“A rose by any other name”?

William Shakespeare once wrote, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The idea, of course, is that a thing is what it is, independently of the label placed on the thing. The process of labeling or naming is a secondary process, and one that does not change the nature of the thing named.

First → Second

Thing → Name/Label

If we found what we commonly call a rose in our flower garden and renamed it a “feces flower” that would not give the flower a foul smell. Changing the name does not change the thing itself.

Shakespeare's idea fits with common sense, but—as we will see—it is completely wrong much of the time. The most obvious counter-example to Shakespeare's claim is with respect to things like “money” Something is money only on the condition that a community recognizes it as money. If we cease to recognize a thing as money, it ceases to be money. Francs, which used to be money in France, are no longer recognized as money—the French have moved on to use euros. As such, francs are no longer money. Money by any other name will not be the same thing.

The reason for this is that some things are what they are not because of their material properties but because of a set of human social relations. In these cases, the relation between the thing and the human practice makes it what it is.