[Mogura]

In some Western cultures (Anglo--British, American, etc.), there is this concept whereby men name their sons after themselves. To me, this strikes me as a really strange trait in human behavior. After all, a child (a son in this case) is a unique individual with his own distinct personality traits. He is not a carbon copy of his father*, and even so, is it necessary for the son to have the same name as the father (rhetorical question)?

There are a lot of men that do not name their sons after themselves, so what separates the ones who do, from the ones that don't? Cultural tradition? Narcissism? The misguided notion that a son *is* in fact a carbon copy of the father? Lack of creative thinking?

Considering MBTI, I would hypothesize that Sensors do this far more often than Intuitives do. I could be wrong. But I just cannot imagine a person who is passionate about individualism (as Intuitives often are) perpetuating such a concept.

If I had a son, I certainly would not name him after myself. Not that I don't think I'm not great--because I am...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But by the same token, I would not give him a name that would invite public ridicule (another group of individuals I do not understand). I would actually put some creative thought into the process without stepping over the line.

Thoughts, opinions, comments?

*Even if the son is a biological clone of the father, the son will still have a personality that is different from the father

[countrygirl]

It was my husband's (ISTP) wish that we named our son after him. My husband was named after his father however they both go by nicknames while I call my son by his proper name. I allowed it because the name is one of my favourites.

[The One]

I was able to formulate a name using both names(father and mother).

[Silverity]

In my family it is a traditional thing to pass down names and remember our ancestors. We place memories in those names. My father is named after his father, my father's middle name is his mother's last name, my brother's middle name is where my mother grew up, my middle name has been passed down through all the women on my mother's side, etc. It brings a feeling of kinship.

[Mogura]

My great-grandfather tried to kick start a family tradition where sons would be named after notable literary figures. No joke! He was such the literature buff, he would write fan mail to his favorite (living) authors--and they would write back! He bucked the trend of naming sons after oneself, which was all the rage in his day. Sadly, his "tradition" was lost by the time it got to my generation. I may revive it though.

I see no problem with someone naming their son after their own father--but after oneself still strikes me as strange. Do any non-Anglo cultures do this?

[Allie]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Creating a human being is a powerful phenomenon. Appointing a name to that being you created is, but the perpetuation of that same power in the entire concept of creating children and family. The more connected the names (first, middle, last, jr), the stronger the perceived cohesiveness to best represent the family just created and driven to preserve. Within particular traditions and cultures, the more powerful person within the family unit is usually the father, whose names, have come to symbolize the family connections.

On the other hand, assigning a name is as ritualistic as any other social contructs that humans invented. Assigning a father's name to the sons is no different than assigning any other names. Those other names would still represent some meanings to them and to the family just as well. So, since names are needed, then what better way than names that are closest in meanings and in fact, to the sons than the fathers. As such, a father's name seems...fitting. If that is not preferred, then either father's name, mother's name, mixes of names, or any other meaningful names for the family, is still just a part of the naming ritual anyway. Given that, no further motives may be involved.

[Syler]

	Originally Posted by Mogura
	Do any non-Anglo cultures do this?

For what it's worth I've seen the phenomenon in Slovenia, where I live. My uncle is named after his father, my grandfather came from a long chain of men with the same name, etc.

My father is named after my other grandfather, who was German. So yes, I'd hedge a bet it is (or at least was) pretty prevalent in Europe. I haven't encountered anyone of my generation with this kind of passed on name, though.

[moonlk]

It depends a lot on the culture. In some countries it's the most common thing, while on others it's not that usual. I'd name a son after me just because my name is just perfect, I wouldn't mind sharing my name with my son.

[kristle]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Considering MBTI, I would hypothesize that Sensors do this far more often than Intuitives do. I could be wrong. But I just cannot imagine a person who is passionate about individualism (as Intuitives often are) perpetuating such a concept. [/SIZE]

I see this more as a J vs P thing than N to S. Passing down a name is very traditional in a sense. It's keeping the old history going. I've never viewed it as narcissistic thing (although it could definitely be argued to be). Being able to pass down a name from the I, II and III shows a strong family tie. The family has shown the ability to reproduce, provide, stick together and repeat this process enough times to reuse the name in sequence. To a small degree it shows love as well, since I couldn't imagine a name getting passed on if the parents/grandparents were loathed.

Interesting theory though. I wish I knew more than a small handful of people with Jr. Sr. or I, II IIIs. Then I could compare and have a better idea of the real influences behind it.

[Mogura]

	Originally Posted by kristle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Being able to pass down a name from the I, II and III shows a strong family tie. The family has shown the ability to reproduce, provide, stick together and repeat this process enough times to reuse the name in sequence. To a small degree it shows love as well, since I couldn't imagine a name getting passed on if the parents/grandparents were loathed.

A surname accomplishes the same thing, does it not?

[kristle]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A surname accomplishes the same thing, does it not?

Not exactly, and not to the same degree. Also there are a lot of unrelated people out there with the same last name. So passing on the last name alone accomplishes a small fraction of the meaning and impact a full name passed down does. Passing on the full name proudly marks the person as distinctly the one family's. It also brings on thoughts of royalty and having a family you're proud of and want others to know where you and yours came from.

[Lance2117]

I am the fourth consecutive male in my family with my name. I am pretty sure my father is an INTJ; but I never really asked him about it. I honestly have no idea why this tradition continues. If I have a son I don't know if I will keep the tradition; because it is a little superficial. Having said that, tradition is important in any healthy culture. (I happen to think that mainstream America is not a healthy culture right now; and that it really would not know what tradition to cling to even if it were inclined to cling to a tradition). Americans have developed a healthy tradition of trashing tradition. I digress. I think naming your son after yourself is simply a nod toward tradition - a way of honoring the notion that things can pass from one generation to the next. And so, in a way, I guess it serves a purpose after all. So I changed my mind within the same post.

[fiver]

I think the (normal) lack of boundaries early on might contribute to parents naming children after themselves. I read a book recently about stages of parenting, and in the period before the baby is born and right after, parents tend to over-identify with the child, comparing the child to what they were like when they were little, and themselves to their parents, and so on. It takes awhile to sort out the boundaries (and parents do this with varying degrees of success).

[deacon]

i like my names one is from my grandfather and one from my dad. not exactly the same but different versions of it. i guess one is germanic and i guess the other plain english.

my dad however went the other way with his other children. my brother is named after a rockstar (or it is the common assumption), my sister is named after a famous basketball player.

do you think the fates are passed on if you name your child after you?

[smashy]

Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In some Western cultures (Anglo--British, American, etc.), there is this concept whereby men name their sons after themselves. To me, this strikes me as a really strange trait in human behavior. After all, a child (a son in this case) is a unique individual with his own distinct personality traits. He is not a carbon copy of his father*, and even so, is it necessary for the son to have the same name as the father (rhetorical question)? There are a lot of men that do not name their sons after themselves, so what separates the ones who do, from the ones that don't? Cultural tradition? Narcissism? The misguided notion that a son *is* in fact a carbon copy of the father? Lack of creative thinking? Considering MBTI, I would hypothesize that Sensors do this far more often than Intuitives do. I could be wrong. But I just cannot imagine a person who is passionate about individualism (as Intuitives often are) perpetuating such a concept. If I had a son, I certainly would not name him after myself. Not that I don't think I'm not great--because I am... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. But by the same token, I would not give him a name that would invite public ridicule (another group of individuals I do not understand). I would actually put some creative thought into the process without stepping over the line. Thoughts, opinions, comments? *Even if the son is a biological clone of the father, the son will still have a personality that is different from the father

I find that ridiculous. I see it as a way of continuing to perpetuate myself after I'm dead and a very narcissistic thing to do, like my son will never be better than me, he's following my footsteps because I'm the greatest! I find that the type of people that do this are the ones that LOVE social recognition and social titles. Often the "Junior" follows the name, as in "John Stewart Junior" or "John Stewart II".

Often this is also the type of parents that decide everything their children must do even when they're grown-ups. After all, they have your name and you need to behave!

Usually this happens with men and I'm a woman, but if I had this type of parents, being the individualistic person I am and hating bulls*** as I do, I would change my name when I had the chance to do it.

[Anhedonic Lake]

It's an evolutionary "neurosis". It probably stems from the same "neurosis" which invented the concept of reincarnation,ancestor worship, passing on the family name and parents who live vicariously through their children.

[plushbug]

As an alternative, it was a practice among Canadian inuit up to 1-2 generations ago, to never name a child after a living person, relative or other--but one child could be named after a deceased person, relative or other, with the "understanding" that this would either bring back that person's influence (beliefs in reincarnation definitely in the picture, in a lot of areas) or bring that person's protection to the child. In extremely rare cases, where the deceased was considered to have been particularly 'great of soul', more than one child might be named after them.

[themuzicman]

It's one of those things that creates a sense of continuity through time, that a child can look back and see X generations of men in his ancestry with his name and be inspired to make them proud.

[DrEvil]

There are plenty of people who practice neither given nor family names. Each child is an unique person, who is given their own name. Sure there end up being others with the same name, but it is purely coincidence. I met a man whose name translated as 'Thunder', because there was a terrible thunderstorm when he was born. I like this tradition, because it is unpretentious, and celebrates people's uniqueness, rather than giving them expectations.

[masterpeach]

In Iceland or other Scandinavian resp. Northern countries (Scotland, Ireland), you can tell from the surname what the parent's name was, e.g.: "Pálsdóttir"= "Paul's daughter" or "Christianson"="Christian's son".

This system is called "patronymic" resp. "matronymic".

It is sometimes common to name a child after his grandfather or -mother (North Germany), but as the first name is to identify the child within a family, it's usually different from the father's first name (at least in Europe).

Edit: I find the credits of American movies funny - I often see names like X Y, III. To a European that looks like the American attempt to make up for a missing monarchy.

[Rogarn]

Masterpeach, i think you hit the nail on the head with that. I think that that whole system was originally derived an attempt to falsely make up for the missing monarchy that they had come to know and come accustomed to. Though this strikes me as ironic since most people in that early days came to america to spite the monarchies and the church. Either way, i find it a ridiculous practice.
On a more ironic note, my middle name is the same as my fathers. In fact, all of his sons have the same middle name. His father had the same middle name too. While almost no one knows our middle names and therefore it is relatively unknown that we fallow such a tradition, i still find it baffling.

[Ilara]

^I see a lot of reading a whole lot of things into this behaviour above.

I figure that it's a combination of personal quirk and traditionalism that leads to people doing such a thing. Sharing names within a family is pretty common. My middle name is my grandmother's name. My father has one of the more common names in his line, and my middle brother is named for my grandfather.

I think that for those who are following the idea of traditionalism, repeating names goes hand in hand with a sense of continuity of family and life. And I don't necessarily think that it's ridiculous, either.

For practical reasons I would never give my children the same name as their parents (that would make for a very confusing household; the spouse calls for the child and gets answers from both child and parent).

As somebody mentioned above, within the household there are generally different nicknames for those of the same given name. Perhaps this is tied in to a coming-of-age feeling when the child takes on the fully adult name from the parent? Humans do all sorts of symbolic things for their peace of mind.

[zibber]

I don't see what makes this so peculiar, in respect to similar (and far more drastic) phenomena relating to labeling habits. We name a humongous group of widely differing individuals "human". We cut this group into two subgroups of widely differing individuals and call all of them "woman" or "man".

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's one of those things that creates a sense of continuity through time, that a child can look back and see X generations of men in his ancestry with his name and be inspired to make them proud.

Except they're all dead, so you can't make them proud.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by fiver To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the (normal) lack of boundaries early on might contribute to parents naming children after themselves. I read a book recently about stages of parenting, and in the period before the baby is born and right after, parents tend to over-identify with the child, comparing the child to what they were like when they were little, and themselves to their parents, and so on. It takes awhile to sort out the boundaries (and parents do this with varying degrees of success).

This is so true...

I have problems with my father and he believes that I'm like him because he too had problems with his father, he ignores me when I try to explain to him that the problems have different roots, my grandfather was an absent type of father and my father used me like a tool

I really wish I could change my name...