The 2015 Name of the Year

Dec 16th 2015

Names are personal, and they are public. No matter why you choose a particular name for your child, the name also belongs to the broader culture. It is past and present, it is alive in the world, and its meaning can change over time in ways that are out of your control. For 2015, a year marked by debate over the meaning of symbols and the relationship between our present and our past, the Name of the Year is:


Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird

At the beginning of 2015, the baby name Atticus was clearly defined. By "defined," I don't mean etymology. I'm referring to cultural meaning, our shared understanding of what a name represents. Parents who chose the name Atticus for a son were quietly expressing values of justice, equality, dignity, non-violent strength and a love of literature – and they could feel confident that others would receive the message.

That message came courtesy of Atticus Finch, the father in Harper Lee's beloved novel To Kill a Mockingbird. As the New York Times said in 2012: "There are very few heroes in American literature to rival Atticus Finch — smart, wise, modest, a great shot with a rifle, possessing extraordinary ethical strength, plus, he is the father we all wish we had." He was also blessed with a heck of a name. The name Atticus was striking and (at the time) highly unusual, and it had been associated with learning and wisdom since antiquity. It fit the character so well that it was hard to tell where the name ended and the character began.

Mockingbird itself was a wonder, a highly relatable, easy-to-read work of literary fiction. It won the 1961 Pulitzer Prize, and a film version the next year cemented America's image of Atticus in the impeccable form of actor Gregory Peck. When the year 2015 began, all of that was literary history, seemingly immutable.

Then history changed. In February, Publisher HarperCollins announced the discovery of a long-lost Harper Lee novel, described as a sequel to Mockingbird but written before that book. In this "new" story, titled Go Set a Watchman, an older Atticus Finch has abandoned his earlier principles and devolved into a bitter segregationist.

Parents who had named their babies Atticus took the news as a punch to the gut. Did this new Atticus forever change the hero they'd named after, and the name itself? Could you honor one view of Atticus Finch and not the other?

The Atticus picture was further complicated by the uncertain status of the newly released book. Watchman, it soon became apparent, was less a sequel than a rejected first draft of Mockingbird.

Back in 1957, first-time novelist Harper Lee had sold her Watchman manuscript to J. B. Lippincott publishers. A Lippincott editor saw promise in the book but encouraged Lee to reimagine it, focusing on the compelling flashbacks to the narrator's childhood. Over the course of three years of collaboration a new and vastly improved novel took shape, complete with a more uplifting worldview. It was published as To Kill a Mockingbird.

It's far from clear that the earlier, rejected manuscript was ever meant to see the light of day. Notably, its "discovery" was announced soon after the death of Lee's sister Alice, who had served as a highly protective manager of Lee's affairs. The author herself was in a nursing home, and her competence to approve the publication was unclear.

The circumstances offered an easy excuse for parents to reject the racist figure from Watchman as not being the "real" Atticus Finch. After all, Mockingbird was the finished work, a masterwork which had inspired generations. Surely it would be wrong to allow this early draft to overwrite its place in our culture. On the other hand, the new image was out there, and both versions of Atticus were based on Lee's own real-life father. Could parents legitimately ignore the parts of literature, or history, that they didn't like and hold on to the parts that they did? In the end, would the impression they intended their choice to make still hold, or was its symbolic meaning now indelibly harmed?

If these questions sound familiar, it may be because they've echoed throughout this year in realms far beyond baby names. Consider two examples:

•  In June, a man motivated by racial hatred murdered nine people in an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina. After photos emerged of the murderer posing with Confederate battle flags, major retailers vowed to stop selling Confederate flag merchandise and the state of South Carolina removed the flag from its statehouse. Opponents of these changes continued to defend the flag, insisting it was a cherished symbol of regional pride and heritage rather than a symbol of racism and slavery.

•  In November, a group of Princeton University students staged a sit-in at the university president's office to protest the school's racial climate. One of their demands was to rename the university's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. President Woodrow Wilson, a Princeton alum and former president of the school, is remembered for his progressive legislative policies and promotion of global peace and democracy. Yet he also held strong racist views, and his administration segregated the previously integrated federal civil service.

The Woodrow Wilson case lays out the kind of dilemmas that the present day faces in honoring the past. Wilson's attitudes on racial segregation and inequality were undeniably horrible. Yet his contributions to the realm of international affairs, the Wilson School's subject, are equally undeniable. Does honoring one side of a man's accomplishments imply honoring all sides of him? And to what extent should we judge individuals of other time periods by the standards of our own? (Wilson's racial views were, unfortunately, quite typical for a white Virginian born in 1856.)

To put this quandary in baby name terms, should you name a child after a relative whom you loved despite knowing his many flaws? How much leeway should we give our ancestors on the grounds that they were products of their generations? On a bigger playing field, consider the name Jefferson. If you choose that presidential name for a son, will you be honoring the author of the Declaration of Independence or a slaveholder who fathered children by one of his slaves? Neither aspect of Thomas Jefferson can erase the other. Then there's Confederate President Jefferson Davis to contend with. You may know what the name Jefferson means to you, but guessing what it will mean to others is another matter.

As we saw with Atticus, symbolic messages can change, sometimes quite suddenly. Just the fact of public attention can make the difference. A Harvard Law School official recently acknowledged this in a controversy over the school's seal, which is based on the coat of arms of a brutal slaveholding family:

"Symbols are important," Martha Minow, dean of the law school, said this week. "They become even more important when people care about them and focus on them."

For decades, the sheaves of wheat on the law school seal were simply seen as wheat. Now that their connection to slavery has been highlighted, they have become something very different. The seal's public meaning has changed. Similarly, in the wake of the Charleston massacre it became increasingly impossible to fly the Confederate flag without sending a message of racism, regardless of the flag flyer's intent.

The new message sent by the name Atticus is less clear. Over the years to come, we may well find that the alternate vision of the Finch family fades as a mere curiosity, or that the reservoir of good will that Atticus has built up is formidable enough to withstand it. But for parents considering the name, their decision is now part of the complex societal calculation in which we weigh our flaws, our present and our past.



Read More: Other top name stories of 2015


December 17, 2015 12:34 PM

This is a very well-written piece. Thanks for giving us such a thoughtful analysis of the naming zeitgeist. It is very difficult to live with complexity, but I suspect that most people who choose a name from literature are up to the task.

December 18, 2015 3:14 PM

I haven't read Go Set a Watchman yet, but I have taught To Kill a Mockingbird, and I have to say that I think people misunderstood the character of Atticus Finch in the original novel.  He is seen through a child's eyes, and the child and Atticus both live in an extremely racist, but also extremely class-based.  I got the sense throughout the first book that Atticus's objections to the racism of Maycomb were based more in a sense that it was "common" or "vulgar" than that it was wrong to have prejudice against black people.  At one point he even compares himself to Cotton Tom Heflin, who was a vicious segregationist.  I see that these references are difficult for the average high school student, but I think teachers could have done a better job of demonstrating how race and class interact in the world of the book.

That said, I have always found Atticus admirable despite his prejudices.  It makes little sense for Atticus to be the sole non-racist man in Maycomb.  It makes sense for him to have prejudices matching those of the people around him.  But he stands up for Tom Robinson anyway.  Tom Robinson received a legal defense he couldn't have expected, and Atticus's willingness to actually fight for him mattered.  If Atticus was a racist, then how much more of an accomplishment was it for him to stand up for justice anyway?  The problem is that the child narrator only hints at the complex nature of Atticus's character, in a way that makes it difficult for the average reader to notice through the hero-worship.

December 17, 2015 9:18 PM

Great name of the year choice. :)

December 18, 2015 2:44 PM

Optatus Cleary, thank you for the interesting perspective! It wouldn't have occurred to me to consider how the book is "taught" to readers, because in my house it's only been read for pleasure, never assigned in school. (My kids both spontaeously picked it up around age 12-13, as did I once upon a time.)

I've certainly noticed, though, how the book changes and becomes subtler rereading it as an adult. I'm glad to have had both experiences.

December 19, 2015 4:27 PM

This was a great choice and a well-written analysis! I struggled with the complexities of honor-naming when choosing middles for our kids. Anytime you're naming after falliable human beings, you have to weigh the good qualities with the bad, and consider how your relationships with and opinions of the "honored" might change over time (or even what you might still learn about them down the road if they're deceased).

December 22, 2015 6:30 PM

Great article! 

One interesting note about Spurgeon is that the Preacher Spurgeon is noted for his anti-Catholic views. Jessa Duggar's husband Ben got in a spot of bother earlier this year for posting some fairly vitriolic anti-Catholic posts on Facebook and Instagram. I think that's where a lot of the criticism of the name lies.

September 11, 2016 2:13 PM

Check out this pokemon go hack tool that everyone is talking about as it giving hacking the pokemon go gps.

October 3, 2016 12:29 PM

<a href="">kingroot app download</a>

October 22, 2016 3:27 AM


Megabox hd apk or use this link

June 1, 2017 9:50 PM

Around me the most popular -lyn name is Evelyn.  We are in an affluent suburb in the NE. happy room juegos friv



July 10, 2017 4:23 AM

This is why new Android applications are coming frequently. Developers always look iMovie For Windows for the suitable mobile technology to work upon. Android is that mobile technology which provides developers as well as users interesting & wider options.

August 22, 2017 5:50 AM

The people may contact the Microsoft customer support team for any type of technical support related to the MS Office. You can contact <a href="">ms access setup support number </a>