Ethics

Here's a real life question faced by most of us at some point in our lives and that I will soon face: Given our cultural context, what is the best thing to do with the last names of a couple that is to be married? The default position even today of the so-called "person on the street" is that the woman should take the man's last name. However, given the patriarchal ideology which this practice is a manifestation of, this seems like a social norm that ought to be violated until it no longer exists. But what to put in its place? I see three plausible alternatives: (1) both the man and the woman keep their original names; (2) the man takes the woman's name; (3) the man and the woman create a totally new last name that they choose to share in place of their former names. Option (3) seems best to me right now, because it seems to get the desired symbolic value of a common last name (it symbolizes the couple's unity and commitment to live their lives essentially together) without symbolically subordinating either member of the couple to the other. Still, (1) and (2) have their advantages (such as being a marginally accepted practice already and not involving name changing courts, and having greater symbolic protest value against a patriarchal ideology, respectively), and (3) has its disadvantages (it would be difficult to apply universally, geneology would become extremely difficult, and it could result in severe sanctions from both people's families or even in wider social contexts). So, as thoughtful people, what do you think makes the most sense to do?

Comments

As you say, many people face this question. I'll quickly point outthat, in Massachusetts, it is not always a man and a woman who face it.Talk about subverting the patriarchal ideology. Indeed, I believe it'sprecisely because gay marriage (and more generally, the existence ofgay relationships) so profoundly upsets common practices andassumptions that so many people oppose it. (If two men get married, who's in charge?) That may not be theirconscious reason, of course, but I'm convinced that it is often the causallyactive one.

You don't mention option 4, which is commonhyphenation. (Perhaps that's a version of option 3.) Then, of course,you face the problem of which order to use, but perhaps that could bedecided aesthetically or, if you want to make a political point, youcould put the woman's name first. And, speaking of aesthetics, you canget some pretty awful combinations. My brother and his wife weren'tabout to become the Hamm-Hecks. This option has the advantage (which itshares with options 2 and 3, as well as with the common practice) thatis clear what a child's last name should be, but it has thedisadvantage that it is not sensibly iterable: When Alex Baker-Jonesand TonySmith-Williams get married, surely they are not going to become Alexand Tony Baker-Williams-Smith-Jones.

Then there's option 5,which is close to option 4, and is illustrated by this panel's ownTamar Szabó Gendler, whose husband is Zoltan Gendler Szabó. This optionis reciprocal (like options 1, 3, and 4) and leaves the partners, ifnot with a common last name, with names that reflect their relationshipto one another. It has the disadvantage (which it shares with option 1)that it left Tamar and Zoltan with the question what little Laszlo'slast name was to be. (Hey, Tamar, how did you two resolve that?)

Iwouldn't dare to tell someone what to do about this question. But Iwill make a few remarks. First, in most states in the US, anyway,there's no need to involve "name changing courts" if the change of nameis done at marriage: Both parties have a legal right tochange their legal names at the time of marriage. So that's not adisadvantage to (3). Second, while the question what to name apotential child is important, and will arise under options (1) and (5),many women don't seem nearly so concerned about that question as theydo about whether to change the name they've had all theirlives. Most hetero-amorous couples I've known have just named thechildren after the father, that being the path of least resistance,though one could of course take the opposite route. Third, I think it'sworth thinking about whether a common last name really has any symbolicvalue or, if so, how much it has. I don't feel any less close to mywife because we don't have the same last name, and if people think ourmarriage is less committed or loving or what have you because we don't,then society has an even more serious problem than is posed by thepatriarchy. In so far as having different last names poses problems,they tend to be more practical. My aunt started using her husband'slast name some years ago because teachers assumed that she wasn't herchildren's mother, since she didn't share their last name. Suchproblems are less common nowadays, as people are at least aware thatnot all married couples share their last names and so that children maynot share the names of both parents. Fourth, and most importantly, thedecision what to do about this question is a very personal one. What'smost important is that the two people who are to be married arecomfortable with a decision they've made jointly. I'll just register myhope that we can all be respectful of people's choices.

Read another response by Richard Heck

Read another response about Ethics