Our dictionary of the first name thus comprises more than 2.000 denominations today, however only 10 first names currently are enough to count a quarter even a third of the incipient population each year. For 1997, the three first names most given are: Are Manon, Lea and Laura at the girls and Quentin, Alexandre and Nicolas for the boys *. it with saying that the choice is founded primarily on a phenomenon of mode? Not will answer the near total of the parents concerned.

    The choice of the first name of the child is not the fact of the chance. Why such first name rather has more preferences for the parents than another. Each person consciously or not is able to explain, or try to explain, why it gave the first name X to her daughter and Y with her son. The first evoked reason is that of affinity. Like the first name the parents and the justification is appropriate for itself. But the choice of the first name answers in fact much more criteria than one could not imagine it. Cultural factor initially, the range is not the same one as one is originating in north or of the south, than one reasons in country or in area, than the language is foreign, of the patois. Social factor then, relating to the standard of living and the hierarchical occupation of the individual within the company. Factor of mode again but whose origin and mechanisms are much more complex than it does not appear and would return to with it to the preliminary reading of "psychopathologies of the everyday life" of Freud. All these elements of the type "patchwork" represent an elaborate mesh which leads reflexion to the final decision. Such an amount of the couple with the arrival a child takes the name of "family", so much in the first names, this classification also applies. We will distinguish several types of family of first names according to the elements previously quoted.

    A first name is more than one word to name, it is first of all emotion, feeling, it one is felt. It is transmission of love, the child, commonly admitted, is the fruit of a love, the prénommer amounts realising this triad Father-mother-child. It is what generation after generation each one is tried to transmit beyond oneself. The failures are numerous but it is not a question here to extend on the drift here or there from some but rather from the traumatism generated by this act which approaches the childbirth finally, painful childbirth which is that of the choice of the first name. With the act of love a displacement of succeeds what one was, which one would have liked to be or not, of what one would have liked to be born for oneself from another.

    It is true that such a step does not go without shocking, each one of we have a first name, it thus acts of oneself to find among these pages, to run up against deepest old disorders, that one believed forgotten and to awake can be old pains. In this direction to make psychoanalysis of corner of table, that which consists in breaking resistances as a wisp of straw that it had been necessary to build years by years. There if the reader approaches this modest contribution in this way, if it feels attacked in these statements, it is that I would not have succeeded. I try to show that to choose a first name for a child is a traumatisant act from which nobody escapes. When I speak about traumatisant there act one should not inevitably there see torture, blow of stick or voluntarily return to his child "nut". Trauma comes from the Greek wound with effraction, one speaks about traumatism in medicine and surgery like the consequences on the whole of the organization of a lesion resulting from an external violence. The psychoanalysis took again these terms while transposing them on the psychic level, it is necessary to keep there the direction of violent shock, effraction, that of consequences on the whole of the organization (Vocabulary of the psychoanalysis, Laplanche and Pontalis, Puf). It is this last definition which interests us here: "effects on the whole of the organization". Indeed to choose and give a first name to a child do not go without consequences. The fact of associating good "or" bad "correspondences it" is of the order of the judgement, of criticism that each one can bring where the divided opinions are found. The psychoanalysis does not have this capacity nor this right to judge, at most to note, hear.

    These remarks are thus not either a catalogue which will tend to return Aglaë sharp and intelligent, the Luc sportsmen and inventive... Certain symbols are indeed related to the first names but from there to entirely forge the character of the person while being limited to the first name... It is all the context of this choice which should be considered, lived of the parents and the entourage, history and the history of the first name in the family in question. This work brings only some brief replies but much more question. One proceeds in the same way during interpretation freudienne of the dreams. The dream is in charge of symbols, but to dream that one loses its teeth does not want to say only in the week which will follow we lose a expensive being. It is the way in which one tells his dream which gives him a direction, only the dreamer is able to approach the key of his dreams, in the "statement" and not in the catalogue of the dreams. To want all to index, to generalize represents a danger, in the dreams, the first names, numerology etc etc. One forgets a little too often the single character of it human being, that each one has its own operating mode. If the men resemble each other they are in all different points nevertheless, to start with their genetic chart.

    Even that which will seek in these lines a first name "without risk" for his/her child will not find instructions. Normality according to Freud is to be all of the neurotics. Fruit of my flesh, of my blood, the flesh of my flesh, my end with me, the part of me, all these names whose list is long explicit this will not hidden "to produce" something of oneself, to make perdurer part of oneself. The animal kingdom is limited to ensure the continuation of the species, the human being, more complex animal also holds this component.

    France made case of its birth rate: 1,6 or 1,7 child by couple, below thus the threshold of 2 which ensures perpetuation. Why thus the French company thus encourage does the families to procreate, why the advantages of the cases of family benefits support the families of at least three children? The answer goes from oneself, France "die". One speaks about turning into a desert of the campaigns, but the birth rate is one of the major concern of the various French governments which follow one another. To start with the problem arising from the retirements. One us surinforme on the danger which weighs on the retirements of rising generation, that which hardly starts to work. There will be nobody any more, or rather enough of cotisants in a score of years. And numbers theories are worked out for stage with this lack of child. Who will pay for the "old men"? Some campaigns at the national level were launched, incentive "French" to make children. These campaigns were followed financial soft foods for which "will contribute" to the repopulation of France. The word can certainly appear a little strong but it is indeed about a crisis of the birthrate. Germany knew this problem until in the years 1988, with a rate of 1,4, but the reunification made it possible to go up this percentage. The ex East Germany having a rate higher than 2. But the crisis is only pushed back.

    It makes me think of the various debates and polemic which exist on the countries in the process of development. It is not rare to hear in our shows of the reflexions on the number of children in the countries of North Africa or Power station. "They have the AIDS, of the diseases, they die all of hunger and they refuse contraception that we civilized countries bring to them", decorated well somewhat coarse cavity of qualifiers to underline their silly thing. It is true that in Ethiopia, at Sudan, etc a woman puts at the world seven children at least, out of these seven only two or three will survive. Hold one finds the figure two, that necessary to the continuity of the species. The human being known as is endowed with intelligence, it does not remain about it less one species among others in the animal world. Unconsciously these countries face the daily difficulties that they must endure. They do not have or little food, not enough for everyone, but the method which they use, though one can think about it, is not so inhuman only that. It is difficult for us countries "civilized and developed" to include/understand this attitude. The traditions and the customs are foreign for us but these countries there nevertheless are populated the human ones in spites of the statements of some.

    And why in China, the reasoning reverses? Does the family have to limit itself to a child, preferably a boy and the parents incur financial sanctions if they put at the world a second child? Indeed these people which count more than one billion inhabitants, must fight against the phenomenon of overpopulation which harms the Chinese economy seriously. This country, not being familiarized yet with the modern means of contraceptions does not have to set up a series of drastic measure. But like contraceptive, the effectiveness still remains to be proven. Numbers of couple finds itself with a second child "without the knowledge of their full liking" and the abandonments are not rare. It also developed a parallel network of abortion "house", generating rather frequently the death of the mother. The methods remain the same ones as in France but several ten years behind, the abortion by needle to be knitted, shocks violent ones related to the belly, stop there, the goal not being to make a catalogue of cruelty. When the first child is a girl, the couples are reduced by it to use methods like the drowning, smothering... On the other hand if "the good" couple made only one child, a boy, it will touch premiums of the State to allow him to follow a schooling in the example shown by the leading political community.
    India from here ten year will have a population higher than that of China but concentrates itself only now on its problem of overpopulation.

    The demography of a country is a major concern in each country according to whether it is in lack or "too" of child. It is only one aspect of the human reproduction, registers some share in our genes, this need to procreate, ensure its descent as well as that which one meets in the animal kingdom. Certain larvae of butterfly spend the years under ground before being born, reproduce in only one day and in the fallen night die.

    The child it is what it will remain of oneself when we are not any more. Then all starts with the first name.
