The aesthetics of names

[firecat]

This is a post by Mike Elgan on G+ titled "The trouble with Google's names policies: Real unconventional names = Bad. Fake 'normal' names = OK."

https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/XtkGjGsBA3V

The post itself is not what I want to talk about though. It's a comment in that thread by Robert Scoble, a big Google+ booster who has recently been going back and forth about what he thinks of Google's name policy.

...some people have "non common" names and I do have empathy for those who really have weird names, like M3 (if that's really his legal name).

But that said I am totally groking the AESTHETIC that Google is going for. They are trying to look different than Twitter is and I really really like seeing names that look common here. IE, most everyone I've met in the real world has a first and last name.

I can scarcely put into words the rage I feel about the notion that people's names are an "aesthetic" issue reasonably subject to control. It's racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic, and just about every other -ist and -phobic I can think of.

If Scoble were to say "I want to use my name, and I don't want to feel pressured to come up with a handle," I would understand it. He says he doesn't like Second Life because he wanted to use his name there, and I also don't like Second Life's policy of requiring you to use a name they pick for you (you get to enter your own "first name" but you have to choose from their list of "last names"). But to think that "I really like seeing names that look common" is a good basis for a policy? Or to even think that it's worth uttering in public? I don't get it.

Comments

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Yes, but I think that's privilege(1)--something that every human being can benefit from, that it's a shame that some don't have, and that I try to do what I can to make it possible for everyone to have--as opposed to privilege(2)--something that some people have only at the expense of other people and that I try to do what I can to give up and work against anyone having.

Re: UPDATE

[firecat]

I believe thinking it's a good idea for everyone to share your assumptions and interpretations is privilege(2), actually.

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

And your evidence from comments here that I believe everyone should share my assumptions and interpretations is?

Yes, I have said some things like that in the past, but I really don't think I was doing so here.

Also, "should" is ambiguous. Do I think everyone in the world would be happier if everyone took my approach? Factually, I see some evidence for that. Do I go around to oppressed people saying they should do things my way? Sometimes, but not usually, and less so all the time. Do I say that their feelings based on different assumptions are invalid? Never, really.

Re: UPDATE

[firecat]

Evidence:

You said "I tend to interpret things as inoffensive, including to me personally, unless I have enough evidence to the contrary."

Lizw pointed out that being able to do this involved privilege.

You said "I think that's privilege(1)--something that every human being can benefit from, that it's a shame that some don't have, and that I try to do what I can to make it possible for everyone to have."

If there is a way to interpret your statement other than "Every human being can benefit from sharing my assumptions and interpretations, it's a shame that some don't share my assumptions and interpretations, and I try to make it possible for everyone to share my assumptions and interpretations," I don't see it.

However, if you didn't mean that, I believe you.

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I dunno-- I think I meant something more like "everyone should have the kind of safety and the confidence that breeds to be able to take this position," not "everyone should take this position."

Especially since lizw linked being able to feel that way to feeling safe, you know? What's wrong is not that they don't make the assumptions I do, but that they don't feel safe. I do notice now that "don't feel safe" could just mean "they don't think it's valid" (for instance, "It's not safe to extrapolate with so little data."), so maybe I misinterpreted what lizw meant.

Similarly, I certainly don't think everyone in the world should do graduate work in English, but I think everyone should be able to do it (or some kind of advanced, mentored studies) if they want to. Also, I completely don't feel that even the majority of people would enjoy being in a triad, but I am adamant that we should all have the right to if we want to.

Re: UPDATE

[firecat]

Do I think everyone in the world would be happier if everyone took my approach? Factually, I see some evidence for that.

How is it possible to "see evidence" that "everyone in the world would be happier if everyone took my approach"? I can't begin to imagine a valid way of collecting such evidence.

If you are going to point to studies carried out by Western psychologists, I will mention that I think they might capture what would work for the same kinds of people they used as subjects, but there are far too many different cultures and situations in the world for such studies to constitute valid evidence for "everyone."

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

You're completely right about "everyone in the world." I don't know much at all about stigma and identity in non-Western cultures. A little in some Asian countries. However, with that qualification, the studies I know do cover a wide range of class, race, sex, sexual orientation, and ages within Western culture.

However, my main point was that saying that is different from saying that everyone "should" react the way I do in the other two ways. You seemed to be saying that I was. If not, I'm very happy to be mistaken.

Re: UPDATE

[firecat]

I didn't think you were saying "everyone should react the way I do."

I do think that the way you're using the concept "everyone" shows privilege.

I think it's a form of privilege when a person feels it's fine to use "everyone" when they mean "people like me in some way." It kind of dismisses/ignores/erases other people, and people without that privilege don't get to do that because they have to keep an eye on people different from them.

As for whether it's what you call privilege(1) or what you call privilege(2), it's some of both. It's a form of safety, which everyone should have. But it's a form of erasure, which some people use at the expense of other people.

It's the same sort of erasure as "one size fits all" in a clothing catalog. And it's the same sort of erasure that Scoble is engaging in when he bases part of his argument on the statement "most everyone I've met in the real world has a first and last name."

I'm nitpicking obviously: your using "everyone" in this case doesn't harm anyone. I think over-reliance on that general attitude can harm people, but you're smart enough not to over-rely on it. Also, I don't think it's bad to have privilege or to act from privilege in ways that you're not aware of. I just want to point it out.

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm happy to discuss this, because it's something that I think is a big issue in online discussions.

As far as identifying each single utterance that does it--I do think that's nitpicking, actually worse than nitpicking, especially after the person has agreed. No one is conscious of all issues of usage all the time. It's as if I corrected every grammar mistake, and then went on to explain rules of tense and case. Except that wouldn't have social support among my online friends, an privilege-nitpicking sometimes does. The result is the same, though: the original topic is lost and the new topic is grammar/privilege. That may be a good thing, in either case, or it may not.

That aside, of course it's an important issue, which I do think about a lot. It's very odd for me to say something like "everyone in the world."

But "everyone"--often I do qualify it, and I don't find that kind of a precision an imposition, but I'm not really happy with any result. I often say "in the USA" if it's a legal matter, but this completely isn't. It seems broader even than "in the Western World"--"those with modern first-world psychological outlooks?" That's close to what I think is true, but past what I can actually support by evidence. And if I say "in the USA," am I implying that it isn't that way elsewhere?

I know this is serious--as a habit of mind, and as a practical matter in online discourse that I know goes to various people of various sociological categories in various countries and that potentially can go to uncounted more people around the world. But I think the best solution is dual: A to be more aware and B to cut some slack yet speak up with "not me," "not us," or "not them."

And you know, when someone says "most everyone I've met," I don't see that as erasure. It's a fact! It's also a fact that the people he's met may be far too limited a group on which to base a decision for an international service that purports to be a common carrier for everyone. But it seems to me he was being very precise and honest--in a way that, in this instance, I was not.

Re: UPDATE

[firecat]

I am very NOT interested in critiquing online discussions as a whole, especially from the notion that there is any such thing as "the best solution" to conducting them.

Of course it would be unproductive in many cases to "identify every single utterance" that shows privilege.

In this case, the original topic was, in part, privilege, so I don't think it was an unwarranted topic change.

And you know, when someone says "most everyone I've met," I don't see that as erasure.

Yeah, but you left out the heart of my point: when he bases part of his argument on the statement... and his argument is in favor of ignoring the interests/needs people who are different from the ones he has met.

Re: UPDATE

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

In part my comment was about online discussions in general, so I apologize for that not being as clear as it should have been. (Long explanation of annoyance with how the term is sometimes used is redacted as irrelevant and potentially annoying to you.)

And this is really nitpicking, but the problem as I see it isn't the phrase at all but the argument itself. I do think that's potentially significant: in "one size fits all" the erasure is actually in the phrase and more hidden; in "no one who wears these sizes cares about fashion anyway" it's not in the word choice and is actually more obvious. If you'd said "his argument is in favor of ignoring the interests/needs people who are different from the ones he has met," I'd never have argued. Yup, yup.