Renaming and Reframing Continually in the Face of Hubris

Playing creatively along with Trump and Musk or being played

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]

Introduction

A striking feature of this period is the enthusiasm for renaming and the pressures to do so. Early indications of this have been the replacement of names imposed by imperial powers on traditional indigenous topography (Beth Williamson, Historical Geographies of Place Naming: colonial practices and beyond, Compass, 23 March 2023). Street names and buildings continue to have their names changed to honour the transition from colonial times. Arguably the challenge of adapting pronouns in response to the multiplication of perceived genders offers another example.

More striking has been the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico at the stroke of a pen through an executive order of the new President of the United States. In that spirit his highly influential colleague has proposed changing the name of the "English Channel" (as long named by the UK) to the "George Washington Channel" (Elon Musk suggests English Channel should be given a new name linked to America, Express, 27 January 2025). Musk has personally reflected this tendency in the naming of some of his many children (X Ã* A-Xii, Exa Dark SiderÃ...l, Techno Mechanicus, for example).

Through rebranding, the process is paralleled in the marketing of commercial products and services to reflect a shift in policy, possibly as a remedial response to actions held by some to have been problematic in the past. Whether for individuals or groups, changing one's name can be understood as re-inventing oneself -- a traditional practice in intentional spiritual communities. Curiously evident in that respect has been the renaming of Twitter to X.

The exploration in what follows focuses on the rights to rename and the possibility for everyone to do so -- faced with a global situation experienced as increasingly chaotic, surreal and invasive. The tendency is already evident in the manner in which groups and communities cultivate the use of nicknames, whether as a feature of bonding or in reframing a challenge. Superiors in any hierarchy may well be known by such names. Pseudonyms are widely used on social media. Potentially most curious for future historians are the assertions and denials about whether widely presented processes should be named as genocide, rather than through the use of euphemisms -- and the consequence of any such choice.

As suggested by the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by the US, a key feature of this process is the manner in which it establishes and affirms claims to territory -- extending and reframing pre-established boundaries, possibly unilaterally. In that sense it raises fundamental questions regarding the nature of ownership and possession. This is currently most evident geopolitically in aspirations of Israel for a Greater Israel. Aside from colonial expansionism in past centuries, more recent examples have been the German framing of Lebensraum, and the Japanese effort to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The British Commonwealth of Nations, and the French framing of the Francophonie, may be seen in this light.

The pattern is evident in sociopolitical pressures and commitments to make a country "great again" -- as with the MAGA slogan of Donald Trump, but widely echoed (Victor Davis Hanson, Making Countries Great Again, Hoover Digest, 9 July 2018; Zheng Wang, The New Nationalism: "Make My Country Great Again", Xiâ-'s China Dream meets Trump's â-"e;Make America Great Againâ-", The Diplomat, 10 May 2016; Moran M. Mandelbaum, "Making Our Country Great Again": the politics of subjectivity in an age of national-populism, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33, 2020, 4)

Of relevance to this process is the cultivation of collective identity through the formation of diasporas independent of geopolitical boundaries. Striking examples are offered by migrant populations with links to Ireland or Scotland. A related phenomena is that of Chinese name societies, potentially associated with the Chinese diaspora (Jeanne Wu, The Global Chinese Diaspora Today: overview and mission trends, ChinaSource, 11 March 2024).

As the case of the Gulf of Mexico illustrates, and as with deprecation through offensive nicknaming, of concern is the manner in which the process is effectively an "asymmetrical transaction" readily recognized as encroachment and an invasion of cultural or personal space -- whether or not it is associated with physical violence or threats. This has been a feature of the prohibition and suppression of indigenous languages by colonial powers with the active complicity of religious authorities (Exploring the Role of Religious Institutions in Colonial Education, WeChronicle; The Linguistic Legacy of Colonialism: impact on indigenous languages, Day Translations, 10 May 2024; Dispossession and Revival of Indigenous Languages, National Archives of Australia). As a means of "dealing" with psychosocial reality, it can be seen as the imposition of a "new deal".

Possession of a name is curiously not explicitly specified as being a human right, given its fundamental significance. In a world of flux it could be asked whether the freedom to choose and attribute a name could be meaningfully enshrined in constitutions in relation to freedom of expression -- as a complement to obsession of authorities with definition of unchanging identity.

The presentation continues the experiment with AI in the form of ChatGPT 4o and Claude 3.5 -- to which those of DeepSeek have been added in some cases. These responses have been framed as grayed areas. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment -- in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Only the "questions" to AI are rendered immediately visible -- with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Editing responses has focused only on formatting, leaving any excessive flattery for the reader to navigate (as in many social situations). Whilst the presentation of responses of two or more AIs could be readily considered excessive, it offers a comparative perspective highlighting the strengths and limitations of each.

Readers are of course free to amend the questions asked, or to frame other questions -- whether with the same AIs, with others, or with those that become available in the future. Readers are unfortunately obliged to navigate the manner in which AIs have been trained to lavish praise on the genius of those asking the question -- especially when unsure about the answer.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]