3 ms·

What’s fascinating about this is the process by which trends rise and fall in society. The article correctly points out that trends usually start in groups of h

What’s fascinating about this is the process by which trends rise and fall in society. The article correctly points out that trends usually start in groups of higher socio-economic status, with other groups mimicking them. Eventually when it reaches all groups in society, the trend begins to fall in popularity. One example is spices in Europe. Used to be popular with the rich when it was expensive. When colonisation made spices cheap, everyone could afford it. That’s when the rich started a new trend of eschewing spices, which the masses copied. (NPR - How Snobbery Helped Take The Spice Out Of European Cooking https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/26/394339284/how-snobbery-helped-take-the-spice-out-of-european-cooking https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/26/394339284/ho...). The difficulties faced by Kevins and other names is precisely because they opted out of this process. By choosing an Anglophone name instead of copying a name popular with the upper classes, they’ve inadvertently created a marker for lower socioeconomic status. That wouldn’t be bad by itself, but lower socioeconomic status is correlated with lower test scores. That has clearly led to a cycle of (poor parents choose an anglophone name) -> (these kids struggle in school/drop out) -> (people associate these names with low intelligence) -> (these kids suffer discrimination) -> (low rates of achievement, perpetuating stereotypes). We might feel an aversion to the first example. People copying their “social betters”, pretending to be higher on the socioeconomic scale might make us feel uncomfortable if we believe that all people are fundamentally equal. Why pretend to be someone else? The second example with anglophone names in France points out why this behaviour is useful. That’s probably why we see the mimicking behaviour in all human societies. It’s to avoid this issue.

idoubtit 4y ago
I think the process is a bit simpler: names like Kevin and Cindy were markers that the child was born in a family where TV was the predominant culture, by far. The "bad rap" described in the New Yorker is just "these names point to a working-class origin". For most people, it does not imply anything about their intelligence. Since the French school system is very bad at correcting inequalities, a child born in an environment that does not favor school has very few chances of becoming a "bigwig" (deputy, doctor...). Where the TV is predominant, the chances are low that the parents read often or could help with homework. So these children have little chance of getting out of the working class. As noted in the OP, in France having an "arab name" like Mohammed or Chérifa (nowadays these are called "muslim names") is much more painful. Some recruiters could frown upon a "Kevin" (even subconsciously), but many would simply reject any "Ahmed". According to a recurring poll, a majority of French people think that French muslims are not truly French citizens.
- nindalf 4y ago
  I think we said pretty much the same thing. I'd be interested to understand how you think we disagree. For example, you said "these names point to a working-class origin". I said "they’ve inadvertently created a marker for lower socioeconomic status." You said "Where the TV is predominant, the chances are low that the parents read often or could help with homework." I said "but lower socioeconomic status is correlated with lower test scores." You gave a mechanism that explained how my claim comes true. I then go on to say how this discrimination becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and leads to a cycle where people with these names are less likely to succeed. You went a different way, pointing out that it's not only anglophone names in France that indicate a working class background, it's also Arab/Muslim names.

idoubtit 4y ago

I think the process is a bit simpler: names like Kevin and Cindy were markers that the child was born in a family where TV was the predominant culture, by far. The "bad rap" described in the New Yorker is just "these names point to a working-class origin". For most people, it does not imply anything about their intelligence. Since the French school system is very bad at correcting inequalities, a child born in an environment that does not favor school has very few chances of becoming a "bigwig" (deputy, doctor...). Where the TV is predominant, the chances are low that the parents read often or could help with homework. So these children have little chance of getting out of the working class. As noted in the OP, in France having an "arab name" like Mohammed or Chérifa (nowadays these are called "muslim names") is much more painful. Some recruiters could frown upon a "Kevin" (even subconsciously), but many would simply reject any "Ahmed". According to a recurring poll, a majority of French people think that French muslims are not truly French citizens.

nindalf 4y ago
I think we said pretty much the same thing. I'd be interested to understand how you think we disagree. For example, you said "these names point to a working-class origin". I said "they’ve inadvertently created a marker for lower socioeconomic status." You said "Where the TV is predominant, the chances are low that the parents read often or could help with homework." I said "but lower socioeconomic status is correlated with lower test scores." You gave a mechanism that explained how my claim comes true. I then go on to say how this discrimination becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and leads to a cycle where people with these names are less likely to succeed. You went a different way, pointing out that it's not only anglophone names in France that indicate a working class background, it's also Arab/Muslim names.