Abstract
Anthropological studies of names (and terms of address) have been shaped by diff erent theoretical frameworks over time, ranging from evolutionary, functionalist, structuralist, and psychological approaches to symbolic approaches.1 Geertz’s discussion on names and titles is more or less derived from the Maussian-Leenhardt position which assumes that people are incumbents of names, that is, they inhabit a position in a constellation of names. It is often used to make a point about the person being a localized refraction of a social whole, and it is meant to counter the notion of the person as an isolated individual. Renato Rosaldo urged a shift from a system-oriented Maussian-Leenhardt position to a practice-oriented study of names.2 Names do not just refl ect social categories but also what people often “do” with them. I have argued elsewhere that the strategic use of Paiwan names and naming is a social praxis in re-negotiating social relations in daily interaction.3 This also has an impact on long-term historical trajectories for local social hierarchies and regional political dynamics. Th is article focuses on the interface between the Paiwan vernacular naming system and other dominant institutions to articulate the degree of changing identities and possible consequences of this interface on the global milieu.