Reading the article which appeared in the Times today about baby names given last year, I couldn't help a smile. And also a worried thought. Not about the some of the names themselves, but about the mentality behind them.
We live in the 'culture of the immediate'. All the information we need is accessible just one-click away, we grumble if a web-page takes more than four seconds to load, we live beyond our means because it's today they care about. We want results and we want them now. We don't have time for patience, we don't have time for thinking. Marketing corporations have also understood this type of thinking. They speak of "instant", "fast", "today", "have it all". "Life is now".
These parents want to be original. Creative. Innovative. Something we probably don't have time to do in other areas of our life, so we're doing it with our babies' names. And it's only the immediate moment we seem care about. Delpiero looks cute as a label on a small baby's arm, but did they think how it will sound if he's the sales manager to be introduced to a corporate client? And if Sneijder ends ups sucking at football, would you blame his secondary school peers for poking fun at him every day of his teenage years? And what about when poor Shaizack's peers discover the meaning of you-know-which German word? And what if Kaiser ever dares to venture into politics? How about every time one of the Shaz- Shas- Shalis- tongue-twisting derivatives has her name incorrectly read out in class, would you blame her teacher for that puzzled look? Would she, or would she curse her parents? And don't even try to imagine the hassle Libya will go through if she ever wants to visit Israel.
Most probably, none of their parents have even considered that this baby will one day grow-up. As neither do those parents who post countless photos of their babies and toddlers on facebook and other social networks. What right do you have of distributing your kid's photos to the world? How would you feel today if you knew that your parents did just that, and all your childhood experiences and funny dress-ups were showcased for the world to see in Truman fashion? Not even considering any insane child predator that could have been collecting your kid's photos since their birth, till they create their own account and he starts chatting up with them, knowing all their weaknesses and background, how to lure and where to find them. It's not far-fetched. It's happening.
But we don't think and we don't care. What we care about is how many Likes and 'oh how cute' we get today for uploading it. What we care about is how cool we are today singing Delpiero to sleep.
And can you see this same behaviour in our politicians before elections? I'll leave you to think about the savage promises being made, but it's the same pattern of thought: it's the election of today they mostly care about and not the next generation's future. The question is: did this mentality trickle down from the leaders to the people, or did it trickle up from the people to their leaders?
Whatever the answer, I believe we'd all be better off if we took some time to consider the long-term consequences of our actions, instead of just their impact on today. Especially when you're naming a person with a whole life and career in front of him, and not a soft-toy to play with.
I think you misdiagnose the underlying problem which leads to parents calling their children Shanisaquashani or Inzaghi Borg. The problem is not the 'right here right now' attitude - this is omnipresent, yet most parents still deploy sensible names. I think the issue is that there is a sector of Maltese society that is barely literate and culturally impoverished. Having, essentially, never read a book, when they are exposed to thrash TV and other media junk they absorb it without filtering through a critical process. Thus Shanisaquashani is no longer seen as the (possibly fake) name of a C-list British rapper who will be forgotten tomorrow; instead it becomes a benchmark of cool, towards which one's children are to be helpfully nudged.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a case of misdiagnosis. I don't think that there's one diagnosis, I just wanted to use this bit of news to highlight the 'right now' attitude prevalent in today's society (which no, was not omni-present. Just look at how our fore-fathers built their homes for example, and the 'erfa u sorr ghal meta tigi bzonn' attitude).
ReplyDeleteOf course the cultural impoverishment you mention is very much present. And the constant media and marketing bombardment doesn't help either. It is causing people to continuously want to be more than they are, have more than they have...ultimately resulting in this celebrity-adulation. Which of course has a bigger effect on that part of the population which is unable to filter all this critically.
One could write a thesis on what's causing this cultural decline from different aspects: political, economical, educational. But of course, time and space are limited :)
nice write up mark! and loved the final observation. so true!
ReplyDeleteYou are right, I think 'mis' is not the right prefix there: rather what I should have said is that the diagnosis is incomplete. As you say there are multiple contributing factors here.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 'omnipresence' of right here right now attitudes, I meant that these are very common across all social strata in the world of today. But of course omnipresence is a broader term so your objection is valid - this is what happens when you use unnecessarily big words I guess :)