In Toni Morrison's novel, Song of Songs, the names of people and even places take center stage as arguably the driving motif of the book. Names are used to create biblical allusions and delineate the legacy between related characters, but one of the most significant contributions this motif makes to the story is examining the importance of being able to accept and embrace one's name in developing a healthy sense of identity. ; the text delves into the issue first of all by exemplifying how reductive it is for identity to have a name imposed instead of embracing it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe reductive qualities of naming arise from the fact that the individual on whom the name is imposed must be defined, at least partially, by something outside of himself, even in the eyes of the individual in question. Identity becomes particularly problematic for both self-perception and that of others when it is based in any capacity on something that is not actually part of the identified person. First, this principle applies to the name, Milkman, because Freddie bestows it on Macon Dead III simply by spreading the name and pertinent gossip throughout the community where Macon Dead, Jr. owned many rental homes. Milkman neither personally embraced nor affirmed the name, but the reductive elements of imposition also apply to the real name, Macon Dead, as building an independent identity is much more difficult for an individual who inherits their father's name. Beyond the names, Milkman and Macon Dead, however, there is the more unintentional example surrounding the name, Shalimar or Solomon, which can also be viewed similarly. After all, the name is imposed on an entire town in Virginia, and as a result, the legacy of the man who bore the name is treated as the town's very history; furthermore, the people in Shalimar, Virginia all seem concerned with proving their relationship to the original man, and these things prove reductive to the town both collectively and individually. The name, Shalimar, causes Solomon's identity to seemingly invade every individual establishing a sort of ideological sign value in relation to Solomon; in other words, it is consistent with Shalimar, Virginia's argument that one's identity should, indeed, relate to Solomon in some way, which is emphasized more than simply identifying based on oneself alone. Problems arise and abound as a result of naming and subsequent identity misappropriation. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that it affects not only the individual, the object of the imposition, but also anything or anyone with whom the individual's identity is shared as a result of the said imposition. In Milkman's case, this affects both his mother and father. It creates a rift between him and his father, and serves as a sort of nomenclatural symbol of his mother's reluctance to separate him from herself and individualize him. At the beginning of the text, Morrison addresses Macon Dead, Jr.'s feelings towards his father. name, Milkman, on more than one occasion, and overall, Macon II despises the name, discerning through contextual clues that it may only be pejorative in nature. “This disgust and unease with which [Macon Dead] regarded his son influenced everything he did in that city. If he could have felt sad, just sad, that would have relieved him. Fifteen years of regret at not having had a child had become the bitterness of finally having one under the most revolting circumstances” (Morrison 15). The reality of the Macon Dead problem withMilkman is that Milkman, at this early stage in the book, is proving to be quite unlikely to be the male heir that Macon Dead wanted. Macon foresees disappointment in his son, and hates him; all this is the guarantee of damage caused by the imposition of a name on an individual. Milkman's relationship with the Macon Dead remains problematic on various levels throughout the text. The initial disappointment fades with time, but this says nothing of Macon Dead's resentment towards his wife Ruth: Macon was delighted. His son now belonged to him and not to Ruth, and he was relieved not to have to travel all over town like a street vendor collecting rent. […] Everything had improved for Macon Dead during the war. […] and less often he got so angry that he slapped her. Especially after the last time, which became final because his son jumped up and slammed him into the radiator again. (Morrison 63) This physical altercation is a crucial moment, and its significance comes from the fact that Macon Dead dabbles with his son and, within the same paragraph, trespasses into the jurisdiction of inordinate intimacy between Ruth and her son. Of course, it is perfectly normal for a child without such intimacy with his mother to try to defend her from abuse, but the point is simply that this intimacy would probably only exacerbate this fact. Later in the text, when Ruth learns from Freddie that Hagar wants to kill Milkman, she realizes the aforementioned, excessive intimacy, aspects of it that make it problematic: Ruth was relieved. For a moment he imagined that Pilate, who had first brought his son back to life, was now destined to see him dead. But immediately after that moment of relief, she felt hurt that Milkman hadn't told her himself. Then he realized he hadn't actually told her anything, and hadn't for years. Her son had never been a person to her, a separate real person. This passage is indicative of two aspects of the question of identity, both related to the imposition of the name, Milkman. For Ruth, there is a budding revelation that she has robbed Milkman of what Dobie calls individuation: the maturation of a person into a “psychologically healthy, well-balanced adult” (Dobie 64). For Milkman, however, the nickname is indicative of the lack of completeness or self-sufficiency of his identity because it depends on the abnormality of his relationship with his mother during his formative years and, therefore, depends on Ruth herself. Further evidence that naming is harmful to an individual may well be the positivity of a name that the individual embraces. It is interesting to note that Milkman occasionally responds positively to his father and that, on such occasions, Macon Dead, Jr., of course, refers to him by his real name. One of the first examples of Macon speaking to Milkman as an equal, actually pleading while using Milkman's real name, appears when Milkman mentions the tarpaulin in Pilate's house. Speaking of Macon, the text reads: “He turned to his son with his face open and licked his lips. «Macon, take it and you can have half; go wherever you want. Take it. For both. Please take it, son. Take the gold.'” He calls Milkman both “son” and “Macon,” never Milkman, and as might be expected, Milkman certainly obliged, responding positively to his father's plea and probably to his father's consistent use father of his real name. In essence, in Morrison's work the name as an imposition is shown as an obstacle to identity. Milkman, of course, ultimately strives to discover himself, but part of the meaning of the name, Milkman, can be seen as a sign suggesting that he is starting his journey of self-exploration with a deficit; in other words, not only does he lack self-understanding, but he even misunderstands himself as something.