to a prevalent phenomenon of parents having several daughters in hopes of having a son.
As a result, 21 million girls in India today are unwanted. How does that translate into reality? Families spare lesser resources in terms of nutrition and healthcare for girls; they get fewer opportunities to get education as compared to their brothers; even when they do, a large number of girls are sent to government schools whereas boys from the same family might go to expensive private schools; girls have to learn and partake in household chores like cooking, cleaning, taking care of younger siblings etc. as a gender assigned duty.
This the preferential treatment to boys over girls can also be seen through the names given to them. My recent fieldwork in rural parts of India in the northern states of Rajasthan and Haryana gave me some insights into this. Boys, who are going to carry forward the lineage of the family, are usually given glorious names like Raj (King), Suraj (Sun) and Akhil (Whole or Indivisible).
Interestingly, I found names of girls falling between two spectra: from names of goddesses to names which reflect ‘unwantedness’. The first girl child or the eldest sibling of the family is usually named after a Goddess as she is seen as an incarnation. Names of Goddesses such as Laxmi (wealth), Durga(power), Saraswati(knowledge) and Sita(chastity or piety) are quite prevalent for first born girls. Some other positive names include Khushi (happiness), Muskaan (smile), Mamta (love of a mother), and Priya (dear or beloved).
While the above stated names do showcase that girls are not entirely unwanted, I have also come across names like ‘Aurmata’ (we don’t want more), ‘Bateri’ (too many), and ‘Maafi’ (asking for forgiveness from God). These names reflect a plea of the people to the God to finally gift the couple with a boy to ensure continuity of lineage and save them from the stigma and the socio-economic pressure of having too many girl children to be married off with dowry.
Moreover, these girls, along with everyone else in the town, are acutely aware of the reasons as to why these names are kept. Such names are widely accepted by the society. In my experience, every time I have enquired about the meanings of these names it is the other children or community members who have explained to me “ye chauthi ladki hai na” (because she’s the fourth child), as if she is to be blamed for being born. It is also interesting to note that while others would give these explanations almost in a mocking way, the girl in question would stand there sombrely, knowing full well the reason her name is such.
The unwanted names are generally given to the third or fourth girl child born when the parents had wished for a male child. Being born third, fourth or fifth in line is considered as the most significant aspect of that girl child’s identity and the name thus, acts as a reminder to her for the rest of her life. The name serves as a reminder that even if she achieves great things in life somehow, she should never forget that her parents were unhappy when she was born and did not want her. It seems that her existence itself is hardly a priority for her family, let alone her happiness.
A name helps us identify an individual from the rest. It is like an identity of an individual which distinguishes them from the others. In its most obvious use, it is an indicator of the person in reference. However, it is so much more! A name can reveal a lot about the way a particular society is structured and the various hierarchies present in it. This makes it extremely crucial for academics, and social scientists in particular, to give ‘names’ and the nomenclature of children in society a lot more importance than currently given.
What’s in a name? A lot more than apparent!
