Name
A random whack-a-mole on name, title, identity, and gig work
Prelude
“Hari Anna? Good evening. I had booked an Uber ride.” - For some reason, I always believed “Hello, <Name>” is better than “Hello, <Name of the Company>”.
“Sir, forget the names. I get confused thinking it is a personal call. I understand the sentiment, but nothing changes because you refer to me by my name.” - The tone was snappy but the response from my 45-minute companion, friend, and acquaintance was as profound as it was baffling.
Parents. Religion. Community. Place. Amidst all these pre-attributed assignments even before a newborn actually makes it out of the womb, name is the first non-consensual, post-birth attribution to an individual. Post-birth because even though names are also decided prior, at least the gender question remains open (unless the to-be parents decide to perform the gender revelation procedures, which is illegal in India) before a name can be finalized.
A child, in most cases, does not get born in a house. The hospital as a place is alien, and does not form the core of a child’s identity. The time of birth is in nobody’s control. So, the name is the first strong self-association anyone can possess.
Before a name gets compartmentalized and dissected into first name, surname, middle name parenthesis optional, initials, nickname, and (for writers and artists) pseudonym, THE name is a very strong identity marker, the first sign of an individual eccentricity.
So, how could someone be okay with not being addressed by their name? At what point does name become negotiable?
naME
15 seconds and one sentence from me and the Uber driver (formerly Hari Anna) sent me on a spiral. How would I like to be addressed? The first name works. The shortened first name works as well. Suffixed addresses such as Anna, Bro, Bhai work fine. Just the suffixes being used to address me as an individual seems to be cool too. Of course, there are privileges to address me by unmentionable nicknames accorded to a select few.
As an extension, the work title being used to call me sometimes bodes okay. Sometimes, the profession itself is being referred as an individual marker, and with applicable tolerance limits, that also is doable. But, I despise being referred to by the name of my company. That sort of association has never been palatable to me, and perhaps that is entirely a personal preference.
Psychologically, there seems to be a deep-seated evolutionary culmination behind why this is the case. A name is the first taste of a possible chance of ‘leaving a legacy’. At least some of the stone scribbles, cave writings and paintings from the various eons gone by bear testament to it. The idea of a family makes it easier to go one level above and beyond just the name. Most individuals think about their family, friends, neighbors, kith and kin as an extension of themselves. And, I would assume this can be extrapolated to a workplace setting wherein a similar sort of association happens based on designations and titles. So when someone calls me “Manager Sir” even for joke’s sake, that relationship to self to an extent still works fine. Just like a close-knit group of family members, a ‘designation’ is still a cluster of a small number of people.
However, the moment the ceiling goes beyond this extended level, there is, by default, an urge to shake off the larger identity - say, the name of the company being used to refer to the employees working there. The only exceptions to this are the attributions to a caste/community/religion, a geography or a language. At this point, though, the fact that these three markers are pre-attributed at the time of birth and keep subconsciously growing alongside an individual’s life is to be noted as well.
The Skill Attribution
If I am not okay with being mentioned as just another drop in a huge ocean, why would Hari Anna be okay with it? Of course, there is a criteria for convenience hiding in plain sight there. Like he himself mentioned, the conversation is easier especially for someone who should not be on the phone while drivingSurely, he is not going to politely nod if his parent or his partner exclaim, “Hey Uber”. The question suddenly then appears to apply only in work context.
Delivery boy. Courier Anna. Tailor Akka. Laundry Anna. Uber driver. Sweeper. Maid. Cook. Priest. Watchman. Security. Mechanic. Electrician. Water can Anna. All of them have an individual name behind their work identities, but are not referred to by their names. The first impulse is to attribute this collectivization of names to skills or man-made hierarchies (such as caste). Which can be true to an extent as well. It would be too simplistic to entirely ignore the aspect of who works on what kinds of jobs, and the corresponding attributions to the jobs.
But, is that all there is to this whole debate around a ‘name’?
Name as Identity
Thinking about it, there are exceptions. A maid can become Meena Akka in no time. A person who regularly delivers water cans can easily become Sudhakar Anna. A family doctor gets mentioned by his or her name. On the contrary, a courier is mostly always a courier. A gofer is most likely a gofer. A delivery person is just that. And, an Uber driver wants to be just an Uber driver - nothing more, nothing less. What differentiates personalization and non-personalization then?
The first and the most obvious aspect, as class-blind as it may sound, is the level of depth in the relationship, even if it is transactional in nature. Meena Akka is no longer a ‘maid’ because she steps into a localized territory (a.k.a. my/your house) to perform her services, and hence becomes part of a smaller circle. Similarly, Sudhakar Anna can deliver water cans to hundred other houses, but he is still MY gofer. But, there is no guarantee that Hari Anna will be my assigned driver for my next Uber ride as well. There is no surety that Shafique Anna will deliver my food order the next time. In fact, as a person sitting here in India saluting bigwigs in the US, I am someone’s ‘resource’ at any given point in time (Left to me, I am trying to consciously avoid this by addressing people as ‘teammate’, ‘stakeholder’, etc.).
The question then is not just about skill or the lack of it. Broadly, an ‘unskilled’ laborer faces a higher likelihood of being called by the profession in comparison to a ‘skilled’ laborer. A blue-collar worker faces the former predicament, a white-collar employee not so much. Notice how ‘worker’ changed to ‘employee’ while addressing a white-collar dude. Subtler nuances that make a case in an MBA class on Industrial Relations. The question, actually, is about the extent of relationship that the person in a position of power is willing to offer to the other party.
The Power of Non-Personalization
Seemed like a class on communism, right? As we all realize at some point in time, the more privileged ones like us usually have more time, effort, and bandwidth to expend on philosophical musings. But, the counter to this whole hypothesis is more interesting (and may sound more communist :p).
Why should I think about Hari Anna’s insistence on being addressed as an ‘Uber driver’ only as a matter of convenience, even if he says so? There is truth to the easiness arising out of collectivizing names, without a tinge of a doubt.
However, ‘Uber driver’ creates a layer of non-proximity as opposed to ‘Hari Anna’. The cozier a person providing a generic service becomes with the service seeker, the bargaining power of the provider gets diluted in the due process of it. So, it is in Hari Anna’s interest to remain an ‘Uber driver’, because the former cannot be a jerk but the latter can. An ‘Uber driver’ need not worry about him being remembered as a remarkably rude person, whereas a ‘Hari Anna’ should. An ‘Uber driver’ can arm-twist me into paying 50 bucks more, but a ‘Hari Anna’ will most likely be damned.
Hmm, the seemingly inconspicuous idea of forcefully collectivizing one’s name for convenience also comes with the advantage of bargaining power. No wonder the trade union covenants are referred to as ‘Collective Bargaining Agreements’.
What Changes?
By these derivatives, it does appear that I am losing out on some sort of advantage by not collectivizing my identity. If I choose to identify myself as a member of a larger company (think, any employee working in Google is referred to as ‘Googler’), perhaps I stand to gain some bargaining power?
Not really. For, what I have is a formal employment contract. I do not have the possibility to maximize my bargaining power situationally, while an Uber driver gets it. My close association with a ‘client’ - even if for the client, I am just a ‘resource’ - amplifies my chance at a better career and a better earning potential. In contrast, the distant the association is between a driver and a passenger, the better it is for the driver.
Of course, there is a whole essay to be written (and surely, reams of papers have already been published) about the signaling value of being identified collectively via a company’s name. Think Google again. Or, a hundred other consulting firms, big-tech corporations, hedge funds, investment banking brands, big conglomerates, etc. But, as my mentor would point out time and time again, “People who try to cling on to university or company identities are whiners, in reality. There is a marked desperation in wanting to belong somewhere, and it shows up in their constant yapping about how good their company is. I like people who like to talk about the negatives, the flaws, the things that are glaring, aspects that do not work in their companies - that signals courage and an outlook of restless dissatisfaction to me. The dissatisfaction can be channeled towards amazing innovations, not the repeated refrains of how good things are.”
To sum up…
I will still address my food delivery person and my ride-hailing app drivers by their names, but will be prepared for another Hari Anna to show up with a similar response.
ON A LIGHTER NOTE - After all, an ‘Uber driver’ can arm-twist me to pay 50 bucks more, but a ‘Hari Anna’ probably cannot, right? I want to be nice and treat them with dignity for sure, but I also want to save 50 bucks!
I will continue to despise the idea of me being collectivized as an <Insert name of the company>-er / <Name of Company>-ian, at least until I yield to the familial and monetary pressures of life, which is not today.