'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.'

These words were written by William Shakespeare but spoken by Juliet in the first scene of the second act of Romeo and Juliet. Juliet and Romeo are, of course, forbidden lovers, all because they belong to opposing families. "What's in a name?" Juliet questions. In other words, "Who gives a crap if your last name is Montague?! It's just a word. You're still the same person, a person that I want!"

But is that really true? Is it really true that our names are nothing more than a combination of letters that have come to represent the sum of our human parts and characteristics? I guess Juliet's on to something. After all, names are human constructs, just like race, and language, and any label for anything anywhere. Some time way back someone decided that sounds were necessary for human interaction, and that in order to effectively communicate, these sounds would be attached to objects, experiences, and feelings. So, the sound räk would come to represent a solid mineral material. The same thing happens with names. We've got a whole bunch that we all seem to keep in the rotation,--child after child is named Catherine--but, say, someone decided to throw random letters together and slap that combination of letters on a birth certificate. Those letters have no meaning until they're attached to a human being. By way of example, Nistlqa, a seemingly nonsensical combination of words, can come to represent a little blonde girl with a spunky attitude and a love for badminton.

So, as we can see, Juliet has a point. That being said, there's obviously another side of that coin because if it's true that names are just meaningless and random combinations of letters, then why do we name people with combinations of letters rather than combinations of numbers?  Why do we want sounds attached to our names?  And why is it, when you hear a unique name, that you always ask if it means something and what it means? Why do parents-to-be angst over naming their children and why do celebrities change their names for work?  Why do women in the United States change their last names to match those of their husbands?

These are obviously very complicated questions with even more complicated answers.  Someone out there who is much smarter than me has likely answered these questions.  An anthropologists, or a linguist, or a psychologist, or a sociologist.  I have no idea, but what I do know is that somewhere along the way, our names went from being random combinations of letters to random combinations of letters that say something about us.  This reflects what happened with words like "rock."  Sound became representations of things.

The cool thing about names is that while words like "rock" [generally] have one definition, names like Catherine have thousands of unique definitions.  No one Catherine is the same, so the same random combination of letters means millions of different things.  You cannot define Catherine like you can "rock."   So, again we're back to Juliet's argument that a name is nothing more than a random combination of letters, because really, what does Catherine mean if it describes millions of different things (or people)?

So, "what's in a name?"  Well Juliet, maybe not a definition of a person's character, but actually quite a lot.  Quite a lot that I'm not sure about.  But, quite a lot.

Keep on thinking,

Josie