Name your kid after a job? Who would do such a silly thing? Why?
June 28, 2005
You know all those kids named Taylor, Cooper, Mason, Hunter, and other names known to earlier generations (like mine!) as WASP last names?
Well, I got an interesting insight into this phenomenon thanks to a chance blogosphere encounter with The Baby Name Wizard blog.
This blog, by the way, is great pop sociology, complete with hypotheses, data, and graphs, focused on the incidence of various names and the reasons for their choice. (E.g., was Shirley Temple the cause or effect of a wave of Shirleys? Answer: a bit of both, but see the graph.)
Those WASP last names, before they were last names, were occupations, and very dirty and manual ones at that.
And their popularity has indeed been soaring (yes, there’s a graph).
The interesting thing is that occupational names are nothing new, but in ages gone by they were of a dramatically different species.
To wit: Baby Name Wizard informs us (again with graph) of the 19th century popularity of occupational names indicating positions of status and power (e.g., Judge, Bishop, General, King, Boss, Doctor, Lawyer), in contrast to manual labor positions.
The Wiz is right on in her speculation about the significance of the recent trend towards all those manual-trade-last-names-as-first-names:
The implied physicality of the names is part of their appeal — these are men of action! Yet that ruggedness takes the form of a rough-hewn romantic glow, born of the luxury of not having to actually do the jobs any more. Ever met a boy named Painter or Plumber? Modern trades are a little too real for comfort.While you’re looking at the Baby Name Wizard, you might want to check out her post on “Names, race, and economists,” about several studies on the impact of having a distinctively African-American name. And the post “More boyish and girlish: the 2-in-1 names,” which speculates:
Consider two classic presidential surnames: why are there thousands of little girl Madisons, and no Jeffersons? Is it the ultimate triumph of Federalism? What it really shows, of course, is that even adventurous parents would rather call their daughters Maddie than Jeff. We embrace androgyny gently, with an escape valve.Apologies for such a lightweight post, but I’m cranking hard on lots of major billable work, so light is all I’m up for tonight. Plus I’ve got a heavy post coming for the Fourth and a book review in the works as well.
(By the way, my kiddos are Emily, James (Jamie), and Michael. I have conformist and traditionalist urges that led to my advocacy of conventional names, preferably with family-tree connections. No regrets there.)
Related Posts
Sticks and stones … but names CAN hurt you: Names, Resumes, and Racism
Are Generation Y’s Parents Too Involved?
EEOC Releases New Compliance Manual on Race and Color Discrimination
Company Recruiting, Hiring, and Retention Practices Impact Bottom Line
Growing Popularity of Temporary Executive Level Jobs
`Sphere: Related Content`
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.