Designing Names: Requisite Identity Labour for Migrants’ Be(Long)Ing in Ontario
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Designing Names: Requisite Identity Labour for Migrants’ Be(long)ing in Ontario by Diane Yvonne Dechief A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto © Copyright by Diane Yvonne Dechief 2015 Designing Names: Migrants’ Identity Labour for Be(long)ing in Ontario Diane Yvonne Dechief Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto 2015 Abstract This dissertation responds to the question of why people who immigrate to Ontario, Canada frequently choose to use their personal names in altered forms. Between May and December 2010, I engaged in semi-structured interviews with twenty-three people who, while living in Ontario, experienced name challenges ranging from persistent, repetitive misspellings and mispronunciations of their original names to cases of significant name alterations on residency documents, and even to situations of exclusion and discrimination. Drawing on critical perspectives from literature on identity and performativity, science and technology studies, race and immigration, affect, and onomastics (the study of names), I establish that name challenges are a form of “identity labour” required of many people who immigrate to Ontario. I also describe how individuals’ identity labour changes over time. In response to name challenges, and the need to balance between their sometimes-simultaneous audiences, participants design their names for life in Ontario—by deciding which audiences to privilege, they choose where they want to belong, and how their names should be. ii Acknowledgments Thank you very, very much to this study’s participants. You were so generous with your stories, and you articulated your thoughts and your concerns in such novel and passionate ways. Thank you for sharing so much! Sometimes it’s strange to think that I spent only an hour or so in the company of each of twenty-three people, and then have since spent years thinking and writing about our conversations. I sincerely hope I have given due attention to your stories and your names—this has been my main goal. I am very grateful for the help of my dissertation committee, the same engaged professors who saw me defend my initial proposal of this project: Thank you to Dr. Nadia Caidi for her unwavering support and enthusiasm for my project, and especially for being someone I could comfortably speak with about my work and my questions. Nadia’s incisive and practical advice has benefitted me many times. I’ve also learned a lot from group discussions with Nadia’s advisees: many supportive friendships with academic-peers have evolved from our meetings. Thank you to Dr. Andrew Clement for giving a talk in September of 2006 that became the impetus for this project. I have also really appreciated Andrew’s careful consideration of my project and my writing, as well as his welcoming me into his group advisees’ meetings. Thank you to Dr. David Phillips for his enthusiasm at committee meetings and for his distinct and helpful way of explaining things to me. David also introduced me to key authors for this dissertation: John Law, Jay Lemke, Geoff Bowker and Leigh Star. Thank you to my wonderful immediate and extended family! Thanks to my inspiring parents, Denis and Vivian Dechief, whose love, support, and value in education has proven such a strong force in my life. Thank you to my brother, Lyle, for his encouragement, his generosity, and his teasing. I’m so grateful to both of my grandmothers, Elise Dechief and Emily Semple, for their encouragement, their love, and their longevity! iii Thank you also to my cousin, Helene Dechief, who’s been a wonderful and inspiring family member while I’ve lived in Montreal. I’m grateful for this pertinent assistance: Steve Adams created the diagrams in the chapters that follow; Danny Baum brought the provincial gazettes to my attention; Megha Sehdev and Ricardo Wicker offered personal insights; Elysia Guzik suggested the term “identity labour”; and Reuben Rose-Redwood introduced me to the Kripke/Žižek/Butler debate. Thank you to the supportive University of Toronto faculty, especially Philip Oreopoulos, Leslie Regan Shade, Jenna Hartel, Lynne Howarth, Rhonda McEwen, and Kelly Lyons. Thank you to Kathy Shyjack, Christine Chan, and Laura Jantek for guiding me through the bureaucracy. Huge thanks to my many hosts in Toronto: Heather and George Hill, Susan MacDonald, Danielle Allard and Mark Mruss, Lysanne Lessard and Geneviève Gauthier. Thank you to my many officemates for your camaraderie and conversations: Adam Fiser, Krista Boa, Karen Smith, Susan MacDonald. To my peers who weren’t already named above, thank you for your support in this effort: Lisa Quirke, Melissa Fritz, Brenda McPhail, Terry Costantino, Von Totanes. Thank you to my colleagues at the McGill Writing Centre, my workplace over the past three years. The many opportunities to learn with and from you have certainly shaped my thinking and writing: Sue Laver, Sylvie Bosher, Bassel Attalah, Andrew Churchill, Robert Myles, Alana Baskind, Steven Sacks, Alison Crump, Kendra Besanger, Pamela Lamb. I’m also very grateful to my terrificly supportive friends: Steve Patrick Adams, Kristen Alfaro, Rhonda Bartel, Morgan Charles, Amy Chartrand, Gillian Chilibeck, Zoë Constantinides, Risa Dickens, Tammer El-Sheikh, Julia Freeman, Gilbert Fung, Heather Gibb, David Heti, Erin Laing, Jonathan Lumer, Tine Modeweg-Hansen, Marilou Pagé, Katrina Peddle, Kaia Scott, Lina Shoumarova, Nancy Slukynski, Adrienne Spier, Sabrina Ratté, Papagena Robbins, Maya Toussaint, Jess Veaudry, Susana Vera, Sylvain Verstrich, Saleema Webster, the knitting group. And a big thanks to the baristas at Café Olimpico! Thank you to these organizations for their financial support of my project: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information, the University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies, CERIS, the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, the Canadian Society for the Study of Names, the American Names Society. iv Dedication I dedicate my dissertation to my later sister-in-law Penny Anne Thompson who, on September 14th of 2007, was struck and killed by a car while she was cycling near her home. This tragic accident occurred at the beginning of my doctoral work, and since that day, I’ve missed Penny and I’ve thought frequently of her intelligence, her strength, her optimistic spirit, and her enthusiasm for life. Imagining what Penny’s accomplishments would be today, if she could still be with us, is sad but inspiring. I know that Penny would have been very proud of my efforts. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Changing names, changing outcomes ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Context ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Why names? ............................................................................................................ 4 1.2.2 What is the status quo? ........................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Whose status quo? ................................................................................................... 6 1.2.4 Consequences of names .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.5 Changing names or changing the status quo? ....................................................... 10 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 13 2 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Onomastics ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.3 Critical race and immigration ........................................................................................... 15 2.4 Affect ................................................................................................................................ 18 2.5 Identity and