Are we married to our last names?

Life outside the womb begins with a name.

A name partly given to us by our parents and partly passed down from generations before.

That hereditary part of our name - the surname or “family name” as it’s commonly known - is steeped in history and heritage.

Our fathers imparted it on us and their fathers imparted it on them and their fathers before them. Today in the United States as in most countries, everyone - men and women alike - carry the names of our forefathers.

With such ubiquity and deep roots, the practice of paternal-based family naming is considered a largely untouchable tradition.

But should it be?

The past

For historical perspective, let’s first explore where it all began. Most of us would probably guess that this practice of passing down our fathers’ names is part of an ancient chain that began around the dawn of human tribes hundreds of thousands of years ago, right? Or at the very least there must have been surnames when modern civilization began 12,000 years ago? Surely, last names were seen when humans started recording history a mere 5,000 years ago?

In actuality, the advent of family names is a relatively recent occurrence in human history. The Chinese invented the practice around 2000 bce - just 4,000 years ago - as a way to better identify and differentiate family units as populations were growing.

More recently, last names became popularized in the Western world by the Romans (but died out after the fall of the Roman Empire, re-emerging 700 years later in 11th-century England). Interestingly, some cultures today including Icelanders and Indonesia’s Javanese people still don’t use surnames, instead opting for one-word names (mononyms) or only first names based on a mother’s or father’s first name (matronyms or patronyms).

This all means that for 296,000 of the human species’ 300,000-year existence, and for two-thirds of the time that we’ve been living in civilized societies, family naming simply wasn’t a thing. And for hundreds of millions of people today still isn’t a thing.

Over the 4,000-year period that surnames have existed, they’ve taken many forms across various cultures. Earlier paradigms included basing surnames on a person’s location (ex. Catherine of Brampton), occupation (exs. John Blacksmith or Amelia Cook), physical or personal characteristics (exs. Elizabeth Short or Charles Armstrong), and various other forms.

All of the many family naming paradigms that have come before were invented by people based on the needs and values of their time.

So shouldn’t it naturally follow that the family naming paradigm we use today meets the needs and values of our time?

The present

To understand the paradigm that we’re currently settled into today, we need to know the underlying concepts of “patricentric” (centered on fathers) and “patrilineal” (flowing from the paternal line).

In today’s modern world, the patricentric surnames we pass down are a source of identity and pride. We proudly feature our last names on everything from diplomas and jerseys and even give them exclusive billing in our most distinguished settings: our teachers and elders go by Mr [Surname] and Mrs [Surname] (or Ms for unwed women); our dignitaries by their station - Mayor [Surname], General [Surname], and the like; and our physicians are revered as Dr [Surname].

We are so proud of our fathers’ names that not only do our sons carry them forward but our daughters do too.

When a daughter marries, she is expected to shed her own father’s name to take that of her husband’s. Lisa Smith becomes Lisa Murphy in an instant, while Jon Murphy remains Jon Murphy from cradle to grave. This patrilineal practice has endured for so many generations that any remnant of maternal-originated identity is long gone. That extinction was made possible by skewed practices like patronymic surnames, whereby a last name is formed by simply combining a father’s first name with “son”, such as Williamson, yet imparting it on all children, sons and daughters alike. Why matronymic surnames like Marthason or female-inclusive surnames like Williamsdaughter are nonexistent today is a curious question worth asking.

While mothers are the magnificent incubators of all human life and typically serve as the family core, we’ve somehow arrived at a place where a woman’s core identity is stripped as soon as she weds. The man gets to enjoy the pride and conveniences of continuity while the woman is thrust into a new identity and unfamiliar lineage.

And what of a couple’s shared children? The kin carry forward their father’s family name into the next generation, relegating their mother’s “maiden name” to an online security question.

How about children of divorced parents? Almost always, the children retain their father’s name, while their mother - the one who birthed them and typically their primary caregiver - embarks on the lonely, complicated, and often humiliating journey of either reverting back to her maiden name or keeping the name of her ex-husband while waiting to take the name of her next suitor. The sting sears even deeper as the mother continues raising children who now solely bear the name of her ex.

It all seems contrived and one-sided, doesn’t it?

Sure, because our not-so-distant forefathers designed it that way.

In the 1700s - just 300 years ago - coverture laws took hold in Britain and spread throughout the British colonies, including pre-revolutionary United States. Coverture - a term derived from the Old French “to cover” - established that upon marriage a woman’s rights, including her property and even her body (marital rape was legal at the time), became under the “cover” of her husband. It essentially passed ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. As land ownership became priority in society, coverture was a legal mechanism to, in part, endow husbands with valuable real estate that could have otherwise been inherited by their wives - a literal land grab from women.

And what better way to make clear throughout communities and within families that a wife belonged to her husband than formally branding her with his surname. Thus, patrilineal surnames became convention. From that thinking flowed an entire system of patriarchal laws and norms that still dominate society today.

Ever since the 1700s, the passing down of male surnames has grown unabated to the point of near-universality - recent studies found that about 97% of married couples with children in the US now - well into the 21st century - pass down only the father’s name.

So if today’s family naming paradigm is rooted in antiquated patriarchal power and subjugation, and if it should perhaps evolve to a more modern egalitarian place where we value women equally, what are the possible alternatives?

There’s a few to consider.

The present alternatives

First, some modern women are choosing to retain their maiden names in marriage. A courageous first step, but short of the mark. Why? Because the name they’re retaining is still a name taken from their father, thus the patricentric cycle is never broken. Plus the solo act of a wife holding onto her maiden name doesn’t solve that any children the couple has will bear the name of their father - “a family of Johnsons with the ‘feminist’ mom who goes by something else”. And if she were to desire that their children carry her family’s last name instead of his? Well, we can guess how most men would take that suggestion, not to mention how it would go over in the community.

Next, we have the steadily-growing option of hyphenating a couple’s last names into one connected moniker. Another noble attempt, but we run into a persistent issue: both names on either side of that well-meaning connector are still exclusively rooted in long lineages of only men. And for the aesthetically-minded folks out there, the inelegance and verbosity of forcing two potentially-long and oft-incompatible names together with a stiff dash is the stuff Apple acolytes’ nightmares are made of. Plus, what happens when it comes time to name the kids? Is the naming unification short-lived by designating just one of the parents’ names to carry forward, or do the kids take the hyphenate tradition into their marriages. Timmy Smith-Hernandez becomes Timmy Smith-Hernandez-Burlington and so on, until all practical hell breaks loose as verbal exhaustion sets in and written character limits are soon reached.

Which brings us to the most elegant and progressive option that egalitarian-minded lovers have come up with thus far: the portmanteau. The concept is simple: instead of hyphenating two family names as they are, blend them into a new single word variation of those names. While rare, some prominent examples exist like former Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa, a blending of his family name Villar with his first wife’s family name Raigosa. But even with such a progressive and creative solution as this, some of the same issues of patriarchal privilege persist: The rooted names are that of only their fathers’, not to mention that one of the names must go first (in the case of the Villaraigosas, his was placed before hers). On the practical side, the portmanteau approach limits us to only the few combinations that the inherited names can offer, some of which won’t have even one palatable option - how does one blend Williams and Hernandez or Jones and Miller?

So what is a modern egalitarian couple to do if they want to establish a truly equal family name while breaking the patricentric cycle?

The potential future

Well, how about doing what humans have done for our entire existence when faced with an opportunity to evolve forward: invent a new way.

Our forefathers invented a new way 300 years ago (albeit an evolutionary step back) when they established the patrilineal paradigm that dictates family names today, so why can’t modern couples take the baton to the next logical place?

With a little creativity and a healthy dose of courage, they can.

What if a modern egalitarian couple created a new family name for their new family unit? One that captured their equal partnership dynamic while still honoring their families’ heritages. One that could be seamlessly shared with their children while instilling a caveat that the next generation could decide for themselves when their time came - pass this surname down or invent anew, it’s up to you.

Because of humanity’s technological advancements, we can rest easy that family histories wouldn’t be lost in those decisions. From computerized record-keeping to DNA matching, we no longer need early tools like surnames to ensure that lineages stay linked - a simple ancestry.com entry or 23andMe kit are our modern genealogy tracking tools.

In creating the new family name, what if every letter of the alphabet was on the table and any word was possible? One that was constructed with clear intention, incorporated hereditary elements from both sides, and held deep meaning for a couple.

What if all of that intention and substance could be accomplished in a single surname that was both practical and elegant? Easy to remember and flowing, simple to spell and beautiful.

Perhaps an inventive solution like this is the next frontier in the evolution of family names.

And if it is the next frontier, maybe all that is standing between here and there is a few brave couples to step onto this new fertile ground of equality and possibility.

To help us all see that honoring heritage and embracing progress can coexist. To help us imagine what a modern family’s identity can look like.

Oh, what matrimony that could be.

⁘

Share your thoughts in the comments below. And using the buttons below, email or SMS text this post to family and friends, or re-post to any of your social networks.