In Toni Morrison's novel, Song of Solomon, the names of people and even places occupy a central place as undoubtedly the driving motif of the book. Names are used to create biblical allusions and delineate inheritance between related figures, but one of this motif's most significant contributions to the story is to examine the importance of being able to accept and to adopt their name in order to develop a healthy sense of identity. ; the text examines this issue in depth primarily by illustrating how identity-reductive it is to have a name imposed rather than adopted. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay The reductive qualities of name imposition arise from the fact that the individual on whom the name has been imposed must be defined , at least partially, by something external to oneself, 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 of all, this principle applies to the name Milkman, as Freddie grants it to Macon Dead III by simply spreading the name and its relevant gossip throughout the community in which Macon Dead, Jr. owned many houses for rent. Milkman neither adopted nor personally affirmed this name, but the tax-reducing elements also apply to the real name, Macon Dead, in that constructing an independent identity is all the more difficult for an individual who inherits named after his father. Macon Dead, however, there is a more unintentional example surrounding the name, Shalimar or Solomon, which can also be considered the same way. After all, the name is imposed on an entire Virginia town and, therefore, the legacy of the man who bore that name is treated as the town's own history; furthermore, the residents of Shalimar, Virginia all seem preoccupied with being able to prove their connection to original man, and these things prove reductive to the town, both collectively and individually. The name, Shalimar, causes Solomon's identity to seemingly impinge on each individual by establishing a sort of ideological sign value in relation to Solomon; in other words, it is consistent with Shalimar, Virginia's discourse that a person's identity should indeed be linked to Solomon in some way, which is emphasized more than simple self-identification based on oneself alone. Problems arise and abound due to the imposition of a name and the resulting misappropriation of identity. 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 said imposition. In Milkman's case, this concerns both his mother and father. This creates a wedge between him and his father, and it serves as a nomenclatural symbol of his mother's unwillingness to separate him from herself and individualize him. Early in the text, Morrison addresses Macon Dead, Jr.'s feelings toward the name, Milkman, on more than one occasion, and overall, Macon II despises the name, discerning via context clues that he could not be only of a pejorative nature. “This disgust and unease with which [Macon Dead] viewed his son affected everything he did in this town. If he could have felt sad, just sad, it would have been a relief. Fifteen years of regret at not having a son had become the bitterness of finally having one in the most revolting circumstances.(Morrison 15). The reality of Macon Dead's problem with Milkman is that Milkman, at this early point in the book, is proving unlikely to be the male heir that Macon Dead wanted. Macon expects disappointment in his son and he hates it; all this is the guarantee against the damage caused by the imposition of a name on an individual. Milkman's relationship with the Macon Dead remains problematic to varying degrees throughout the text. The initial disappointment lessens with time, but that says nothing of Macon Dead's resentment toward his wife, Ruth: Macon was delighted. His son now belonged to him and not to Ruth, and he was relieved not to have to walk around town like a peddler collecting rent. […] Everything had improved for the Macon Dead during the war. […] and he less often got angry to the point of slapping her. Especially after the last beat, which became permanent because his son jumped up and threw him against the radiator. (Morrison 63) This physical altercation is a pivotal moment, and its significance comes from the fact that Macon Dead gloats over his son and, in the same paragraph, encroaches on the jurisdiction of the inordinate intimacy between Ruth and her son. Certainly, it is completely normal for a child without such intimacy with his mother to seek to defend her against abuse, but the simple fact is that such intimacy would likely only exacerbate this fact. Later in the text, when Ruth learns from Freddie that Hagar wants to kill Milkman, she becomes aware of the aforementioned excessive intimacy – of the facets of it that make it problematic: Ruth was relieved. For a moment, she imagined that Pilate, who had given life to her son in the first place, would now see him dead. But right after that moment of relief, she felt hurt because Milkman hadn't told her himself. Then she realized he hadn't said anything to her for years. Her son had never been a person to her, a real, distinct person. This passage is indicative of both sides of the identity question, both dealing with the imposition of the name Milkman. For Ruth, there is a dawning revelation that she has deprived Milkman of what Dobie calls individuation – the maturation of the individual into "a psychologically healthy and well-adjusted adult" (Dobie 64). For Milkman, however, the nickname is indicative of the lack of completeness or self-sufficiency of his identity as it depends on the anomaly of his relationship with his mother during his formative years and, therefore, of Ruth herself . The imposition of a name is harmful to an individual. This may very well be the positivity of a name that the individual adopts. Interestingly, Milkman responds positively to his father from time to time, and on such occasions Macon Dead, Jr., of course, calls him by his real name. One of the first examples of Macon speaking to Milkman as an equal, pleading using Milkman's real name, appears when Milkman mentions the tarp in Pilate's house. Speaking of Mâcon, the text says: “He turned to face his son and licked his lips. “Macon, take it and you will have half; go wherever you want. Get it. For both of us. Please take it, my son. Get the gold.' » He calls Milkman both "son" and "Macon", never Milkman, and as one would expect, Milkman most certainly obliged, responding positively to his father's entreaty and no doubt to the use constant by his father of his real name. In Morrison's work, the name is primarily presented as an obstacle to identity. Milkman, of course, ultimately strives to discover himself, but part of the meaning of the name, Milkman, can be taken as a sign suggesting that he begins his journey of self-exploration at a deficit; in others.