The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name

Patriarchal origins of the tradition

The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name upon marriage stems mainly from long-standing patriarchal family values, where families' surnames reflected the male head of the family, and men were encouraged to marry and reproduce in order to carry the family name forward through the generations.  Girls were considered the property of their fathers until they got married, and then when they got married, they became the property of their husbands, and so took their last names to reflect this.

Legitimate reasons for following the tradition

I regard the patriarchal arguments to be somewhat dubious arguments for preserving and following this tradition and I hope that most readers will agree.  However, the wife taking the husband's last name is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, where groups of close relatives (especially the traditional nuclear family) become known by a family name and have to choose what the family name is.  A wife can consider taking her husband's last name as a positive way of reflecting the fact that she is now part of a new nuclear family, and she may prefer his last name to her birth name.  Or, we can just say, if it's traditional, it's one of many legitimate options, and all parties are happy with it, why not?

Legitimate alternatives

However, note "one of many legitimate ways".  The husband can take the wife's name, they can agree to use a hyphenated/combined family name, or take on a different family name altogether which is not associated with the birth names of the husband or wife.  Another option is for the husband and wife to both keep their birth names and remain socially known by their birth names, but also have a family name which may be named after the husband, wife, both, or neither- this procedure is commonly used by homosexual couples and cohabiting unmarried heterosexual partners for example.

So what's my problem with the tradition?

In short, it is the way that society enforces it.  There are many women out there who would rather not take their husband's surnames upon marriage, but feel obliged to because "that's just the way it's done".  It is an example of where creative thought and individuality is suppressed on the basis that "rules are rules"- married couples are pressured into doing things in a narrow, traditional way, rather than in the way that works best for them.

Also, although we don't like to admit it, for many of us the patriarchal origins of the tradition still linger in our subconscious.  The wife taking her husband's surname is seen as a mark of respect for his authority and the fact that she is now married to him, so if she doesn't take his name, it can be perceived that she isn't fully honouring her marriage.  Men who do not mandate that their wives take their surnames, and especially those who take their wives' surnames, can be labelled with all the usual macho, homophobic slurs- queer, gay, cissy, etc- and told that they need to stop "trying to be too politically correct", "toughen up", and "just accept that traditions should be followed because they should be followed".

I would never argue that the tradition should be outlawed, for as I established earlier, it is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, and as far as I'm concerned, if it has widespread legitimate uses, its legitimate uses should not be banned.  What we need to do, as a society, is be more questioning of why we expect everybody to follow it, especially as many of the reasons are, in reality, dubious.  There is no need for traditions to be imposed on everybody- there are many examples of traditions where groups of people happily follow them, but also happily tolerate others who choose to do things in a different but equally legitimate way.  The tradition of the wife taking the husband's surname should be applied on that sort of basis.

Fundamentals of freedom and responsibility

(Post updated on 19 June 2014)

Freedom is bounded by responsibility

Freedom isn't just about being allowed to do what we want, when we want, because in order to maximise the collective freedom that we enjoy as a society, we have a responsibility to not act in a way that impinges upon the freedom of others, to an extent that more than offsets our own personal gain. One well-established example of this problem is the tragedy of the commons.  And sometimes, we misbehave in ways that are actually detrimental to freedoms in the long run.  These behaviours can thus be termed irresponsible, and we do need rules and regulations in place to help filter out irresponsible behaviour, and to enforce them using the appropriate combination of punishment (to act as a deterrent) and rehabilitation (to reduce the risk of people re-offending).

Rules and regulations require balance

If rules and regulations are too lenient then we may risk allowing irresponsible behaviours, which may erode the collective freedom that society enjoys.  But if we make them too strict, then we end up prohibiting responsible behaviour, and thus eroding our collective freedom as a society.  One classic case is the tragedy of the anticommons- freedoms exist, which could be utilised at no cost to anybody, but because we set up rules prohibiting them and tell the masses that they must obey the rules or face punishment, the freedoms are somewhat under-utilised, at a cost to society as a whole.

It is particularly important that we set up rules that reflect wider moral considerations, and follow them out of respect for those moral considerations.  Many over-restrictive rules survive for decades and even centuries because far too many of us are taught to accept and obey rules without question because "rules are rules" (because the authority who set the rules said so, or because that's just the way we've always done things, for example)- this gives authorities too much power to set up whatever rules they like and argue, "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so."

The two traps that we often fall into re. over-restrictive rules

• Setting up rules that say, "You must follow a certain way of doing and thinking or be marginalised", which prohibit alternative ways of doing and thinking that are harmless, but are seen as different to the expected norm.  This suppresses innovation and independent thinking, and can be associated with discrimination against vulnerable, disadvantaged and/or minority groups.
• Collective punishment/punishment by association- prohibiting and punishing responsible ways of doing and thinking by association with the actions of an irresponsible minority.

One common danger of setting up rules that are too restrictive, and arguing that they should be obeyed purely because "rules are rules", is that some people may rebel against rules in general as a result (including the good ones, as well as the bad) rather than just rebelling against the bad ones, and that can lead to anarchic underground cultures, for example.