New Post
Search
Help
Archivesmore on same article topic (?)
in reply to a message by chazda
Well, for whatever it's worth to anyone... since I was inspired to look up the subject, I found one interesting article, but it's in an economic journal and they want five dollars for the .pdf file.
I was able to download it free because my university subscribes. For anyone who's a student, you can find out in a few seconds whether or not you can get it. I don't know if the journal would allow a reprint on the site, but it doesn't seem likely since they have the subscription thing. Besides, it's loooong and has big figures and mathematical equations and boring stuff.
Here's the URL for the abstract:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9938
Click on the "info for those expecting no-cost downloads" link, enter your university email, and it replies automatically.
My quickie attempt at a summary of their conclusions that are relevant to Fikes's article:
Black names have in fact been getting more 'unique' and have become a more different set of names from what whites use; 'blackness' of a name is correlated with bearer's/mother's segregation and socioeconomic status, and increasingly so since the 60s; 'blackness' of a name has no significant effect on life outcomes, when you control for factors present at birth... they argue that employer discrimination based on names on a resume has no demonstrable material effect. They discuss several theories of why people use 'black' names and then see if they support the data; the most consistent theory is simply that the names represent self-identification (not necessarily signaling to others) as black (as opposed to a trade-off of costs and benefits of a black name, or ignorance about the costs).
Basically they're saying that their data suggest the increasing unusualness of names used by black parents is correlated to cultural change (they don't explicitly say change of what nature) that has occurred since the civil rights movement, and that the names' relation to socioeconomic status appears to be as a result of it -- not likely a cause, as many assume.
Not all that satisfying, is it? I'm not bored yet with trying to understand what someone who gives or bears a name like Lottery or Sirloin really thinks, and if there's any parallel to it, anywhere in all of naming history. I think it's more interesting than just, "Omigod that's so cruel!!!!!"
- chazda
[ edited subject line ]
I was able to download it free because my university subscribes. For anyone who's a student, you can find out in a few seconds whether or not you can get it. I don't know if the journal would allow a reprint on the site, but it doesn't seem likely since they have the subscription thing. Besides, it's loooong and has big figures and mathematical equations and boring stuff.
Here's the URL for the abstract:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9938
Click on the "info for those expecting no-cost downloads" link, enter your university email, and it replies automatically.
My quickie attempt at a summary of their conclusions that are relevant to Fikes's article:
Black names have in fact been getting more 'unique' and have become a more different set of names from what whites use; 'blackness' of a name is correlated with bearer's/mother's segregation and socioeconomic status, and increasingly so since the 60s; 'blackness' of a name has no significant effect on life outcomes, when you control for factors present at birth... they argue that employer discrimination based on names on a resume has no demonstrable material effect. They discuss several theories of why people use 'black' names and then see if they support the data; the most consistent theory is simply that the names represent self-identification (not necessarily signaling to others) as black (as opposed to a trade-off of costs and benefits of a black name, or ignorance about the costs).
Basically they're saying that their data suggest the increasing unusualness of names used by black parents is correlated to cultural change (they don't explicitly say change of what nature) that has occurred since the civil rights movement, and that the names' relation to socioeconomic status appears to be as a result of it -- not likely a cause, as many assume.
Not all that satisfying, is it? I'm not bored yet with trying to understand what someone who gives or bears a name like Lottery or Sirloin really thinks, and if there's any parallel to it, anywhere in all of naming history. I think it's more interesting than just, "Omigod that's so cruel!!!!!"
- chazda
[ edited subject line ]
This message was edited 10/18/2004, 10:39 PM
1
Replies
I'm a bit tired so I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, but if they're making the point I *think* they're making then I think they're right (with me so far? :-D) - someone who is given a name which is stereotypically a welfare-class African-American name may have poor prospects, but those prospects are more likely to be linked to their status as a welfare-class African-American than to the name.
Yes?
Yes?
1
Yes, right, that's what I was trying (struggling?) to say... And the main thing was, that they have some hard data to support this conclusion.
Of course it's the 'politically correct' conclusion, but that other conclusion cries out for hard support, while its proponents provide none (the resume/interview study does not make any analysis, it's just provocative).
- chazda
Of course it's the 'politically correct' conclusion, but that other conclusion cries out for hard support, while its proponents provide none (the resume/interview study does not make any analysis, it's just provocative).
- chazda
This message was edited 10/18/2004, 11:20 PM
1
Gah, "politically incorrect" can go jump. It might not be nice or good that, for example, Aboriginal Australians make up 2% of the population in general but make up 30% of the jailed population, but pretending that there isn't a problem because it would be "politically incorrect" to mention it isn't going to solve anything! (This is one of my pet aggravations - when I was studying, I told my grandmother that I wanted to study Historic, not Aboriginal, archaeology. "Isn't that a bit politically incorrect?" she asked. No, it's what I want to do with the rest of my life!! People use that term for the absurdest things.)
Anyway, dragging this post back on topic . . . I'm not at all surprised that they have evidence to back up their conclusion. It makes sense. Unpleasant sense, major-problem-needing-to-be-fixed sense, but still sense.
Am I coherent yet? :-))
Anyway, dragging this post back on topic . . . I'm not at all surprised that they have evidence to back up their conclusion. It makes sense. Unpleasant sense, major-problem-needing-to-be-fixed sense, but still sense.
Am I coherent yet? :-))
1
Aboriginal Australians make up 2% of the population in general but make up 30% of the jailed population
Wow. I had no idea this was true.. that there was a parallel in Australia. Now I wonder where else are similar things true?
Yes, you're coherent. I agree -- it's the more challenging conclusion, but it seems clear that it's the more intelligent one. Thanks for supporting me about this :-)
Besides, I think it makes the whole made-up names trend thing more interesting to stop assuming that it's somehow harmful .. it lets us set aside biases ("disturbing," "ill-conceived," "shame") before trying to understand it as something real people like us are actually doing in this world.
- chazda
Wow. I had no idea this was true.. that there was a parallel in Australia. Now I wonder where else are similar things true?
Yes, you're coherent. I agree -- it's the more challenging conclusion, but it seems clear that it's the more intelligent one. Thanks for supporting me about this :-)
Besides, I think it makes the whole made-up names trend thing more interesting to stop assuming that it's somehow harmful .. it lets us set aside biases ("disturbing," "ill-conceived," "shame") before trying to understand it as something real people like us are actually doing in this world.
- chazda
1
Things seem to be the same everywhere. In France the 'poor' minorities (Arabs, blacks, Gypsies...) are proportionally the huge majority of people in jail.
Imo creative names increase the chances of being teased at school, and seen as "trailer trash" in adult life, with all the problems it gives, even if it's more politically correct to say they're cute, interesting, full of local colour and imagination, and so on...
Imo creative names increase the chances of being teased at school, and seen as "trailer trash" in adult life, with all the problems it gives, even if it's more politically correct to say they're cute, interesting, full of local colour and imagination, and so on...
This message was edited 10/19/2004, 9:48 AM
1
Oh. Hm. I'm disappointed that I'm not really all that surprised, after all.
Well, I can't argue with the fact that 'black' names give a certain impression, to many people. That'd be politically correct, in the bad sense -- it'd be a denial of reality! There's no question that such names are strongly associated with the traits that are, by and large, found in most bearers, including low income, segregation, & low education; which also happen to be looked down on by other segments of society.
My issue is with insecure people who feel they have to shout a judgment when they see such names.. they express horror, shock, disgust! They're disturbed, and say things like the namers should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating a crime against an innocent child, and make such drama-queen claims that basically say: "I'm the cream, after all .. good taste is a matter of objective truth, and I should know! You and I have nothing to be ashamed of, the way those people do! Do we? Do we?"
Clearly -- well, to me it's clear -- the namers have something else in mind when they use these names. They're people, they can't be all that different.. they choose names they like for some reason. It's particularly interesting to me because they're ordinary folks living in the same country I am, but I'm a total ignoramus or alien to what the appeal of their names is. It's like a black culture secret, or something.. almost as though designed that way, to evoke the reaction it does. Well, maybe not. I really have no clue. But it's interesting.
Not "cute" or "full of local color and imagination" - that's not what I meant at all.
- chazda
Well, I can't argue with the fact that 'black' names give a certain impression, to many people. That'd be politically correct, in the bad sense -- it'd be a denial of reality! There's no question that such names are strongly associated with the traits that are, by and large, found in most bearers, including low income, segregation, & low education; which also happen to be looked down on by other segments of society.
My issue is with insecure people who feel they have to shout a judgment when they see such names.. they express horror, shock, disgust! They're disturbed, and say things like the namers should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating a crime against an innocent child, and make such drama-queen claims that basically say: "I'm the cream, after all .. good taste is a matter of objective truth, and I should know! You and I have nothing to be ashamed of, the way those people do! Do we? Do we?"
Clearly -- well, to me it's clear -- the namers have something else in mind when they use these names. They're people, they can't be all that different.. they choose names they like for some reason. It's particularly interesting to me because they're ordinary folks living in the same country I am, but I'm a total ignoramus or alien to what the appeal of their names is. It's like a black culture secret, or something.. almost as though designed that way, to evoke the reaction it does. Well, maybe not. I really have no clue. But it's interesting.
Not "cute" or "full of local color and imagination" - that's not what I meant at all.
- chazda
This message was edited 10/19/2004, 4:41 PM
1
They're people, they can't be all that different.. they choose names they like for some reason
That's a hugely good point! There is obviously something about these names that is attractive to those who use them, whether we can see it or not.
One thing that isn't "PC" which I have noticed, is that often, people in low income/welfare, poor education, downtrodden minority etc situations feel as much contempt for the well-heeled middle class as the middle class does for them (I've been on the receiving end of it from my stepmother, who has two kids by two different fathers and could barely read before she married my Dad). The names which shock and horrify the middle class may well be intended to do so - the names set up a distinct barrier of "We are Different to You", which upsets a middle class convinced that the goal of the welfare class is to attain middle classness (ie assimilate with their cultural norms).
I'm just theorising here, so I could be totally wrong! And of course if I'm right that's still just one element of a complex naming pattern. But I understand your feeling of a "culture secret".
Re the Aboriginal statistics: yes, it's the same everywhere. What I always find bizarre, being "outside looking in" on US society, is the lack of reference to Native Americans. I'd guess you'd have to watch a hundred random modern American films to see one Native American face, and even then he/she would be in a stereotyped role. Where are the ordinary Native Americans going about their daily lives in the suburbs?
Anyway, that's o/t! :-)
That's a hugely good point! There is obviously something about these names that is attractive to those who use them, whether we can see it or not.
One thing that isn't "PC" which I have noticed, is that often, people in low income/welfare, poor education, downtrodden minority etc situations feel as much contempt for the well-heeled middle class as the middle class does for them (I've been on the receiving end of it from my stepmother, who has two kids by two different fathers and could barely read before she married my Dad). The names which shock and horrify the middle class may well be intended to do so - the names set up a distinct barrier of "We are Different to You", which upsets a middle class convinced that the goal of the welfare class is to attain middle classness (ie assimilate with their cultural norms).
I'm just theorising here, so I could be totally wrong! And of course if I'm right that's still just one element of a complex naming pattern. But I understand your feeling of a "culture secret".
Re the Aboriginal statistics: yes, it's the same everywhere. What I always find bizarre, being "outside looking in" on US society, is the lack of reference to Native Americans. I'd guess you'd have to watch a hundred random modern American films to see one Native American face, and even then he/she would be in a stereotyped role. Where are the ordinary Native Americans going about their daily lives in the suburbs?
Anyway, that's o/t! :-)
1
Yeah, you explained that a lot better than I could have.
upsets a middle class convinced that the goal of the welfare class is to attain middle classness (ie assimilate with their cultural norms).
I mean, yah it's sort of distant and theoretical, and is based on just a guess, but it makes a lot of sense to me too.. Even if it's not deliberate, sometimes I wonder if maybe, by 'disturbing' members of the white middle class (and thus inducing them to reveal their sense of superiority).. Well, you said it better than I can.
Although I kind of doubt that the names are given deliberately just for that reason. I'm not totally comfortable with this idea as an explanation, because it is too centered on my own world view: it says that the trend is a reaction to white culture, rather than having any primary meaning of its own. Not to be PC, folks; I'm not saying it has to be meaningful out of context. I only mean: maybe it's just my own paranoia talking, when I wonder if maybe Sirloin is laughing at me because I'm laughing at him...(since no one who's into these names has ever said anything about it being 'giving the finger' to anyone). It does make a lot of sense though, in an abstract way.
I was thinking this: how is the trend similar to the way humans generally choose names for their kids? Most names seem to come from ancestry, birth circumstance, or symbols/words of power, beauty, whatever is important to the culture (like all the Germanic names with the war & battle elements, which would be truly strange and possibly offensive if we had a practice like that now).. and 'white' names in America tend to reflect values based on white, European history. It's possible that from the most disadvantaged black Americans' perspectives, even choosing an African-origin name does more honor to 'white' middle class cultural values than to their own. Since for most Americans of any race, our ancestry in the Old World is something we have to look up, not something we feel deeply connected to -- yet the mainstream middle class judgment is that the only legitimate names are tied to those traditions.
upsets a middle class convinced that the goal of the welfare class is to attain middle classness (ie assimilate with their cultural norms).
I mean, yah it's sort of distant and theoretical, and is based on just a guess, but it makes a lot of sense to me too.. Even if it's not deliberate, sometimes I wonder if maybe, by 'disturbing' members of the white middle class (and thus inducing them to reveal their sense of superiority).. Well, you said it better than I can.
Although I kind of doubt that the names are given deliberately just for that reason. I'm not totally comfortable with this idea as an explanation, because it is too centered on my own world view: it says that the trend is a reaction to white culture, rather than having any primary meaning of its own. Not to be PC, folks; I'm not saying it has to be meaningful out of context. I only mean: maybe it's just my own paranoia talking, when I wonder if maybe Sirloin is laughing at me because I'm laughing at him...(since no one who's into these names has ever said anything about it being 'giving the finger' to anyone). It does make a lot of sense though, in an abstract way.
I was thinking this: how is the trend similar to the way humans generally choose names for their kids? Most names seem to come from ancestry, birth circumstance, or symbols/words of power, beauty, whatever is important to the culture (like all the Germanic names with the war & battle elements, which would be truly strange and possibly offensive if we had a practice like that now).. and 'white' names in America tend to reflect values based on white, European history. It's possible that from the most disadvantaged black Americans' perspectives, even choosing an African-origin name does more honor to 'white' middle class cultural values than to their own. Since for most Americans of any race, our ancestry in the Old World is something we have to look up, not something we feel deeply connected to -- yet the mainstream middle class judgment is that the only legitimate names are tied to those traditions.
1