What baby names reveal about American and British society
A SQUALLING infant is put into your arms. As you admire this small person, you begin to wonder what the future has in store. Will she be shy or outgoing? Studious or lazy? Will she have an artistic streak or a rebellious one? As you ponder these questions, the doctor asks another, more urgent, one: what will you call the baby?
Choosing a name is one of the first enduring decisions parents must make on behalf of their child. Their selection tends to reflect their values and hopes for their offspring. Those with an interest in science may opt for Albert or Marie; more literary types may be tempted by Agatha or Ernest. If you desire a child who is sturdy and traditional, you might plump for John; if you want a youngster to stand out from the crowd, you might go with Apple or maybe even X Æ A-Xii.
Every parent knows living namesakes matter as much as past ones. In America Donald is a less popular choice than it was in 2010, given to just 414 children in 2023. As Taylor Swift has climbed the music charts, her first name has slid down the rankings, perhaps because parents fear their children will feel eclipsed by the star.
Taken individually, each name selection is shaped by a constellation of factors, including family history and the baby's demeanour. (Judging from online forums, new parents worry deeply about whether or not their babies suit their moniker.) But, taken together, names can reveal broad social trends. Unlike surnames, first names are subject to the fashions and linguistic shifts of the time; they are manifestations of popular culture. For that reason, names are worthy of study.
The Economist analysed the first names of almost 400m people born in America and Britain in the past 143 years. We looked at which were popular and their connotations; we considered how diverse the names were and the rate at which trends have come and gone. The results are striking. Our study revealed that the countries on both sides of the Atlantic are becoming more interested in money and power (see chart), as culture becomes more fragmented and dynamic.
Historically, studying what a name evokes has been hard to quantify, but artificial intelligence offers a method of doing so. 'What word follows…" is the problem large language models (LLMs) were made to solve. These models, trained on enormous corpora of text, can reveal clusters of associations. So we enlisted an LLM to provide the top five connotations of all popular names. Our prompts—more than 30,000 of them—produced 7,439 unique descriptors, including 'purity", 'warrior" and 'socially awkward". (Ironically the most popular description was 'unique", tied to 12,124 different names.)
Using those connotations—and a list of synonyms—we could look at what traits parents seem to prize. The results include etymological and historical meanings, but they also reflect what people think of names in the current moment. Sophia, for example, is still linked to wisdom, as David is to king. Taylor traditionally means 'cutter of cloth". But the llm shows that now, thanks to the world's biggest pop star, people associate that name with versatility, professionalism and creativity.
When it comes to traits, our study found that parents increasingly care about appearances. (Surprisingly, brains are becoming less fashionable for children. Names associated with cleverness—such as Raynard—are down six percentage points from 2000.) Names associated with beauty became more popular in recent decades. Almost 30% of names in England and Wales bear that connotation; over 30% of names in America do, too, up 3.2 percentage points from 2000.
Parents especially care about highlighting this trait for their daughters. Every girls' name in the top ten—including the top three (Olivia, Emma and Charlotte in America and Olivia, Amelia and Isla in Britain)—connotes 'elegance" or some variation thereof. Of the top 100 boys' names in America, only one, Beau, carries associations of handsomeness.
If beauty is desired in girls, brawn has muscled into male names: 70% of boys in America and 55% of boys in Britain have a name that evokes powerfulness. (The most popular boys' names in America, Liam and Noah, are associated with strength.) Another category that has gained prominence since 2000 is wealth, as parents buy into brands that evoke prosperity, such as Aston and Audi, disregarding King Solomon's advice: 'A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches."
Even though almost a third of Americans and nearly 40% of Britons profess no religious affiliation, names from scripture have endured. In some cases, this is probably because people do not realise the origin of the name in question. Even so, names with religious links remain popular: roughly 15% of those in America have them. For boys, Elijah, Jacob and James are among the chosen ones; for girls, Abigail, Hannah and Sarah are revered. In Britain, such names are seeing an upswing. In 2023 Muhammad was the most popular name for boys in England and Wales, given to more than 4,600 infants, or 1.7% of boys.
Unsurprisingly, in both countries name trends have been shaped by immigration. In America the pool of names shrank after the Immigration Act of 1924, which capped the number of people allowed entry; it expanded once limits were loosened in 1965. At that point, there were 10,841 names in America. By 2023, the last year in our data set, there were 28,945 unique ones given to five or more people, compared with 22,680 in 1990, despite fewer children being born.
Yet historical names data probably tell only a partial story. In the past, migrants coming to America and Britain often felt pressure to adapt or discard names that sounded too foreign; as both countries have become more ethnically diverse and tolerant, the range of names has grown wider. Today many parents proudly select a name that preserves their cultural identity, seeing it as a statement of belonging rather than an obstacle to integration. In America names linked to Spanish, such as José and Diego, have surged in popularity, as have names linked to Arabic in Britain—Eesa and Sami, for example.
Other factors have contributed to the greater range of names enjoyed by children today. In 1948 nearly a third of American children received one of the 20 most popular names; today parents may prefer to pick something more individualistic than conventional. The vogue for 'dictionary names"—ie, words from the dictionary such as Crimson or Summer—has deepened the pool, as has the use of surnames as first names (Archer, for instance).
What did you just call me?
Yet the internet has probably also contributed to a splintering of popularity. As we studied which names were chosen from year to year, we found that the speed at which trendy names come and go is much faster today than it was even half a century ago. The jumps and dives in popular names are more evenly spread, too.
This may be because the internet furnishes parents with more information and sources of inspiration than ever before. Jennifer Moss, the founder and boss of Babynames.com, a website, says near-real-time popularity data are driving faster churn in names, as parents see a name racing up the charts and avoid it, rather than risk having a child share a classroom with five Olivias or eight Noahs. Parents also use internet genealogy services to uncover names that are so old as to be nearly out of use. Discovering an obscure Scottish great-grandmother, for instance, can inspire parents to revive her name or surname for a child's first name.
In America no name has come close to matching the Linda boom of 1947, set off by Jack Lawrence's song of that name and Linda Darnell, a popular actress. The name was given to nearly 100,000 girls—or 5.6%, up from 3.4% the preceding year. The Linda spike is remarkable for another reason: in percentage terms, no names are nearly as popular now as Linda was then.
Popular culture still plays a role in provoking fads. The early 1990s saw a craze for Kevin after the release of 'Home Alone", a hit Christmas film. In the 2000s scores of parents named their daughters Emma, following the choice of Ross and Rachel in 'Friends". In the 2010s 'Game of Thrones" led to a surge in the number of girls being named Khaleesi, after the show's warrior queen. (Few have turned to the character in recent years: Khaleesi went on a genocidal rampage in the show's penultimate episode in 2019.) But these waves are weaker today than at any time in the past century.
Parents short on inspiration can trawl through millions of films, songs and tv shows in search of an unusual gem. Or they can consult a list of names that are 'going extinct", such as Barbie (the blockbuster film failed to change its association with being a bimbo) and Homer (which may now be more tied in the public's imagination to the lazy character of 'The Simpsons" than the poet who wrote the 'Odyssey"). Royal names, such as Catherine and Albert, are also becoming less popular.
However, parents may find that it is not their selection that will matter as much as the name conferred by future friends and detractors. 'A good name will wear out; a bad one may be turned," wrote Johann Georg Zimmermann, a Swiss philosopher. But 'a nickname lasts for ever".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 days ago
- Mint
Lessons from the happiest countries in the world
To read more of The Economist's data journalism visit our Graphic detail page. FOR A COUNTRY known for long winters and high taxes, Finland appears remarkably chipper. On March 20th it came top of the World Happiness Report, an annual UN-backed study, notching its eighth consecutive win ahead of 146 other countries. Not far behind it were Denmark, Iceland and Sweden. What makes the Nordics so happy? The World Happiness Report is more a study of life satisfaction than smiles and laughter. It is based on a survey by Gallup, a pollster, where participants are asked to rate their lives out of ten. Finns are not known to gloat (or, for that matter, smile much). But in the latest survey they said their lives were a solid 7.7 on average—well above the global country average of 5.6. At the very bottom of the ranking, people in war-torn Afghanistan rated their lives just 1.4 out of ten. Various other organisations have found the Nordics to be some of the most stable, progressive and safe countries in the world. They dominate the high positions in The Economist's glass-ceiling index, which measures the role and influence of women in the workforce. Deaths of despair, including suicides and unintentional overdoses, are quickly decreasing in the region, albeit from a historically high baseline (life-evaluation scores alone do not capture all of the factors that can lead to deaths of despair). The Nordics are also some of the wealthiest countries in the world per person, which typically has a significant effect on life satisfaction (see chart 2). On this measure countries in Latin America also stand out, reporting happier lives than their incomes would otherwise suggest. These countries have also outperformed the Nordics in other studies of happiness, such as how often people laugh or feel a sense of enjoyment. The researchers offer a possible explanation. They found that eating with people, compared with eating alone, was a surprisingly strong indicator of subjective wellbeing—as statistically significant as income and employment status. That holds true even when accounting for other factors, such as age and education. Latin America is a 'global leader" in meal-sharing, say the authors. People across the region reportedly eat around nine meals per week with friends or family. (In South Asia it is fewer than half of that.) This might mean they are better connected and less lonely than their peers elsewhere. Indeed, across the world the study found that measures of social support are more closely linked to how people rate their lives than GDP per person. This might also explain why happiness in America and some other rich countries is falling (see chart 3). Americans increasingly eat alone, live alone and—when given the choice—work alone. In one survey 18% of young adults in America reported that they did not have anyone that they felt close to (although there are signs that the relentless increase in mental-health problems among young Americans has stalled or even gone into reverse). In many other countries, too, an erosion of meaningful connections is leaving people feeling lonely and glum. But in Finland, alone time is actually cherished. Finns retreat to their mökki (country cottages) for deliberate solitude—often in a sauna.
Mint
5 days ago
- Mint
What baby names reveal about American and British society
A SQUALLING infant is put into your arms. As you admire this small person, you begin to wonder what the future has in store. Will she be shy or outgoing? Studious or lazy? Will she have an artistic streak or a rebellious one? As you ponder these questions, the doctor asks another, more urgent, one: what will you call the baby? Choosing a name is one of the first enduring decisions parents must make on behalf of their child. Their selection tends to reflect their values and hopes for their offspring. Those with an interest in science may opt for Albert or Marie; more literary types may be tempted by Agatha or Ernest. If you desire a child who is sturdy and traditional, you might plump for John; if you want a youngster to stand out from the crowd, you might go with Apple or maybe even X Æ A-Xii. Every parent knows living namesakes matter as much as past ones. In America Donald is a less popular choice than it was in 2010, given to just 414 children in 2023. As Taylor Swift has climbed the music charts, her first name has slid down the rankings, perhaps because parents fear their children will feel eclipsed by the star. Taken individually, each name selection is shaped by a constellation of factors, including family history and the baby's demeanour. (Judging from online forums, new parents worry deeply about whether or not their babies suit their moniker.) But, taken together, names can reveal broad social trends. Unlike surnames, first names are subject to the fashions and linguistic shifts of the time; they are manifestations of popular culture. For that reason, names are worthy of study. The Economist analysed the first names of almost 400m people born in America and Britain in the past 143 years. We looked at which were popular and their connotations; we considered how diverse the names were and the rate at which trends have come and gone. The results are striking. Our study revealed that the countries on both sides of the Atlantic are becoming more interested in money and power (see chart), as culture becomes more fragmented and dynamic. Historically, studying what a name evokes has been hard to quantify, but artificial intelligence offers a method of doing so. 'What word follows…" is the problem large language models (LLMs) were made to solve. These models, trained on enormous corpora of text, can reveal clusters of associations. So we enlisted an LLM to provide the top five connotations of all popular names. Our prompts—more than 30,000 of them—produced 7,439 unique descriptors, including 'purity", 'warrior" and 'socially awkward". (Ironically the most popular description was 'unique", tied to 12,124 different names.) Using those connotations—and a list of synonyms—we could look at what traits parents seem to prize. The results include etymological and historical meanings, but they also reflect what people think of names in the current moment. Sophia, for example, is still linked to wisdom, as David is to king. Taylor traditionally means 'cutter of cloth". But the llm shows that now, thanks to the world's biggest pop star, people associate that name with versatility, professionalism and creativity. When it comes to traits, our study found that parents increasingly care about appearances. (Surprisingly, brains are becoming less fashionable for children. Names associated with cleverness—such as Raynard—are down six percentage points from 2000.) Names associated with beauty became more popular in recent decades. Almost 30% of names in England and Wales bear that connotation; over 30% of names in America do, too, up 3.2 percentage points from 2000. Parents especially care about highlighting this trait for their daughters. Every girls' name in the top ten—including the top three (Olivia, Emma and Charlotte in America and Olivia, Amelia and Isla in Britain)—connotes 'elegance" or some variation thereof. Of the top 100 boys' names in America, only one, Beau, carries associations of handsomeness. If beauty is desired in girls, brawn has muscled into male names: 70% of boys in America and 55% of boys in Britain have a name that evokes powerfulness. (The most popular boys' names in America, Liam and Noah, are associated with strength.) Another category that has gained prominence since 2000 is wealth, as parents buy into brands that evoke prosperity, such as Aston and Audi, disregarding King Solomon's advice: 'A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches." Even though almost a third of Americans and nearly 40% of Britons profess no religious affiliation, names from scripture have endured. In some cases, this is probably because people do not realise the origin of the name in question. Even so, names with religious links remain popular: roughly 15% of those in America have them. For boys, Elijah, Jacob and James are among the chosen ones; for girls, Abigail, Hannah and Sarah are revered. In Britain, such names are seeing an upswing. In 2023 Muhammad was the most popular name for boys in England and Wales, given to more than 4,600 infants, or 1.7% of boys. Unsurprisingly, in both countries name trends have been shaped by immigration. In America the pool of names shrank after the Immigration Act of 1924, which capped the number of people allowed entry; it expanded once limits were loosened in 1965. At that point, there were 10,841 names in America. By 2023, the last year in our data set, there were 28,945 unique ones given to five or more people, compared with 22,680 in 1990, despite fewer children being born. Yet historical names data probably tell only a partial story. In the past, migrants coming to America and Britain often felt pressure to adapt or discard names that sounded too foreign; as both countries have become more ethnically diverse and tolerant, the range of names has grown wider. Today many parents proudly select a name that preserves their cultural identity, seeing it as a statement of belonging rather than an obstacle to integration. In America names linked to Spanish, such as José and Diego, have surged in popularity, as have names linked to Arabic in Britain—Eesa and Sami, for example. Other factors have contributed to the greater range of names enjoyed by children today. In 1948 nearly a third of American children received one of the 20 most popular names; today parents may prefer to pick something more individualistic than conventional. The vogue for 'dictionary names"—ie, words from the dictionary such as Crimson or Summer—has deepened the pool, as has the use of surnames as first names (Archer, for instance). What did you just call me? Yet the internet has probably also contributed to a splintering of popularity. As we studied which names were chosen from year to year, we found that the speed at which trendy names come and go is much faster today than it was even half a century ago. The jumps and dives in popular names are more evenly spread, too. This may be because the internet furnishes parents with more information and sources of inspiration than ever before. Jennifer Moss, the founder and boss of a website, says near-real-time popularity data are driving faster churn in names, as parents see a name racing up the charts and avoid it, rather than risk having a child share a classroom with five Olivias or eight Noahs. Parents also use internet genealogy services to uncover names that are so old as to be nearly out of use. Discovering an obscure Scottish great-grandmother, for instance, can inspire parents to revive her name or surname for a child's first name. In America no name has come close to matching the Linda boom of 1947, set off by Jack Lawrence's song of that name and Linda Darnell, a popular actress. The name was given to nearly 100,000 girls—or 5.6%, up from 3.4% the preceding year. The Linda spike is remarkable for another reason: in percentage terms, no names are nearly as popular now as Linda was then. Popular culture still plays a role in provoking fads. The early 1990s saw a craze for Kevin after the release of 'Home Alone", a hit Christmas film. In the 2000s scores of parents named their daughters Emma, following the choice of Ross and Rachel in 'Friends". In the 2010s 'Game of Thrones" led to a surge in the number of girls being named Khaleesi, after the show's warrior queen. (Few have turned to the character in recent years: Khaleesi went on a genocidal rampage in the show's penultimate episode in 2019.) But these waves are weaker today than at any time in the past century. Parents short on inspiration can trawl through millions of films, songs and tv shows in search of an unusual gem. Or they can consult a list of names that are 'going extinct", such as Barbie (the blockbuster film failed to change its association with being a bimbo) and Homer (which may now be more tied in the public's imagination to the lazy character of 'The Simpsons" than the poet who wrote the 'Odyssey"). Royal names, such as Catherine and Albert, are also becoming less popular. However, parents may find that it is not their selection that will matter as much as the name conferred by future friends and detractors. 'A good name will wear out; a bad one may be turned," wrote Johann Georg Zimmermann, a Swiss philosopher. But 'a nickname lasts for ever".
Mint
6 days ago
- Mint
What really happens to everything you recycle
Waste Wars. By Alexander Clapp. Little, Brown; 400 pages; $32. John Murray; £25 What happens to that single-use plastic bottle after you, a conscientious citizen, place it in a recycling bin? Most people, if they think about it at all, assume it really will be recycled, probably at a facility not far away. Much more likely is that the bin is only the departure point on a long journey to the other side of the world, where that bottle will, at best, be washed, dried, sorted by material, turned into pellets and then reconstituted into something flimsier, such as packaging. Consider that a victory. If it is packaging itself that has been chucked, it will probably end up as a filthy form of fuel, powering the production of cement or even tofu. Or it may go all the way just to sit in Asia or Africa, blighting the landscape, clogging rivers, entering the ocean, being swallowed by marine life—and perhaps finding its way, via the global fish trade, back into your home and even into your body. It is recycling, but not as people traditionally think of it. The broad facts of the fiction of recycling are no secret. But Alexander Clapp, a journalist (who has contributed to 1843, The Economist's sister publication), does something engrossing, if not entirely appealing, in his book. He follows rubbish, travelling to some of the world's most unpleasant places to chronicle the effects of consumption: villages in Indonesia buried under mountains of Western plastic, a ship-breaking yard in Turkey where men tear apart the toxic hulls of American cruise ships with hand tools, a fetid slum in Ghana where migrants extract valuable metals from the rich world's discarded computers and mobile phones. 'Waste Wars" also contains jaw-dropping but forgotten stories, such as that of the Khian Sea, a vessel carrying a season's worth of ash from garbage incinerators in Philadelphia, which set sail for the Bahamas in 1986. The ship and its toxic cargo were denied entry, forcing the crew to look for alternative dumping sites. After 27 months of being turned away from every conceivable port, it arrived in Asia with an empty hold. The captain admitted years later to dumping the ash in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Mr Clapp's aim is not just to display his ample reporting chops, but to trace the rise of a controversial form of globalisation: the growth of the global trade in waste. As Western countries put in place stricter environmental regulation, the job of disposing of their waste fell to poorer ones. Take the ostensibly green European Union: in 2021 it produced 16m tonnes of plastic waste, less than half of which was recycled within its borders. Some exports are well-meaning and welcomed. Used electronics arrived in Ghana as donations to bring people online. China imported plastic waste to use as feedstock. Turkey turned imported scrap metal into highways and skyscrapers. Some of the steel from New York's twin towers, shipped to India as scrap metal, now holds up several buildings, including a college and textile showroom. But too many transactions are exploitative and even dishonest. Shipments of supposedly recyclable paper have turned out to be full of dirty plastic. Diapers soiled by American infants have arrived in batches of supposedly recyclable plastics to stink up the outskirts of Beijing. The Basel Convention, which came into effect in 1992, dealt with the shipment of hazardous waste but left plenty of loopholes. Poor countries have been trying to stop the flood ever since. In 2017 China, which then received half the world's plastic waste bound for recycling, banned its import. Much of that waste travelled to South-East Asia instead. Similar bans in Thailand and Indonesia went into effect this year, fuelled by environmental concerns. If they are enforced, the garbage will find its way somewhere else, such as Malaysia, another big recipient of plastic. Trash talk What is to be done? In a world where humans produce their own weight in new plastic annually, there are no easy solutions. After hundreds of pages describing the problem, Mr Clapp is light on prescriptions. He suggests making rich-world companies financially liable for 'the fate of that which they insist on overproducing". He points the finger of blame at globalisation, weak international co-operation and Western overproduction. There are problems with this. The first is that tightening regulation in the West will only make countries more likely to find workarounds involving poor ones. Global action is also probably a non-starter at a time when long-standing alliances are being tested. As America withdraws from the Paris Agreement (again) and guts the Environmental Protection Agency, the idea that it would impose measures to prevent the export of waste or require firms to do more for the environment globally is unrealistic. Meanwhile, Mr Clapp barely mentions China's role as a manufacturing power, as though importing Western waste absolves it of its own sins of overproducing cheap goods. To portray China as a faultless victim is wrong. At times Mr Clapp's rhetoric sounds suspiciously like a call for de-growth. It is all very well to tell Americans to be less wasteful. But try telling that to the hundreds of millions of Asians emerging from poverty and buying consumer goods for the first time. The West has spent centuries lecturing the East on what is good for it. 'Don't be like us," however well-intentioned, rings the same discordant note. For more on the latest books, films, TV shows, albums and controversies, sign up to Plot Twist, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter
