I would like to use this blog post to pick apart Locke's section on number nine in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. This section is located under the heading, "The way of learning these names contributes also to their doubtfulness" (819). This section was particularly interesting to me as a future teacher, of course, and because it seems that I can provide a case in which Locke's theories prove to be true.
My cousin's daughter has known me as J.J. since she could speak. Of course, as my family and I were insensitive to force a baby to say the "j" sound, she called me "Day Day." Then I went to college, came back, and she still recognized me. My name, however, as far as she was concerned, was changed to "Rachel."
The only explanation that we could come up with was that her aunt, who also had brown hair and a similar build to me, was named "Rachel." She must have been confusing us. And yet, on her third birthday, I stood next to Rachel and said to my baby cousin, "Who is this?" I pointed to Rachel. "That's Rachel!" she said. I said, "Then who am I?" She said, "Rachel!" And so I had no idea what the problem was until I read this section in Locke's essay. It would seem that "J.J." had no meaning to her while I was gone. I had left, and as a child she could not understand the concept of "away," but only "gone."
Locke would probably respond to this by saying that my baby cousin could not remember to call me by my proper name because when I left, I became the photographs that she saw of me. A living, breathing, short girl with brown hair became known as "Rachel," because that was how she learned. Locke says in his essay, "For if we observe how children learn languages, we shall find that, to make them understand what the names of simple ideas or substances stand for, people ordinarily show them the thing whereof they would have them have the idea" (819). As Locke warns us against here, we tried to force Isabel to learn names before she could understand the concept of a name.
My cousin is three years old and still calls me Rachel, but she quickly corrects herself and sometimes calls me J.J. first. This means that she is most likely to call me Rachel J.J. I imagine that she has come to know me as two concepts: my name, and my appearance. J.J. is my name, but Rachel is how she recognizes me. Locke stresses the importance of meaning in the word, and it seems that my baby cousin knows that importance more than I do.
Dear Jaylyn,
ReplyDeleteThree ideas came to mind when I read your post; one is that what Kenneth Burke theorized rings true-- that naming is based on reality, "not for the sheer glory of the thing" (Burke, p. 294). Your cousin alternately calling you "Rachel" and "J.J." illustrates to me there is "no realism for its' own sake," and that your cousin is making sense of what she sees. Maybe by calling you "Rachel J.J." she means you're J.J. who looks like Rachel.
If that's the case, that to her you're J.J. who looks like Rachel, it seems your cousin is also applying a little bit of Derrida-- she's wrestling with similarities and differences and trying to reconcile the idea that you're not Rachel but you look like Rachel... "The elements of signification function... by the network of oppositions.." or, things are defined by what they are not ... (Derrida, p. 285).
Piaget says object permanence happens about by the time children are two, and that would substantiate your cousin using Derrida as well- she knows who you are and that you're coming back, it's just she's confused that she's now noticing you look like Rachel.
One last note on how people label according to reality, per Burke. My cousins had a grandmother who was particulary admonishing. They must have been especially active or investigative one day, because at dinner, my aunt turned to them and pointed to (grandmother). She asked the boys, "Who's this?" One blurted out, "That's No-No!"
Jaylyn,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting point in Locke’s discussion and trying to pick apart. This is definitely a factor in determining why Locke views language as being a system full of flaws and composed of “complex ideas [that] are naturally liable to…imperfection” (Locke 819). Through your example, I think it becomes increasingly clear that language, and the interpretation of it, is based on individual perspective and comprehension.
The idea of how language is learned is necessary to consider when attempting to understand how meaning itself comes to be. I feel that in addition to this, it is also import to note that Locke seems to argue overall that words are essentially arbitrary, and only hold meaning once it has been learned, or socialized. Some words do not have clear-cut definitions; rather, they must be determined by personal experiences, reflections and the ability to make sense of the situation and consequential emotion.
Locke notes that some words can be categorized as “moral words” and the “complex ideas they stand for, are either beholden to the explication of others, or…are left to {one’s} own observation and industry” (819). By applying this thought to your situation, it seems possible that although your cousin was unable to call you your given name, to her, what she was speaking was an individual truth based on her perspective of the situation.