Playing the Name Game

"Thanks!" to Taylor (in this post) who shared a really interesting essay over at the New Inquiry (click here to read in its entirety). The following are just some excerpts:

Who Can You Trust?
By Sarah Handelman

...The fact that she didn’t know it made Minnie even more of a knockout. In one strut she was timeless; In the next, entirely of the moment. Minnie was an enigma made all the more spectacular by contradictions. The cut she struck was both structured and lithe; daring but demure; forgiving yet unforgettable. She existed to make others look better despite her own unknown glamour. She flirted with the sensibility of one who was not shy about her curves but understood the power of imagination. It wasn’t her intention to intimidate most who met her. For those who kept her close, she was something special: trousers.

Anyone who’s met Minnie will tell you she is not simply a pair of pants.“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” — Karl Marx, “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof” One Google search for “Minnie Pants” reveals pages of devout worshipers who “must have” her. Minnie’s maker, J.Crew, touts her magic qualities: “If you buy one pant this season, make it Minnie,” says her online description. “She’s chic and slim fitting…with a vintage-inspired cropped leg we love.” Although Minnie fits surprisingly well, her tailoring isn’t what makes her special. It’s her name. A dream pant’s moniker is easier to remember than a SKU number,Though this essay focuses on the implications of the Named garment, shelter brands often use monikers to identify products. As a dyslexic, IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad discovered that giving his company’s products proper Swedish names made them easier to remember. Garden furniture is named for Swedish islands; carpets are named for Danish places. However, IKEA has stereotypically engendered certain product ranges, dubbing chairs and desks — typical working and office structures — with the names of men. Domestic items, such as fabrics and curtains, are given women’s names. but J.Crew’s reasoning for bequeathing its “magic pant” with a prenom is not driven by mnemonics. A proper name suggests qualities beyond cloth. Minnie represents a social shift in our concept of personal relationships.

Because many of our daily interactions occur virtually, we connect to and identify with people and material goods differently from their physical compatriots. While our pants don’t have Facebook profiles, bestowing certain garments with a proper name suggests that pursuing a relationship with trousers might not be completely bonkers. In personifying the inanimate through unique monikers, brands like J.Crew and Warby Parker are capitalizing on our search for authentic relationships with the Named garment. Buying into Named garments like Minnie reflects a vulnerability perpetuated by lives spent in the virtual world. As we abbreviate ourselves down to scheduled tweets of 140 characters, we long for something that feels just real enough. And what is more quintessentially human than a proper name? ...

What are your thoughts on the essay? Do you agree with the overall ideas suggested? Please share your take on this! :)