What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name? Weighing in on Texas State Rep. Betty Brown comments

I decided to write about the case involving Texas State Representative Betty Brown, (R-Terrell) (homepage), because I think it’s important to address events that might trigger emotional rather than nuanced reactions in as calm a manner as possible. There are way too many issues to take the eye off the ball and rant about a case which only serves to reinforce preexisting notions of an imagined “other”.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Rep. Brown made some controversial comments during a session of the House Elections Committee in response to testimony delivered by Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

Because quotes can be taken out of context, and because the economic challenges facing newspaper journalism necessitate more national reach, I wanted to confirm the quotes in their original context. The Texas Legislature does provide archives of live coverage. However, it looks like I can’t access the archived webcasts on the website. If anyone finds a successful workaround for this, please let me know.

Anyway, I’d like to make the following points:

I. Names are a key component of individual and group identity, and as such, have importance above and beyond recordkeeping.

II. Effective laws must be applied as equally as possible across all groups. This is especially true to voting laws, and given the history of poll taxes and other legislation in America in general, and the South in particular, directed at disenfranchising a segment of the population.

III. Rep. Brown said some very stupid things, but applying the stricter criterion of racism as requiring intent, I’m not sure the comments qualified as racist. This incident will distract from the issue of voter ID, which is important enough for the Texas House Elections Committee, but not (currently) in my top ten of “Things to worry about”. So I hope everyone stays calm and keeps their eye on the ball.

Here we go.

I. Names are a key component of individual and group identity, and as such, have importance above and beyond recordkeeping.

Research indicates that we are more prone to regard individuals with the same name as us more favorably than a random name. (stupid NYTimes search is down, will reference later) This might be rooted in the role names play in genetic identity – an identical surname may mean two individuals are genetically related, and therefore should have some modest incentive to keep each other alive against the non-related degenerate unwashed masses. It might also be a function of pattern recognition – if someone has the first name Ryan, I might like them because my irrational mind thinks we should have similar things in common (beyond the hatred of all men named Brian).

Associations with last names can work negatively, of course. Studies looking at fairness in hiring practices show a decreased probability of job offers for individuals with last names associated with certain ethnic groups with negative stereotypes (example: French employers are less likely to hire a receptionist if they have a North African surname) Unfortunately I don’t know if there’s data on whether exoticism alone is enough to guarantee a disadvantage. (Is a computer engineer less likely to be hired if he has an Indian surname, given that the hirer is East Asian, in spite of the not-always-warranted-but-somewhat-positive association of Indians with technological prowess?)

In any event, sufficient research (see Cialdini, Influence:The Psychology of Persuasion, Chapter 5 – Liking) and personal experience indicates that we tend to like individuals who are similar to us. It makes sense that we can extend that to last names, granting possible exceptions for people who really hate their families.

But there is a more important component to this – not only do we have psychological dispositions based on others’ names, we are psychologically disposed to favor OUR OWN names.

Our names are a key component of our identity. It’s evident that the advertisers, who, for my money, are the smartest people in the room regarding human psychology, have picked up on this. How many bank commercials promise that you will be treated as a person, and not a number? A name carries a “human” quality that a number lacks – not because numbers are less important to our lives (think SSN), but because our identity is most closely associated with our first name, with a slightly weaker but still significant component from our last and middle names.

This is independent the specific cultural associations with a name. I often bemoan the fact that, as far as I know, there have been no famous Yamadas from feudal Japan. Unlike friends and family who boast the surnames Shimazu, Mori, or Uesugi, I can’t claim to be descended from one of the great daimyo clans of Sengoku Jidai. (Correction to this conception would be most welcome!)

Some take tremendous pride in their relation to a particularly prominent individual, an association that sometimes takes the form of a common surname. In a few cases, the prevailing American cultural tradition of children adopting the paternal surname is suspended if there are no other heirs to carry on the wife’s family name. (All the more reason to reform bank security protocols.)

Last names are important, for better or worse. What does it say that so many descendants of slaves still retain surnames associated with their ancestors’ masters? Does such an individual retain the name out of pride? Of course not. But rare is the person who, like Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali, decides to remove a long-conditioned source of identity – the name – to make a statement about their identity. That these individuals would seek to change their names only underscores the importance of a name, inherited or sought, to a person’s sense of self.

II. Effective laws must be applied as equally as possible across all groups. This is especially true to voting laws, and given the history of poll taxes and other legislation in America in general, and the South in particular, directed at disenfranchising a segment of the population.

If such a law, as all good election laws, are to apply equally to all voters, then it will face the challenge of applying to individuals who happen to not be recent immigrants, and who probably would not appreciate efforts that would, prima facie, appear to question the American-ness of their names.

Furthermore, one would need to figure out which names are sufficiently challenging to change, and which are not. In fairness, it’s possible that Rep. Betty Brown has never had her named mispronounced by an American-born individual. Good for her. But if we’re going to all be named Ben/Betty Brown, how is that going to help identification efforts?

(And what of our poor Thai brethren, who are especially discriminated against for having delightfully sonorous but extended names?)

It’s not impossible, on paper. But it seems it runs a severe risk of targeting a subset of individuals and asking them to make significant lifestyle adjustments using a set of very subjective measures in order to convenience a poorly-defined majority interest.

Would fourth-generation Polish-Americans consent to changing their name from Pilsudski to another, more accessible name? Furthermore, what of variations of a given transliterated name? Transliteration of names from different cultures is challenging – a recording of Sergei Rachmaninov/Rachmaninow/Rachmaninoff may carry different English transliterations of the name.

I know at least one friend whose surname, at some point, was transliterated as Thong, but who likely should have had the transliterated name Tang. The transliteration has given her some grief, especially when the “Thong Song” came out, but I doubt she would voluntarily change her surname to facilitate federal and state identification efforts. Strangely enough, after 25 years on Earth, she's grown attached to it.

Granted, the prevalence of certain surnames – Tran, Nguyen, Lee, Kim, Chang, etc. – might make one wonder whether proper identification efforts might be difficult. However, the common surname has as much to do with geographic/political origins as identification. A given name can be associated with a clan, or as a peasant under a certain ruler, or a part of the world. In that way, Asian surnames are not so different from European surnames, which are also associated with familial relations (Johnson – son of John), trade (Mason), geographical origins, or noble associations (von Hayek being an example of both). Indeed, Rep. Brown’s name may originate from “von Braun”, changed either by choice or by necessity when her ancestors emigrated from Germany. (Her bio doesn't discuss her national origins, only stating that she is a native of that part of Texas.)

An optimal way of identifying individuals would be to use modern linguistics and computer science to generate the maximum possible number of phonetically-accessible names, then allocate those names to individuals, geographically allocated to increase probability of unique identification, but within geographical bins, assigned randomly to ensure fairness. It would be unfair if someone got the name “Max Power” or “Hieu G. Wang” just because they were friends with the chair of the Elections Committee.

Of course, this is what numbers are for. Historical baggage there.

Given the history of voting rights in the South, I understand the need to be careful to ensure that only those who have that privilege exercise it. Of course, given that history, I would expect its elected representatives to exercise more care in their language. Historical baggage here too.


III. Rep. Brown said some very stupid things, but applying the stricter criterion of racism as requiring intent, I’m not sure the comments qualified as racist. This incident will distract from the issue of voter ID, which is important enough for the Texas House Elections Committee, but not (currently) in my top ten of “Things to worry about”. So I hope everyone stays calm and keeps their eye on the ball.

The name issue gets around the primary issue of voter ID, which, if done well, would squelch the whiny protestations of fraud that are not a major factor in most American elections, but are likely to become an increasing part of a litigation-heavy strategy in close contests fought by desperate political parties.

If there isn’t much fraud, a non-discriminatory, cost-effective way of instituting voter ID should ideally make contesting elections much harder, which tends to help Democrats.

At the same time, it would pare the voting rolls of individuals who are not permitted to vote according to federal (non-citizens, the deceased) or local law (felons), and the deceased, which tends to help Republicans.

I’ve got enough else I need to worry about other than a heavily-gerrymandered district in Northern Texas. I need to find a job. Hell, a quarter of America needs to find a job. Education can mitigate ignorance, but, alas, in a democracy, education remains a voluntary process. I hope most individuals affected by this story are cognizant of the many issues, and unintended consequences (and irony) of convenient reactions.

That said, if you want to read up on her record and organize a campaign to defeat her in 2009, you might want to check out the website of one of her constituents/detractors here.

“To an imperial city, nothing is inconsistent which is expedient.” (Euphemus of Athens)

If we regard our minds as Republics, with democratic leanings but with appropriate safeguards against the ephemerally popular, and not Empires, then we must force ourselves to seek consistency and caution in our own actions, and our critiques of the actions of others.

Intelligent discussion welcome. Flamers will be banned and/or have their comments scrubbed. My mind may be a Republic/kakistocracy, but this blog remains entrenched in despotism.