Nickname, obliteration of oneself
To name of an individual by his nickname is frequent. Old French tradition in what concerns us, it is besides him which is at the origin of the name. One called somebody according to the place where it lived, of its trade, in report/ratio with its physical aspect: Grosjean, Small, Leroux... Any characteristic "except standard" gave place to an expression which finally became the feature of recognition of this one. In the case of the orphans, it is often the place where they were abandoned which their is used as name, even the day, the month when the season. Today the names are not invented any more, one perpetuates to it his. With difficulty the statement of the demographic institutes, with 1,7 children per hearth, the renewal of the population is not ensured any more and the surnames disappear the ones after the others. The statistics showed that if the tendency did not change, all the names would disappear except for only one, most widespread at the present time in France: Martin. A company where there would be only of Martin, one does not dare to imagine it, but reassure us, it is not expected that in a few thousands of years. Moreover with the establishment of the marital status much of these nicknames disappeared and the "adopted" names were the first names of origin: Martin, Vincent, Daniel, Rémy...
The name, in best of the cases thus, remains and the nickname keeps its function of characterizing. Large will be called Bouboule, another grosnez... in the register of the physical "excroissance". For lack of imagination, the nickname (not to confuse with the diminutive) has of another function only to differently name a person. There is a share of denaturation of the individual, it is not perceived more like entity but like a partial sight. Alain, for example, who is obese, is only the support of his handicap, it exists only in "bouboule", if it loses this characteristic, it has neither direction more nor life. The nickname has essentially a nature déstructurante and generates traumatisms directly related to the characteristic. "Quatzyeux", because it carries glasses and that the others insist of this fact on its glance, will have it voyeurism or the exhibitionnism like neurosis.
But we do not mislay, this need, especially child, to call the other, functions only on one projective mode. The other represents my own anguishes, it is the support of my fears without name. The physical difference of the other is taken as a weakness, but especially it arrives at the other that of which I am afraid that it occurs me with me. The nickname can generate serious complexes when it has a pejorative character, discriminant and lowering, how much adults and especially of women the marks of a chahutée childhood carry later. The child wounded in his identity of incipient woman. Who in his entourage did not meet this situation. Where the woman is always too large, too thin, too small or too tall, where the complex woman on her hands, feet, legs, chest, hair. One will be able to never prevent the children from making fun from/to each other. It is where the relative has a dominating role, not in that to reassure: "but not you are not large", of course that if it is it and the child knows it, this kind of step contributes to accentuate this complex, this discomfort. But rather a step of acceptance of oneself as one is, to learn how to like through oneself and not through glance of the others. Moreover the child in his mocking remarks addresses himself only to the already wounded being, a child who does not hold case of the mockeries related to a difference physical or intellectual will be never the prey of the others. There is a share of cruelty in this type of behavior, I cannot if it is necessary in the training of the life like one so often says it, learn how to endure the mockery of the other.
The name, in best of the cases thus, remains and the nickname keeps its function of characterizing. Large will be called Bouboule, another grosnez... in the register of the physical "excroissance". For lack of imagination, the nickname (not to confuse with the diminutive) has of another function only to differently name a person. There is a share of denaturation of the individual, it is not perceived more like entity but like a partial sight. Alain, for example, who is obese, is only the support of his handicap, it exists only in "bouboule", if it loses this characteristic, it has neither direction more nor life. The nickname has essentially a nature déstructurante and generates traumatisms directly related to the characteristic. "Quatzyeux", because it carries glasses and that the others insist of this fact on its glance, will have it voyeurism or the exhibitionnism like neurosis.
But we do not mislay, this need, especially child, to call the other, functions only on one projective mode. The other represents my own anguishes, it is the support of my fears without name. The physical difference of the other is taken as a weakness, but especially it arrives at the other that of which I am afraid that it occurs me with me. The nickname can generate serious complexes when it has a pejorative character, discriminant and lowering, how much adults and especially of women the marks of a chahutée childhood carry later. The child wounded in his identity of incipient woman. Who in his entourage did not meet this situation. Where the woman is always too large, too thin, too small or too tall, where the complex woman on her hands, feet, legs, chest, hair. One will be able to never prevent the children from making fun from/to each other. It is where the relative has a dominating role, not in that to reassure: "but not you are not large", of course that if it is it and the child knows it, this kind of step contributes to accentuate this complex, this discomfort. But rather a step of acceptance of oneself as one is, to learn how to like through oneself and not through glance of the others. Moreover the child in his mocking remarks addresses himself only to the already wounded being, a child who does not hold case of the mockeries related to a difference physical or intellectual will be never the prey of the others. There is a share of cruelty in this type of behavior, I cannot if it is necessary in the training of the life like one so often says it, learn how to endure the mockery of the other.