The name of a discipline is not merely an identifying label; it is a complex discursive act and an ontological statement that formulates its identity, legitimacy, scope, and position within the constellation of human knowledge. This inquiry adopts a critical approach, utilizing frameworks from analytic philosophy of language, to investigate the fundamental linguistic challenges inherent in naming the field of ‘management.’ The objective is to demonstrate how the seemingly simple, philosophically-neutral choice of a title such as "Management" or "Administration" is itself the product of a complex labyrinth of historical determinism, technocratic pragmatism, epistemological conflicts, and power dynamics. This paper argues that this act of naming, irrespective of value judgments, is not a simple coincidence but rather an active, formative agent in delineating the boundaries, the ostensibly interdisciplinary nature, and the perpetual crisis of legitimacy within the discipline. By examining competing hypotheses, analyzing the mindset of key actors, and proposing alternative names as thought experiments, this article seeks to substantiate the proposition that "naming is itself a form of understanding and constructing the reality of a field of knowledge."