What’s In a Name?
By Ignacio Corona

Last November, the Multicultural Center and the Office of Hispanic Student Services convened a group of professors associated with the Latino/a Studies program to explore the question “What’s in a name?” and its implications for the Hispanic/Latino community at OSU. The following is not a summary of what transpired at that forum, but a personal reflection about this issue and about the ensuing discussion between the panelists and a diverse group of students, faculty and staff. “Names are only names, and they should not be as important as real actions,” some may say. And indeed, we can ask ourselves if we should spend our energies on deciding how to call ourselves and on asking others to call us by a certain name, or if we should rather devote more time and energies to working on concrete social and educational programs, public policies, and on influencing media coverage, among other efforts.

The truth of the matter is that names are related to actions. It is not necessary to be a nominalist to accept the fact that no concrete action can be carried out if some sort of consistent definition has not been previously established – so to speak – regarding the group identity of that sector of the population that is the intended recipient of such efforts. We cannot downplay the importance of naming, simply because names define identities. At the same time, we should be alert – at all moments – about the provisional and strategic nature of those definitions. Definitions are in a way similar to borders. They are intended to separate, exclude, and discriminate. And yet, they are “live” entities. They are subject to change. They can grow (or diminish its size) and can be used to emphasize the vitality and necessity of exchanges, fluxes, and incorporations. Our personal name may not change throughout our lifetime, and it is, of course, less complicated in that way (unless we are willing to go into the trouble of changing all of our vital documents to respond to that change).

However, unlike our personal names, our individual identities change throughout our lives, and this seems to be the case of group identities as well – although within a more historical perspective. Those who do not share this idea tend to think that there is always something “essential” to a group identity (i.e., ethnic identity) that defies time and circumstance (and that there might be, therefore, some “trans-historical” or “genetic” factor behind it). While I do not agree with this position, I recognize that it is still a popular one, and that it appears in different forms and shapes in every discussion about these issues from a cultural or political point of view. In response to the question posited above, I think it is useful to identify some of the interrelated social, cultural and political processes that operate behind every name used to establish collective identities:

a) Processes of Dispute. Identities are not legacies passively received. They are rather representations socially produced and – in this sense – matters of dispute. This might be illustrated by the difference that exists between self-referential denominations used by many exiles (first generation Latinos) and their descendants. Often, members of the first group do not easily acquiesce to abandoning their national identity and taking up a new identity in their adopted homeland. Unlike their descendants, they will dispute the possibility of change and reinvention of themselves through a new identitarian terminology.

b) Processes of Homogenization. We should be aware that group names, as much as they may be empowering, they also tend to homogenize entire populations. By expanding the scope of any group name, some assertions of difference (for instance, in terms of class, or gender) are obliterated. One may wonder if this is what lies at the root of the process of homogenization; namely, what some might even say is the invention of identities in response to the market’s commercial strategies. Such a process also acquires a historical relevance and denotes new contexts of identity-making. This is the case of the terms Hispanic or Latino, which tend to supersede those more associated with moments of revolutionary or political resistance in this country (i.e. Chicano, a term now seemingly destined to become a historical category).

c) Processes of Objectification. There are always political “needs” to produce identity-making in response to economic and political pressures, as Prof. Keith Kilty explained at the forum. Names then may become a form of categorization of social reality, often from a purely positivistic position.

d) Processes of Selection. The contemporary use of the term Latino (or even Hispanic) in this country has mostly relevance when related to language (Spanish) as an identitary marker, and yet Latino scholarship is almost entirely done in English. Latino scholarship in Spanish is negligible in terms of its diffusion.

e) Processes of Strategic Thinking. Ethnic labels are not “good” or “bad” by themselves. They can be used for purposes of political control, but also for empowerment. This complex ambiguity implies a constant reviewing of our own positions, or else we will have to deal with terms that do not correspond to our social reality.

If names and labels can be a matter of dispute and contention, what is truly important for any individual is to actively establish a constellation of group links beyond his/her immediate family unit; identify social and historical relationships; recognize economic, educational and political challenges; and discover collective histories, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, common experiences, goals and aspirations. While such an activity is definitely more complex than passively accepting a group or national identity, thanks to this process “names” can really have a true historical, cultural and political meaning, and thereby produce a meaningful identity for our/selves.