Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/6/2013 (1105 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
Republicans and Democrats don't seem to agree on very much these days. They're divided on the kinds of television shows they watch, cars they drive and beers they drink. And now new research by political scientists at the University of Chicago adds one more thing to that list: baby names.
To understand whether Democrats and Republicans choose different kinds of baby names, the authors of the paper -- Eric Oliver, Thomas Wood and Alexandra Bass -- compiled an unusual set of data. They took all of the births in the state of California from 2004 -- about 500,000 in all. For each baby born, the data contained the child's first name, the mother's first name, the father's first name (where available) and the mother's education, race and address. Using these addresses, they then matched each mother to her census tract and thereby determined whether she lived in an area that was predominantly Democratic, Republican or somewhere in between. The question is whether mothers who lived in red, blue and purple neighbourhoods were systematically different. They were, in two respects.
The first difference has to do with whether the baby's name was unusual. Oliver and colleagues ascertained whether each baby's name was unique (such that no other child born in California in 2004 was given that name), uncommon (20 or fewer children born that year were given that name), or popular (one of the 100 most common names in California that year). Unique baby names were more common among blacks and Asian-Americans than among whites and Latinos. Within any racial group, unique baby names were more common when the mothers had less formal education or lived in a lower-income neighbourhood.
But among whites, partisanship and ideology mattered, too. Mothers who had at least some college education were more likely to give their child an uncommon name -- and less likely to give the child a popular name -- when they lived in relatively Democratic or liberal areas. If neighbourhood characteristics corresponded to the mother's own characteristics, better-educated Democrats or liberals were more likely to give their babies unusual names than better-educated Republicans or conservatives.
This leads to the second difference: the names they chose. Oliver and colleagues find that there were roughly two kinds of uncommon baby names: ones that are completely made up or just different spellings of common names (like "Jazzmyne" for Jasmine), and ones that are just esoteric. When racial minorities and the poor chose uncommon names, they were more likely to choose the former. When Democrats or liberals chose uncommon names, they were more likely to choose the latter.
Oliver and colleagues argue that liberals, consciously or unconsciously, signal cultural tastes and erudition when picking their child's name.
On the other hand, conservatives, by being more likely than liberals to pick popular or traditional names (like John, Richard or Katherine), signal economic capital. That is, they are choosing names traditional to the dominant economic group -- essentially, wealthy whites. Oliver noted some immigrants also try to help their children assimilate and succeed by choosing names in this fashion. And, given research that shows the ethnic connotations of a job applicant's name can affect the possibility of getting an interview, choosing names this way may make economic sense.
The names chosen by Democrats and Republicans differed in another respect: how they sound. Oliver and colleagues categorized each name by whether the sounds, or phonemes, it contained were more common in boy names or girl names. Boy names are more likely to contain "hard" sounds -- consonants like K, B, D, T -- while girl names are more likely to contain "soft" sounds -- like the L's in "Lola," the A in "Ella," and the Y in "Carly." Oliver and colleagues found that, for both boy and girl babies, "softer" sounds were more prominent among educated whites living in more Democratic or liberal neighbourhoods. That is, a boy's name like "Julian" or "Liam" or a girl's name like "Malia" would be more common in Democratic neighbourhoods. A boy's name like "Trig" or a girl's name like "Bristol" would be more common in Republican neighbourhoods. (Oliver and colleagues cannot help but note the Obamas and the Palins conform to their findings.)
Oliver speculated the sound of names could be tied to economic capital. Traditionally, masculinity has been associated with economic success. Thus, he suggested, just as conservatives signalled economic capital by choosing more popular names, they also did so by choosing names that "sound like" the kinds of names you might fight among the economic elite.
Oliver and colleagues emphasize these partisan or ideological differences were largely confined to better-educated whites. As other political science research shows, partisanship and ideology often operate most strongly within this group. Thus, it is a mistake simply to divide America into red and blue. This leads to the paper's provocative conclusion:
As we see in patterns of baby names, liberal elites use esoteric cultural references to demonstrate their elevated social position just as conservatives invoke traditional signals of wealth and affluence. Instead of divides between "red and blue states," it is more accurate to say America is divided not just by "red and blue elites," but also in the ways these elites seek to differentiate themselves from the largely "purple" masses.
-- Washington Post-Bloomberg