The Influence of Names: Is Your Name Unintentionally Holding You Back?

Whilst researching for my dissertation I became fixated with youth unemployment, it is a problem that affects my friends and myself. 'What will we do after university?' is a frequent question that often has a resolute, parrot-fashion or panicked response. 

Tangentially I became interested in capitalism as a concept. Why am I jumping through all these hoops of education to gain pieces of paper that resemble lumps of shiny metal that someone in the pre-historic age decided were important (five banks are still calling the shots on this one anyway)? What if the whole world thought leaves were the most valuable good? I would be pretty rich at the moment if they were (obviously it is scarcity that creates value in a capitalist world so this be of little consequence – Brazil would simply become richer still). The debate about capitalism has become more visible in recent years after the catalyst of the boom and Thomas Piketty’s recent publication has caused this debate to resurface again.

This then led me on to the influence that names can have upon our economic performance and this (you can breath a sigh of relief) forms the subject for this article. Does it make a difference? And if so, why? I will cover the other subjects of youth unemployment and capitalism in later articles so watch out for those.

What is striking in the conversation concerning normlative determinism is Ian Salisbury’s reference to research on the coincidence of names in Oxbridge undergraduates, ‘advantageous names’ outnumber ‘made-up names’ by 80-1. So if you are an Elizabeth and applying to Oxbridge your fingers should be crossed with a justifiable hope; but if you are a Shane, Jade or Chelsea then you had better look elsewhere. 

Is this true? Well the research is conclusive and the impact that names have is without doubt; so, you had better choose wisely future parents for your babies' future is partly tied to their name. It could affect schools, jobs, and relationships. Let us look at this in more depth.

What does your name say about you?

Surely it is about the person? The qualities they show? The way they relate? Of course it is but the power a name holds is without question. How many books, religious articles, and scientific publications play with the concept of your name? Knowing your true name, name changing, and the effects that names have are all discussed.

However, is it the name or the fact that classes are likely to choose a certain set of names? It is not often that you find a Percival among the lower classes or a Chardonnay among the upper classes. They are certain social stigmas attached to them which neither class finds tasteful. Therefore it is not the name but the class. 

What would be interesting would be to assess the effect a divergent name has upon different classes. Yet, a human life is not some plaything to be meddled with and if I was the test subject I would find the whole affair rather disturbing. The luck is out on this one.

Or is it? David Figlio does conduct a test that draws out a conclusion on the effect of different names by analysing birth certificates and whether the baby’s mother will be a high school dropout (there is nothing wrong with that but it does have interesting implications). He finds that a name that a teacher perceives to have been given by ‘uneducated parents’ affects how the teacher reacts to the student – as though the parents have consigned the child to a certain fate. Pelham, and Mirenberg and Jones, substantiate these findings and argue that an individuals’ name strongly affects their residential location choices, career choices and spousal selections.

David Key’s comment on the concurrence of ‘a’ on the end of female names and thus her social economic class shows a remarkable similarity. Compare Sophie to Sophia, Susan to Susanna, Helen to Helena, Dianne to Dianna, and Frances to Francesca. The former is often of lower class to the later.

What about the other way around? George Osbourne’s original name was Gideon but he appeared anxious to change it to a more generic name so as to avoid issues at the poll. Clever chap!

Superfans also pose an interesting question. Just because you might have a devotion to a certain team does not mean that your children should be related to them - the consequences are more far-reaching then you can imagine. The story of the Manchester United obsessed mother today compounds this absurdity. What will the cats think?

Though you may deny it our names do have an influence on a lot of worldly factors. Of course there will be anomalies (it could even be you!) but evidently we all have a duty to take care in deciding the names of our offspring. You could contend that if you do not value economic wealth then this argument is rather flawed; your name should represent your group, your class or your heritage. Yet, to talk in terms of class, to participate in the capitalist world (though I appreciate it is rather difficult to do anything else), and to have a job, entails a stake in the significance of names.

I guess in however many years my offspring had better be name appropriately or someone will be redirecting me to this post (it might even be them!).

Thoughts? Has your name held you back? Does this make sense? Do you think this is right? 

The IPCC: A 'Weather Report' on the Climate Change Talks Today

With the report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued today, the article by the World Review on China conveniently substantiates their findings. In the 2007 assessment it was the US that was seen as the world's top carbon polluter; but now China accounts for a quarter of the emissions. Though, clearly they are the most populated state in the world. 

So to help drive down these emissions what do you think we can do? It is a glorious sunny day but tomorrow might bring the storms of climate change and this is the warning we were looking for.


Money Talks?

According to the IPCC report the changes would be affordable. It would only cost the global economy 0.06% to implement off the global annual growth rates of 1.3 - 3%. Perhaps too far for governments at this time.
Oxfam's climate expert Jan Kowalzig said: "This report puts the fossil fuel companies and their financiers on notice: the era of fossil fuel energy is ending.”

So what next Jan?

Increase a reliance on renewable resources?

The answer to all our problems which is often advocated by the greens on our political plate. Yet the government steak (stake) in the plan has largely been reduced since their devotion to the Green Bank. With 16% agreeing that the Conservatives have completed their goals regarding being the 'greenest government ever', against 46% who disagree, it looks like the party has not become the environment best friend yet.
The appointment of Owen Paterson, a climate-change sceptic, as environment secretary compounds this issue. Paterson said in September 2013: 'People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.'

Thanks for that Owen!

Dr Stephan Singer, WWF director of global energy policy, states that: "Renewable energy can no longer be considered a niche market. Renewables must – and should – eventually take the full share of the global energy market within the next few decades."

Have a browse around the Natural Resources Defense Council (typical to make it sound like a war) for some work on renewable resources. Interesting analysis of America.

The IPCC is seen the leading voice on Climate Change but needs to consider recent research

What else?

Well we could always resort to pumping CO2 underground? Read the article here. 

Summary

If you want more of an overview then I suggest checking out the report. This is not my area of specialism but has always interested me. Would love the views of all to help develop this discussion. It is obvious that we need to do something but what is still the question we are asking!

Do you? Did you? Who you?

This article is stylised in the format of three questions and aims to cover recent developments in the World Service.

Do you know what the World Service is?

Great, what an insightful question you just posed! However, if you are currently sneering because you already know then now is probably a good moment to move on to the section entitled ‘did you?’ Almost like walking into a seminar, deciding it wasn’t for you today, and relying on the readings to see you through.

So for us mere mortals the World Service is…

“The world's largest international broadcaster, broadcasting news, speech and discussions in 28 languages to many parts of the world on analogue and digital shortwave platforms, internet streaming, podcasting, satellite, FM and MW relays. The World Service was reported to have reached 188 million people a week on average in June 2009. It does not carry advertising, and the English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day.”

Right now, they are airing an insightful documentary on crypto wars which happens to be an interesting area of development for the future of security studies… just in case you were wondering.

However, the most important provision it provides is independent news to many states that have strict laws on media. For instance, if you happened to be in Zimbabwe right now, where all broadcasters transmitting from Zimbabwean soil, and many of the main newspapers, toe the government line, you would be able to get the world service.

It’s the BBC to the rest of the world that provides a forum for discussion and information.

The BBC of the world

Did you know that the World Service is paid for by your TV license?

Before yesterday the World Service was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). After all it was a tool to increase the recognition of the British across the world.

However, now the World Service is funded by the BBC.

Who you?

So what do you think? Is it okay that the BBC has taken on the role of the Foreign Office considering the recent cuts to BBC Three? Simply, the government has pushed the cost on to us to cut budgets in the FCO.

Personally, I think it is okay. Not that the government has pushed the cost on to the BBC but that international media is a long-term business and should benefit from the consistency the organisation has promised to provide. Whilst under the FCO the World Service lost around 14 million people as it dropped 5 languages due to budget cuts – not cool guys. It is the World Service’s ability to provide valuable news to those who may not have the right to understand why their states act the way they do that substantiates its existence. If we are committed to democracy then it should remain.

When I come to pay my TV licence I would have no issue in £10 of it going to help support this valuable service. I appreciate that a service that benefits others may not be preferential in such economic conditions but surely its worth looking beyond our current situation.

Help keep the megaphone for the voices of the world going and commit to the continued existence of the World Service.

Thoughts?

The Last Seminar: Democracy's Fall in Turkey

In reflection, my last seminar was a rather daunting yet enjoyable closure to three years of undergraduate study at the University of Exeter. Indeed it followed a similar pattern to all my contact hours, as very few had read the readings, the presentations seemed to drift over the class, and it ended with a rather broad discussion about democracy. If you do not know the readings just ramble on about current affairs, it works every time.

Equally, when stating my views on democracy promotion in the Middle East I caused a little bit of tension as usual. Brilliant. I enjoy when someone in the class decides to make it their mission to prove that you are wrong, and quite often they do this in a somewhat belligerent manner. However, if I have learnt anything in three years it is that facts can be drawn from many different sources, some truthful and other's simply made up with conviction. If you feel that it is wrong then research it, politics students are adept at making things up.

The question was 'Is it right to pinpoint China as the state to democratise?

Basically, should we be embarking on a global policy or targeting China because we believe that once it falls the rest of the authoritarian world will follow?

There are arguments for both sides -

If we succeed will it be a proper democracy? There is difference between having elections and them being competitive, fair, free, and regular. If we based a democracy on simply elections then Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are little fledgling democracies. Only this month Kim-Jong-un won 100% of the votes in his district... he must have a superb campaigns team.

Yet, China supports North Korea economically and under a democracy perhaps it may begin to impose sanctions? This would make the regimes stability very weak and may lead to the end of the current dictatorship. The fall of North Korea would weaken the stability of other regimes as North Korea is seen by the international community as the most repressive state.

And so on....

Could this vital trade recede under a democratised China?

So you are probably wondering what I said to ignite the class in fevered discussion?

Simply, I noticed that democratisation tends to follow where American interests lie. Whether that is in South America, the Middle East, or Central Asia. No one disagreed with that. But, when I added that perhaps democracy does not suit the Middle East due to a different culture I may as well have been in court.

'What do you mean?' they heckled. 'You are simply regressing back to orientalist thought.'

However, yesterday I felt vindicated from this onslaught by the Turkish governments attempt to block twitter and YouTube. The AK party, the Justice and Development Party, was heralded as an example that democracy and Islam could work in the Middle East (or Near East). Yet, after this week many have been left wondering whether this will ever become a reality?

So, do you think democracy can work in the Middle East?

As the war rages in Syria, Egypt is unstable, and the Gulf states maintain their rule with the proceeds from oil, democracy's future has never looked more turbulent.

Is Germany the Key to a Resolution in the Crimea?

Germany could be the main deal broker in the current politics surrounding the independence of Crimea suggests Steve Szabo, Executive Director at the Transatlantic Academy.

Watch this video for a comprehensive overview of the resolution to a possible political solution. It is only roughly six minutes of your life that offers a different view on the crisis. Worth it? I think so.

Does Merkel and the German state present a chance for resolution?

NATO and Tribal Elements in Afghanistan

For the media to portray Afghanistan in a manner easily understood by a wider audience they must inevitably reduce the complexities of the local and tribal relations to broad locations and groupings. For instance, stating that the Pashtuns largely occupy the south of Afghanistan and the north of Pakistan; whilst the Haraza, Aimak, Uzbek, Tajik, and Uzbek occupy the North. This is overly simplistic as shown by this map:

Note the pockets of Pashtun throughout the North (The light green colour if it is hard to see)

(The Pashtun pockets originate from the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman who uprooted many tribal communities with the goal of strengthening the central government and deliberately weakening the tribal system. He was a Pashtun himself but he resettled various Pashtun tribes and subtribes as punishment for rebellion or to use them as counterweights against hostile non-Pashtun tribes or ethnic groups.)

On the one hand, rather than analysing local tribal factors, it is this broad understanding that NATO and Afghan government forces have based their counter-insurgency policy upon. The work of Robert Gonzalez reiterates this understanding as he contends that a misguided focus on the ‘tribal’ features of Afghanistan is drawn from the ‘desperate political situation’ to identify a source of insurgency that may be rapidly resolved – tribes are ‘imagined’ collections of individuals.

Yet, this argument fails to appreciate the patrilineal segmentary lineage systems that operate in these regions for the ‘social structure of communities is based either on the tribe or the locality’ which unites together if faced by an external threat.

On the other hand, the Taliban use their pre-existing knowledge of tribes, subtribes, and clans to convince the tribes to co-opt and recruit local leaders who can convince their men to fight. The Afghan government has only served to deepen and strengthen this tactic through mismanagement, patronage, and corruption of local strongman not necessarily linked to the quam, a unit of identification and solidarity that could be based on kinship, residence, or occupation.

This is combined with an image of the U.S. and NATO that is at its lowest point since 2001 making the mobilisation of tribes on their side more unlikely.

Ergo, the US and NATO considered the Pashtun as a whole and failed to comprehend the vast web of tribes allowing the Taliban insurgency to rise within the population.

The International Criminal Court: Time for an Update?

Though debate on the use of capital punishment still simmers among some groups in the UK it was formally abolished in 1965. Further, on 18 December 2008 the United Nations adopted resolution 63/168, which is a reaffirmation of its call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (62/149) passed in December the previous year. The resolution calls for states to freeze executions with a view to eventual abolition.

However, where do we send all those notorious international criminals who cause the death, mutilation or disruption of thousands of individuals? 

The International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, few have been vocal in asking whether this institution is entirely practical in its role?

Often public services are measured on the premise of quotas, numbers and other forms of comparative study. Yet, it is reductionist to assess the ICC in this format least because there are insufficient benchmarks to compare the ICC’s work. And even comparisons between its work and the ad-hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) is problematic due to their differing structures, features, budgets, and jurisdictions.          

Time for an update?

Inspiration for this article?

I try to begin the day by catching up on the news, first on the BBC, then Reuters, and finally Al Jazeera. I find that comparing different news stations helps to present a more holistic interpretation of the world news. Also, I find the blogs on Al Jazeera offers an in-depth study into a certain niche part of economics, politics or humanitarian issues.

A recent blog on Al Jazeera by Haru Mutasa on whether the trial of Bosco Ntaganda, a warlord from the Democratic Republic of Congo, will make a difference to those terrorised, forms the inspiration for this article.

She questions whether the ICC fulfils its purpose, of discouraging crimes of the gravest manner, as many in the Democratic Republic of Congo realise that ‘the reality is even if he (Bosco Ntaganda) is found guilty and is locked way for the rest of his life, chances are someone will carry on from where he left’

Issues with the ICC

Atrocities are still occurring so it can be infered that the threat of conviction by the ICC does not discourage the leaders of these crimes. This could be because at the time the leader is hopeful that he will prevail and therefore not have to face any charges.

This is combined with the lack of a police force under the ICC’s control making them unable to enforce arrest warrants.  The warrants of arrest for Sudan’s President Al Bashir issued in 2009 and 2010 are unlikely to be enforced by a President against himself.

Formed after the First World War the League of Nations also lacked suitable methods of enforcement.

Hypocrisy?

With Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo the warlords have been implicated by the present presidents but the national armies have escaped investigation. Is it fair that one side escapes punishment even though in both states they committed acts of savagery?

For instance, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has on various occasions ordered his men to ‘shoot and kill the civilians’.

Focus on Africa

For an International Criminal Court the focus on Africa is hardly 'international'. If you visit the website the top bar is dominated by African states. Other states such as Sri Lanka should be considered further by the ICC.

Africa again? We need a more holistic outlook!

Recommendations

The ICC should:

• Remain independent
• Indict all guilty of crimes within a given state
• Push for major states to ratify the Rome Statute
• Make all aware that only crimes committed after 2002 can be investigated to limit false expectations from the international community
• Involve the Security Council to enforce warrants
• Empower courts in the states to try those of lower note and concentrate on those who conducted the gravest crimes

The ICC is a worthwhile organisation but with these improvements we can hopefully help to reduce some of the most abhorrent crimes. For the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo they need to see changes on the ground, not just a warlord removed and replaced by another.