More on name-taboo releases

Last February I did a short blog on this subject. Below is a more thorough version on how every 40 years or so I've observed a class of names once not as desirable become more so.

What do the names Deborah and Jordan have in common? What common experiences would a Kathleen born in the 19-aughts, a Joshua born in the 1940s, and a (male) Kelly born in the 1980s (like me) have?

This blog is about three classes of names that once had taboos in the United States, but are now (or are becoming) mainstream (in some cases again). They are (in chronological order of their grip on the name pool): Irish names, Biblical names, and unisex names for boys.

The first group that I'll discuss is Irish names. In the mid-19th century Ireland had a major potato famine, resulting in large numbers of Irish people moving to other lands in hope of having enough food. When the U.S. started having all these Irish people coming over, an "anti-Irish" sentiment crept in among a lot of other Americans. It got so bad that there were Irish people trying to hide their heritage (e.g. one of Nameberry's founders, Pamela Redmond Satran, had a grandmother Bridget who changed her name to Bertha). About 80 years or so after the mass Irish migration (aka a "saeculum" in terms of generational authors William Strauss and Neil Howe; their sites are at these links), the American population finally accepted the Irish and their names started to come back in vogue. As time went on, being Irish even became fashionable (e.g. St. Patrick's Day became a popular holiday, in 1960 we elected a President [Kennedy] of Irish decent who probably wouldn't have had a chance a generation earlier, and even non-Irish people became interested in using their names).

About 40 years or so (or if you prefer, half a saeculum) after the mass Irish immigration to America (and other places), another group started coming onto American shores in large numbers: Jews. Up until this point Biblical names had exhibited a fashion in America, but when the Jews (who were strong users of such names themselves) came along those names become passé to many Americans. Like the anti-Irish sentiment that was establised when they immigrated, an anti-Jewish one was formed as well. As with many Irish who tried to hide their roots, many Jews took steps themselves to do the same (resulting in names like Irving which do not have Hebrew origins themselves acquiring a "Jewish" connotation when used in large numbers by Jews). Although a few Biblical names remained in common use, such as Ruth in the early 20th century and Deborah in the mid-20th century as well as names like James and Elizabeth which no longer seemed "Biblical" to the masses despite their origins, this was the time when such names were generally unfashionable or even taboo. The renaissance for Biblical names, as with the rise of Irish names in America, came about in the 1970s or so (once again about 80 years after the tightening of the use of such names began) with names like Matthew and Rachel becoming mainstream. Today parents are going even more out with Biblical names with choices like Ezekiel and Ezra (which would've been downright eccentric a lifetime ago) on the rise.

Fast forward another half-saeculum from the time of large Jewish immigration and you have another event beginning to affect American naming trends. This time it's not a group immigrating in large numbers, but rather one of the events of the move to liberate women. Around the time the 20th century was a quarter over people started giving their daughters traditionally masculine names like Beverly and Shirley in large numbers. When these names started becoming popular on females in large numbers, people became afraid to bestow them on boys and some males who already had these names tried to "hide" them by going by a middle name or even changing their name. For the next 80 years or so there were many names that fell fate to this trend: Leslie, Kim, Jody, Shannon, Ashley, Madison, Taylor, and many others like these rose in popularity for girls but became passe for boys. Like Ruth and Deborah from the Biblical picks that hung on through the Jewish storm, a few like Casey and Jordan hung on through the unisex name on girls one. Now that a full saeculum has passed since boys-names-on-girls first became fashionable there are many people who are expressing interested in reviving these kinds of names for boys in spite of them also being used for girls. We're already seeing this with more "newer" unisex names like Hayden and Riley hanging on for both genders, recently fashionable androgynous picks like Morgan at worst falling in roughly the same proportions for both genders, and even a growing interest in reviving names like Kelly and Shannon for boys.

Back to my introduction statement for my blog: Deborah (in the 1950s) and Jordan (in the 1990s) share the fact that they both showed signs of the tide about to turn a generation or so before it did (the former with Biblical names and the latter with androgynous names for boys). The statement about these people born in these respective eras: Kathleen (in the 19-aughts), Joshua (in the 1940s), and Kelly (male, in the 1980s) demonstrate those who may have had a bit of a rough time with their name growing up, but by their adulthood the taboo on names like theirs began to be lifted and to younger generations their names would (or will likely) be considered ahead of the curve at worst.

If you're already familiar with the aforementioned Strauss & Howe cycle, you will notice that each of these "taboos" began around the start of an Awakening or Crisis era and ended a saeculum later around the start of the next era of the same type. Examples of Crisis eras are the Civil War era, the Great Depression/World War II era, and the current era (there is still debate over when the current Crisis era began; some say 9/11, some say when Hurricane Katrina struck, and some say when the economy fell in 2008). Examples of Awakening eras are the "Consciousness Revolution" of the 1960s and 70s, and before that the "Missionary Awakening" of the 1880s that lasted into the 19-aughts. Both the Irish and androgynous-boy taboos started around the beginning of a Crisis era and ended (or are ending) at the start of the next one, and the Biblical/Jewish taboo ran from the start of one Awakening to the next. If you get more into S&H's works you will learn that Awakenings are generally spiritual/religious in nature and Crises are generally secular in nature, which for the "name taboos" makes since since the one that ran from Awakening-Awakening was about a religious group (Jews) and the ones that ran from Crisis-Crisis were not (Irish, "feminine males").

After I initially prepared this blog, I thought what might be the current religion-based name taboo that would be due to break at the circa 2050 Awakening: Muslim/Arabic names. Right now in the years after 9/11 such names overall are less than desirable for many Americans, but by then the new Prophet generation may not think so.

More on nicknames vs. formal names

Recently on Nameberry there was a discussion on the U.K. vs. U.S. nickname/full name trends (which I also mentioned in a short blog post last November). However, I noticed a pattern with regards to nicknames and the S&H saeculum; in April 2009 Laura Wattenberg posted on how (particularly with boy's names) during the last Depression turned from more formal to more nicknamey/boyish. Looking at some of the U.S. stats between now and then led me to notice the pattern described in the next paragraph (these are just my projections from a U.S. perspective, and is primarily applicable for that location).

The desire for formal names peaks during Third Turnings (Unravelings), when people want to be the best they can individually (notice how there's also an obsession with "early resume building" for children during these times, following with that discussion on the Nameberry thread linked to above). We recently left such an era, which we had been in since the mid-1980s or so. During Foruth Turnings (Crises), such as the current time and (before) the Depression/World War II the obsession with formality in names drops. The desire for shorter names peaks during First Turnings (Highs) (e.g. the 1950s, and the era we'll probably be in within 15-20 years or so) and turns back to longer ones during Second Turnings (Awakenings) (e.g. the 1960s-1970s era, and we'll probably be in one circa 2050).

What does this mean? Over the next few years to decade or so, we'll likely see the obsession over names being "formal enough" fall and the number of birth certificates with nicknames on them will increase some.

Generation gap over quotation marks

There appears to be a subtle sign of a generation gap between what older and younger Americans believe is the proper way to use periods and commas with quotations.

As mentioned at this site, in the U.S. the standard is to put end-of-sentence periods and quotation marks inside the sentence (even if they’re not part of the quote). For instance, “I think this is an outdated rule.” This rule was put in place (this may be a myth as the linked blog mentions) because of the fragility of the period and comma pieces for typesetting many years ago. However, today’s youth have probably never used or maybe even seen a typewriter (other than using one as a toy like I did when I was younger), and that’s why more young people out there see the illogicalness of this rule.

The U.K. follows the more logical rule of putting any punctuation that is not part of the quote outside of the quote marks. In places such as Canada (the linked blog in the previous paragraph is from a Canadian) the standard varies. (See the paragraph below for an example of the use of this style.)

Here in the U.S. I have heard older folks complain about how those younger often prefer the more logical style. I agree with them, and thus henceforth on my blog I will be putting them outside of the quotes using the “logical style”. (Up until now I’ve avoided writing sentences with quotes at the end on my blog to dodge this issue). By the way, I composed this blog post in Microsoft Word (and then did a cut/paste) and Word recognizes both styles (no green line either way). One of my favorite game shows (Jeopardy!) has adopted the logical style themselves (as discussed in this thread from January 2007 on the show’s message board).

Millennial namers: "Selfish" or not?

Continuing my analysis of baby name trends and how Strauss and Howe’s generational theory relates to them, I discovered that there is an idea on how each archetype tends to name their children (and this might extend to other areas of parenting as well).

Prophet: Do what is best for me.
Nomad: Do what is best for the child.
Hero: Do what is best for society (at large).
Artist: Do what is best for the family (ancestors).

Of course these are very broad generalizations, but if you analyze the data you can see some general trends. Another thing that supports this theory is it has been mentioned at S&H's forums (I don't have the specific post(s) immediately available to link to) that Nomads overall tend to have better intergenerational relationships with those younger rather than older than them, while for Artists it's the opposite.

Today’s older parents (members of Generation X, the most recent Nomad generation) grew up in an era when children were often neglected and left to do on their own, so they are trying to do the opposite to their children (protecting them, sometimes too much). Therefore their general attitude towards naming has been centered on the child him/herself (rather than the parent, society in general, or the family).

Today’s younger parents (Millennials, members of the most recent Hero generation) are more civic-minded than their predecessors (or any generation since the G.I.s for that matter), and thus they think more in terms of what is best for society at large. This can be witnessed in the change of attitude towards unisex names for boys; older parents often say that you shouldn’t use such names because they’ll cause problems for him, but more younger ones are saying that you should go ahead and use them so they will not become “feminized” forever (as what has happened to numerous “unisex” names already). Xers often think that the parents are being “selfish” when doing that, but they are really anything but selfish because they’re trying to stop the depleting of the male name pool. The ones who tend to be the most selfish about naming would probably be the Prophets, who tend to be the most self-centered of all the generations (the last Prophet generation [the Boomers] are pretty much beyond the age of giving birth).

In addition, the more outer-focused attitude of Millennials is also helping to slow down the abandonment of boy’s names to the girls. Think about it: Compared to young Xers 20 years ago today’s youth are more likely to be conscious about protecting the environment rather that “me” coming first. Millennials also understand the power of voting; one of the reasons why young Xers often stayed away from the polls is that they did not think that “their” vote mattered, but Millennials understand the power of their collective vote. Back on the subject of naming, the same philosophy applies to the unisex name issue; 20 years ago parents thinking of just their kids and themselves would often turn away from a “girlified” name for a boy to avoid “problems” for him. Today’s parents are starting to change, understanding that abandoning such names makes it worse by shrinking the male name pool and (collectively) thus are starting to not let that be as much of a factor and help keep said names in circulation for boys.

My prediction of how Artist generations would name (such as 20-40 years from now when the Homelanders [the Artist generation currently being born] become the predominant generation of parents of babies) is that being conformist during their youth they would tend more towards pleasing their ancestors’ wishes in naming (as opposed to Nomads who would look down the family tree towards the children). This might result in a stronger trend of keeping “family names” alive. A piece of advice for Xers and Millennials naming Homelanders: Don’t be afraid to use something a bit unusual but still on the “normal” side (and for fathers that want to break a Junior, III, etc. tradition this is the time to do it); that way the pressure on them to continue the name on won’t be quite as strong (this advice especially applies to boys as the pressure to keep family names going is typically stronger for them).

Generations J, K, and L?

Following the terming of the generation following the Boomers “Generation X” some extended the “letter names” to call the following generation after that Generation Y and the next one after that Generation Z. Strauss and Howe seem to dislike those kinds of names though because it makes the Millennials (what they call X’s successor generation instead of Generation Y) like an extension of Generation X (like they mentioned in Millennials Rising).

How about Generations J, K, and L instead? Those names derive from “fashionable initial letters” for baby names during the respective period. Generation J encompasses roughly the late Xers and early Millennials when names beginning with J were fashionable such as Jennifer, Jessica, and Jason (the first and the last of those inspiring the title of Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz’s original name book Beyond Jennifer and Jason).

K was the fashionable letter during the time that the late Millennials and the early Homelanders were born (especially with spelling names that normally begin with a “C” with a “K” instead).

L now seems to be the new fashionable letter as we are nearing the midway point of the Homeland Generation, as S&R and Laura Wattenberg have posted on their blogs. If the pattern with J and K continues, L will continue its run on being the new fashionable letter until the early-mid part of the “New Prophet” generation (calling this unnamed future generation by using the Strauss and Howe archetypes). Will the pattern continue and M become the fashionable letter 20 years or so from now?

Name-taboo releases: Irish, then OT, what's next?

Laura Wattenberg at The Baby Name Wizard site recently did a post about how Old Testament names are becoming quite popular in the U.S. The post primarily focused on why they are more popular (in general, note the last paragraph in the post) in the U.S. than Europe. I thought of something else related to that, and it ties into the changing generations. Before I talk about the OT names, I'm going to first talk about another group of names that is quite popular in the U.S. right now: Irish names.

A century ago, being Irish in the U.S. was less than desirable. However, around the time of the last Fourth/First Turnings (1920s-1960s) the Irish became accepted (and as time went on it became "cool" to be "Irish" even if you weren't). This explains the rise in names of Irish origin since then, and before the Silent Generation or so it was much less common for a baby to be given an Irish name.

Fast forward half a saeculum to the last Second/Third Turnings (1960s-2000s decades), and another name taboo is released (and has likewise subsequently became more popular): Old Testament names. For the past several generations before that such names tended to have too strong of a Jewish connotation for a lot of people (even though as Wattenberg mentioned in her post there had been a strong history of their use prior to that era in the U.S.). However the taboo of being Jewish was lifted around the last 2T or so, and thus since Generation X or so OT names have been on the rise. Now there were a few exceptions here and there that were popular during the Jew-taboo era (such as Ruth in the early part of the 20th century and Deborah in the middle part of that century), but what I'm saying is of course a generalization.

If you're familiar with the S&H theory, you know that Fourth Turnings center around reshaping the secular world, and Second Turnings around reshaping the spiritual world. This may explain the half-saeculum difference in the release of the Irish and Jewish taboos: The former centers around an ethnic (i.e. secular) group while the latter centers around a religious (i.e. spiritual) group.

So, what can we expect to change in this regard in this 4T (and the next 1T)? According to my theory in the last paragraph, it will be something secular (and not religious). I have a hypothesis on what it will be (and I did some blog posts about it a few months ago): The taboo on "softer males" (and thus "softer" or unisex names on boys will not be as avoided as they were in recent decades).

Riley: Will it stay unisex or not?

Cleveland Kent Evans, who has written numerous name-related articles* claims that any name ending in the "-ley" sound is doomed to become feminine in the United States. While it is true that such names (or any name ending in the long "e" sound for that matter) which are traditionally masculine are more likely to become unisex, Evans is ignoring an important trend: The rising generation of new adults (the Millennials) are more likely than recent previous generations to not let a name's usage on girls deter them from giving it to their sons (which I've posted about before). *I previously mentioned Evans being president of the American Name Society, but he informed me that he no longer holds the position so I edited it out.

What got me to post this is that Evans has been predicting for several years (by posts he's made on sites such as http://www.babynames.com/ and http://www.behindthename.com/) that the name Riley will follow a similar path to other past surnames that end in -ley that became popular as first names (such as Ashley and Shirley) and become almost exclusively female in the U.S. However, I think that Riley is much more likely to stay unisex (albeit more popular for girls) than those other names because Riley peaked for boys at a much higher rank and hasn't experienced a fairly sudden drop compared the other examples (probably in part to my theory based on the generations). Evans's prediction may have had some muster 10 years or so ago when Riley was beginning to level off for boys and increase for girls, but since the name hasn't fallen much for boys it appears that his prediction is only semi-right (the name did become more popular for girls, but not to the extent he thought it would).

In addition, if Jennifer Moss from babynames.com is right, "crossover" names for girls in general are starting to level off in use (probably from the same Millennials that want to keep names on their original gender). Therefore, I think that unlike what Evans predicted I think there will still be plenty of male Rileys being born (although plenty of girls will be given that name too). Note that in my blog post from last July that I linked to earlier in this post I mentioned that Moss originally tended to be against unisex names for boys, but now her opinion appears to be changing some with the times (at least by predicting that the trend for girls will be falling).