Last Name

[Monica child of God 1]

I think if we looked at more cultures worldwide and through time we would find many examples of family name traditions that don't follow what we now understand to be "normal."

M.

 

[Damaris]

I think if we looked at more cultures worldwide and through time we would find many examples of family name traditions that don't follow what we now understand to be "normal."

M.

Yeah, in Iceland there are no family names, only patronymics, similar to the Jewish custom.

 

[rusmeister]

Ye, but there is a norm established in our own culture - that of Christendom - which spans two millennia and over half the globe, that decided that there would be definite family identification, generally through the father. Yes, there are exceptions, the exceptions are not the rule, and they are largely outside of Christendom.

Deliberately bucking the tradition from within Christendom in modern times is generally aimed at establishing the independence of the individual, something inconsistent with the interdependence required in a family.

Ask Frederica why she hyphenated her name.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

My posts were in response to this assertion:

"Human tradition - and certainly Christian tradition - has always determined that the family, having one flesh, shall have one name"

This ^ is not true. "Human tradition" and "always" make it incorrect. The "tradition of the majority of Christianized cultures" may be a correct assertion.

M.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

Yeah, in Iceland there are no family names, only patronymics, similar to the Jewish custom.

Oh yeah! Björk Guðmundsdóttir

M.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Last names in general are a pretty recent thing anyway as these things go. To be called 'John's son' is old as the hills, but Johnson is probably only a few hundred years old. The nobility had last names, but most everyday people were known by their trade (Miller, Smith, etc) or their village, or their parents. There are quite a few European countries that only have last names because it was expected of them by the countries around them. Most Greek last names are a good example of this - just about anything ending in 'ou' is the genetive form of a name (so essentially so&so's son) or place, created relatively recently out of a perceived cultural need. This leads to a few fun things particularly amongst Cypriots where you get Adam Adamou being a common name in the family (because you name for the grandfathers) or Ioannis Ioannou (Andrew has a cousin named this, and if we get married tradition states that we have to have a kid named that!)
Until we all moved out of the villages everyone knew who everyone else was, so 'the son of John the Miller' was all you needed to identify someone.

Given all this, you can hardly claim that it's been a common thing amongst all Christians for a long time - it hasn't. It's only the nobility and some merchants that travelled that ever needed to have 'last names'.

On the subject of Jewish last names Monica, I read once (in a scholarly publication) that most Jewish last names are even more recent than the ones that evolved at the end of the Middle Ages (or later) because in much of Europe due to their second class status they weren't allowed to have last names. A lot of the last names we know of now were created very recently when they finally had the freedom, and some of them have interesting origins dating to before they were allowed to have official last names, like Rothschild.

 

[MKJ]

Last names in general are a pretty recent thing anyway as these things go. To be called 'John's son' is old as the hills, but Johnson is probably only a few hundred years old. The nobility had last names, but most everyday people were known by their trade (Miller, Smith, etc) or their village, or their parents. There are quite a few European countries that only have last names because it was expected of them by the countries around them. Most Greek last names are a good example of this - just about anything ending in 'ou' is the genetive form of a name (so essentially so&so's son) or place, created relatively recently out of a perceived cultural need. This leads to a few fun things particularly amongst Cypriots where you get Adam Adamou being a common name in the family (because you name for the grandfathers) or Ioannis Ioannou (Andrew has a cousin named this, and if we get married tradition states that we have to have a kid named that!)
Until we all moved out of the villages everyone knew who everyone else was, so 'the son of John the Miller' was all you needed to identify someone.

Given all this, you can hardly claim that it's been a common thing amongst all Christians for a long time - it hasn't. It's only the nobility and some merchants that travelled that ever needed to have 'last names'.

On the subject of Jewish last names Monica, I read once (in a scholarly publication) that most Jewish last names are even more recent than the ones that evolved at the end of the Middle Ages (or later) because in much of Europe due to their second class status they weren't allowed to have last names. A lot of the last names we know of now were created very recently when they finally had the freedom, and some of them have interesting origins dating to before they were allowed to have official last names, like Rothschild.

An interesting question might be whether the move to standardize last names is "missing" something, and that is why it is now being abandoned by some.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I am thinking back to the anthropology class I took. One thing that has changed is that when two people marry, neither spouse leaves their family of origin to physically join their spouse's household. This was the pattern for most of human history, from what I have read. A house, compound, adobe structure, whatever would include multiple generations.

Reminds me of this passage we hear at services from Psalm 45:

Listen, O daughter,
Consider and incline your ear;
Forget your own people also, and your father’s house;
So the King will greatly desire your beauty;


The bride joined her husband's family home or the groom joined his wife's family home, depending on cultural patterns and the wealth or prominence of the family.

In modern Western society, we shifted to the nuclear family being the norm. It is expected that two people will establish a household separate and distinct from the family of origin. So a wife or husband isn't really joining a new clan. Add to that the fact that in the majority of homes, both spouses are financially responsible for the household which is another shift. In the past in Western society, women had far less education compared to men and couldn't have a separate bank account or open a line of credit. In a modern marriage, each person brings wealth and personal property (even if it is just a Kitchen-aid and a couch). All of this is what is probably behind the uptick in the trend toward double-barrelling or keeping one's maiden name.

M.

 

[Damaris]

Ask Frederica why she hyphenated her name.

Maybe it would be more pertinent to ask why she didn't have to change it when she converted to Orthodoxy.

I know a lot of Orthodox who kept their own names or double-barreled. It's a cultural issue, not a faith issue.

 

[rusmeister]

My posts were in response to this assertion:

"Human tradition - and certainly Christian tradition - has always determined that the family, having one flesh, shall have one name"

This ^ is not true. "Human tradition" and "always" make it incorrect. The "tradition of the majority of Christianized cultures" may be a correct assertion.

M.

Thanks, Monica. I see the problem. "Always" is broad; I insist on Christian culture, but think it expands to most other cultures in most other places and most other times. I agree that historical EXCEPTIONS can be found that are by no means "wrong".

But the MODERN practice is DECIDEDLY not connected to the exceptions you can find; it is decisively connected to feminism on the whole.

I apologize for the Russian:

Готовность к самопожертвованию — это не только главное условие преодоления последствий развода. Это и главное условие успешной семейной жизни, и, наверное, одна из главных проблем и ошибок в семейной жизни — это неспособность что-то отдать, чем-то пожертвовать. Эта жертвенность пронизывает семейную жизнь во всех ее проявлениях, от самых элементарных, до самых глубоких и возвышенных. Одна прихожанка нашего храма, — ныне покойная, дочь царского генерала, прожившая трудную жизнь и имевшая очень счастливую семью, детей и внуков, — в разговоре с другой женщиной, гораздо моложе нее, вдруг узнала, что та оставила в браке свою девичью фамилию. Выяснилась и причина такого решения — не хотелось менять множество документов в университете, где учились вместе молодожены. Хорошо помню, как, услышав это, пожилая дама заметила в весьма резкой и, надо сказать, обычно не свойственной ей манере: «Мне и в голову такое прийти не могло, я своему мужу не только фамилию, я ему всю жизнь отдала, какие тут могут быть трудности с документами». Конечно, фамилия — далеко не самый важный вопрос семейной жизни, гораздо важнее готовность делить вместе абсолютно всё: и самое важное, и второстепенное.

"×ÅËÎÂÅÊ ÎÒÌÎÐÎÆÅÍÍÛÉ"

Lazy Babelfish translation with some editing:

Readiness for self-sacrifice - this is not onlythe main condition of overcoming the consequences of divorce - it is also the main condition of successful family life, and probably one of the major problems and the errors in family life - the incapacity to give something up, to sacrifice something. This spirit of sacrifice pierces family life in all its manifestations, from the elementary, to the deep and elevated. One parishioner of our temple, now deceased, the daughter of a tsarist General, had lived a difficult life and had a very happy family, children and grandchildren, in conversation with a much younger woman, suddenly learned that the latter had kept her maiden name. The reason was the many documents at the university, where the newly-weds studied together, were difficult and undesirable to change. I remember well, as, after hearing this, the elderly lady noted in a very sharp and uncharacteristic manner: “It would never come into my head; I have given my husband not only my last name, but my entire life - what here there can be difficulties with documents?”. Certainly the last name is far from the most important question of family life, much more important the readiness to divide together absolutely everything: and the most important, and everything else (including last name).

from the experience of arch-priest Nikolai Emelyanov

THAT is the Christian, the Orthodox spirit - where both give all to both.
That does not make it "wrong" in and of itself to keep one's maiden name or hyphenate - but those are indicators in our time of not giving all to the other, of holding back oneself.

 

[rusmeister]

Last names in general are a pretty recent thing anyway as these things go. To be called 'John's son' is old as the hills, but Johnson is probably only a few hundred years old. The nobility had last names, but most everyday people were known by their trade (Miller, Smith, etc) or their village, or their parents. There are quite a few European countries that only have last names because it was expected of them by the countries around them. Most Greek last names are a good example of this - just about anything ending in 'ou' is the genetive form of a name (so essentially so&so's son) or place, created relatively recently out of a perceived cultural need. This leads to a few fun things particularly amongst Cypriots where you get Adam Adamou being a common name in the family (because you name for the grandfathers) or Ioannis Ioannou (Andrew has a cousin named this, and if we get married tradition states that we have to have a kid named that!)
Until we all moved out of the villages everyone knew who everyone else was, so 'the son of John the Miller' was all you needed to identify someone.

Given all this, you can hardly claim that it's been a common thing amongst all Christians for a long time - it hasn't. It's only the nobility and some merchants that travelled that ever needed to have 'last names'.

On the subject of Jewish last names Monica, I read once (in a scholarly publication) that most Jewish last names are even more recent than the ones that evolved at the end of the Middle Ages (or later) because in much of Europe due to their second class status they weren't allowed to have last names. A lot of the last names we know of now were created very recently when they finally had the freedom, and some of them have interesting origins dating to before they were allowed to have official last names, like Rothschild.

Just so it's clear, Kyriaki, my insistence is that the family had one name, however that name was formed, and traditionally it was the woman that accepted whatever the man's family name was.

I'm not so interested in the details of who exactly used what formula historically as I am in the modern moves based on a philosophy of individual independence and sometimes even planning for possible divorce in advance. THAT'S what I'm kicking against, not various historical permutations of what that one family was called.

 

[rusmeister]

An interesting question might be whether the move to standardize last names is "missing" something, and that is why it is now being abandoned by some.

Nah. I think that's sheer speculation.
The important thing is that the family be united, in all aspects treated as one family, not as something potentially divisible.

To bring in the reductio ad absurdum, we simply cannot throw in, add and keep all of the family names of all of our ancestors. (Well, if we were Ents I suppose we could )

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Yes but my point was, the family didn't have one name. You were simply the son of someone or the daughter of someone or the husband of someone or the wife of someone or the person who did x profession or if you were really unlucky, the person who was remembered for some particular deed they'd done. People simply knew who everyone else was because everyone lived in relatively small communities.

There are a number of reasons why people might or might not keep their maiden name at marriage these days, not all of which are related to feminism. I know people who kept their maiden name for professional reasons - if your name is on the diplomas as one thing, it's a lot easier to keep that name if you're a scientist or a lawyer or a doctor. You want that parchment to be instantly recognisable as referring to you, now. Noone asks a man to change his name at any time, and while it might have been practical to expect all women to change their names when their names would not have been on any documents except the baptismal and marriage registries, let alone legal documents or diplomas, it isn't always so now. And the only reason that could be a 'feminist' thing is if you disapprove of women having professional degrees that they need diplomas in in which case I am well and truly bowing out of this!

I also know people who have their maiden name because of a particularly strong family pride or a historical tradition in their family - in places like the USA or Australia, there's such a recent migrant history that it's perfectly reasonable that people would come from Europe where the culture is somewhat different (and always has been) with last names.

Yes, there is a 'I want to keep my last name because it is my identity' thing in a certain kind of feminist thinking, but I'm pretty sure that it's not the dominant reason behind most women keeping their name or double barreling it. Double barreling names has tended to be an aristocratic thing (nobility again!) and has to do with the noble families in the lineage both being acknowledged. It pre-dates feminism as we know it by quite a while. Given this history, I think it's cumbersome to do it but I can't see a problem with it. At least then you're acknowledging both sides of your family. As Monica said, we're not in an era where the woman leaves her family to join her husband's extended family and therefore gives up her name for his.

I'm hardly the biggest fan of feminism (particularly the more recent waves of it) myself, but your argument here (particularly in appealing to history) isn't strong. All this said I probably will take my husband's name, but I'm not likely to be graduating before I get married so the name on the parchment will match If I was an academic with much published by the time I was getting married though, I would think twice about at least double barrelling my name or continuing to publish under my maiden name.

 

[MKJ]

Nah. I think that's sheer speculation.
The important thing is that the family be united, in all aspects treated as one family, not as something potentially divisible.

To bring in the reductio ad absurdum, we simply cannot throw in, add and keep all of the family names of all of our ancestors. (Well, if we were Ents I suppose we could )

I don't think being united is really about all having one name, and it doesn't make it more divisible unless that is your assumption already.

The thing is, your argument from history doesn't really fly - it isn't a matter of exceptional circumstances. There have been so many different practices that one really can't even make a rule. The kinds of fixed last names we have now are actually kind of unusual. My family name is Scottish and would have originally only applied to males - were those families not really unified because the men and women were known by different last names?

I think the reasons many women keep their last names are related to marrying later and having professions. And probably as well the increase in documentation and records.

 

[rusmeister]

Yes but my point was, the family didn't have one name. You were simply the son of someone or the daughter of someone or the husband of someone or the wife of someone or the person who did x profession or if you were really unlucky, the person who was remembered for some particular deed they'd done. People simply knew who everyone else was because everyone lived in relatively small communities.

There are a number of reasons why people might or might not keep their maiden name at marriage these days, not all of which are related to feminism. I know people who kept their maiden name for professional reasons - if your name is on the diplomas as one thing, it's a lot easier to keep that name if you're a scientist or a lawyer or a doctor. You want that parchment to be instantly recognisable as referring to you, now. Noone asks a man to change his name at any time, and while it might have been practical to expect all women to change their names when their names would not have been on any documents except the baptismal and marriage registries, let alone legal documents or diplomas, it isn't always so now. And the only reason that could be a 'feminist' thing is if you disapprove of women having professional degrees that they need diplomas in in which case I am well and truly bowing out of this!

I also know people who have their maiden name because of a particularly strong family pride or a historical tradition in their family - in places like the USA or Australia, there's such a recent migrant history that it's perfectly reasonable that people would come from Europe where the culture is somewhat different (and always has been) with last names.

Yes, there is a 'I want to keep my last name because it is my identity' thing in a certain kind of feminist thinking, but I'm pretty sure that it's not the dominant reason behind most women keeping their name or double barreling it. Double barreling names has tended to be an aristocratic thing (nobility again!) and has to do with the noble families in the lineage both being acknowledged. It pre-dates feminism as we know it by quite a while. Given this history, I think it's cumbersome to do it but I can't see a problem with it. At least then you're acknowledging both sides of your family. As Monica said, we're not in an era where the woman leaves her family to join her husband's extended family and therefore gives up her name for his.

I'm hardly the biggest fan of feminism (particularly the more recent waves of it) myself, but your argument here (particularly in appealing to history) isn't strong. All this said I probably will take my husband's name, but I'm not likely to be graduating before I get married so the name on the parchment will match If I was an academic with much published by the time I was getting married though, I would think twice about at least double barrelling my name or continuing to publish under my maiden name.

Hi, Kyriaki,
You evidently did not read the Russian story I posted, which made a point specifically about names on diplomas. I guess I'd ask you to go back and read that.

I don't wish to argue about history. We evidently disagree about what the exception in tradition is, especially over the last several hundred years, when the "familia" (surname/last name) became an undisputed and definite thing in our culture.

Also, I do NOT say that people buck the tradition (that definitely did develop and over those last few years has been the undisputed practice of all_ because they ARE feminist or have conscious feminist intent. I say they do it because of the INFLUENCE of feminism in general, which aims at keeping the woman who becomes a wife someone separate and not united - to maintain a manner of independence in antithesis to the intended nature of marriage. Again, that is what feminism does, not what people intend to do, so of course it is unintended.

I believe that ALL of us (including me), coming into the Church, bring baggage from the modern world with us. Some may bring (unconsciously) racism or sexism, or feminism, or even pluralism, with varying effects on how we perceive application of the faith.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't think being united is really about all having one name, and it doesn't make it more divisible unless that is your assumption already.

The thing is, your argument from history doesn't really fly - it isn't a matter of exceptional circumstances. There have been so many different practices that one really can't even make a rule. The kinds of fixed last names we have now are actually kind of unusual. My family name is Scottish and would have originally only applied to males - were those families not really unified because the men and women were known by different last names?

I think the reasons many women keep their last names are related to marrying later and having professions. And probably as well the increase in documentation and records.

I think I already mostly answered this in my reply to Kyriaki. It cannot be argued that the rule nearly everywhere over the past few hundred years has decidedly been the surname/last name, and that people WITHIN the definite tradition of the last name buck that tradition (and then appeal to the historical exceptions as excuses without dealing with why they actually want to buck the tradition. On documents, that's in the story. If you folks won't read my stories, what's the point? Yes, it is an inconvenience. But philosophically, it is, within a tradition that unites families under one name, eschewing that tradition (and the solid and in our time now essential justification) in the name of personal convenience.

How many now could understand the pride a woman could feel in becoming "Mrs. (husband's last name)"? That pride is based on a real philosophical statement with a most practical effect. The particular illness of our society, in relation to marriage (as we have always understood it) is the massive attempt to atomize the family, redefine it and reduce everyone, even those in marriage to, effectively, individuals, and so the tradition is a good and now necessary thing that stands against that illness and says that the two ARE one family joined by an unbreakable vow - and not two individuals in a mere contractual relationship - in a time when it is most specially needed to affirm that.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

But the problem is, stories aside, diplomas do refer to an individual. It's me, Kyrie maidenlastname that earned that diploma as an individual. My husband didn't earn it, and I don't take anything in my name from the fact that he's got his own diplomas. Our culture recognises the achievements of individuals in that way and not of families. I'm an academic, that's what I do and what I plan to do when I finish up my studies (at the urging of my professors). Andrew's a jeweller and has degrees in that and industrial design. His name is on the diplomas that hang in his showroom and tell everyone his credentials so that they know they can trust him to do the work they expect of him. I would never assume that I should use those degrees and he wouldn't use mine. And if I was to publish under my maiden name, and then have to start publishing under a different name, that causes confusion because people don't necessarily connect between the two people that are actually one, and I don't have that piece of paper with my name and last name on it that match the one on my drivers license. Credentials matter, and particularly if that piece of paper is a doctorate (which I hope to do one day) I want the name on that piece of paper to match the one I use when I write and am referred to as a scholar.

It's a lovely thing that a woman is proud to take her husband's name and recognise the family that way, but it was a lot easier before women had credentials and positions that would make the change of last name a problem. Besides, it was only a few decades ago where the woman would be referred to as "Mrs John Smith" after her marriage. That's not uniting a couple, that's removing her name from use formally altogether. My grandmother used it for my mother on a letter and horrified her because she might have chosen to be one with her husband but that didn't make her simply the female version of him! But since you're arguing for the pre-feminist tradition, surely it's closer to historical practice to use that?

 

[Monica child of God 1]

It's a lovely thing that a woman is proud to take her husband's name and recognise the family that way, but it was a lot easier before women had credentials and positions that would make the change of last name a problem. Besides, it was only a few decades ago where the woman would be referred to as "Mrs John Smith" after her marriage. That's not uniting a couple, that's removing her name from use formally altogether. My grandmother used it for my mother on a letter and horrified her because she might have chosen to be one with her husband but that didn't make her simply the female version of him! But since you're arguing for the pre-feminist tradition, surely it's closer to historical practice to use that?

I think the truly pre-feminist tradition would be Kyriaki, daughter of [your dad's first name].

I read the story Rus posted (and for the record, I read it right after he posted it). I don't take it to be the definitive word on what every Orthodox woman ought to do. Its a very nice story, an anecdote. It's one woman's opinion and expression of what taking her husband's name means to her. Another woman may choose to keep her maiden name and be no less devoted to her marriage and husband.

We don't have a "T" tradition on this or even a "t" tradition, as far I can tell. It's cultural, as Damaris stated earlier.

M.

 

[Damaris]

I think the truly pre-feminist tradition would be Kyriaki, daughter of [your dad's first name].

I read the story Rus posted (and for the record, I read it right after he posted it). I don't take it to be the definitive word on what every Orthodox woman ought to do. Its a very nice story, an anecdote. It's one woman's opinion and expression of what taking her husband's name means to her. Another woman may choose to keep her maiden name and be no less devoted to her marriage and husband.

I was annoyed by the story because while it shows one half of marital sacrifice, it ignores the part about the husband who's supposed to be willing to die for his wife. Marriage is supposed to be about mutual submission and martyrdom, not only one spouse being consumed by the other. That's why I've always loathed the "Mrs. John Smith" construction. Unless John would like to be called "Mr. Jane Smith" sometime!

Considering that we traditionally call everyone in the clergy from subdeacons to patriarchs by their first names, I would have to conjecture that the Church does not set much store by surnames in general. The Primate of the OCA was born and raised in the modern Western world, but he's still called Metropolitan Jonah, not "Metropolitan Paffhausen".

I think the only time name changes really are expected in Orthodoxy are at one's reception into the Church and at monastic tonsure. Even then, neither of those instances is a universal rule.

 

[rusmeister]

But the problem is, stories aside, diplomas do refer to an individual. It's me, Kyrie maidenlastname that earned that diploma as an individual. My husband didn't earn it, and I don't take anything in my name from the fact that he's got his own diplomas. Our culture recognises the achievements of individuals in that way and not of families. I'm an academic, that's what I do and what I plan to do when I finish up my studies (at the urging of my professors). Andrew's a jeweller and has degrees in that and industrial design. His name is on the diplomas that hang in his showroom and tell everyone his credentials so that they know they can trust him to do the work they expect of him. I would never assume that I should use those degrees and he wouldn't use mine. And if I was to publish under my maiden name, and then have to start publishing under a different name, that causes confusion because people don't necessarily connect between the two people that are actually one, and I don't have that piece of paper with my name and last name on it that match the one on my drivers license. Credentials matter, and particularly if that piece of paper is a doctorate (which I hope to do one day) I want the name on that piece of paper to match the one I use when I write and am referred to as a scholar.

It's a lovely thing that a woman is proud to take her husband's name and recognise the family that way, but it was a lot easier before women had credentials and positions that would make the change of last name a problem. Besides, it was only a few decades ago where the woman would be referred to as "Mrs John Smith" after her marriage. That's not uniting a couple, that's removing her name from use formally altogether. My grandmother used it for my mother on a letter and horrified her because she might have chosen to be one with her husband but that didn't make her simply the female version of him! But since you're arguing for the pre-feminist tradition, surely it's closer to historical practice to use that?

The important thing - the most important thing - is WHY something is done. I DO argue that, however inconvenient a name change on documents is, it is definitely the lesser evil in our time than the denial that the two have become part of a single union that may not be divided. Aside from the document issue, you don't really have many good reasons to even consider separate names or denying a unified name. Morally, for all of me, it could be the woman's name - but that's not what our tradition decided.

Yes, document changes are inconvenient - but that's all they are - an inconvenience. The central point of the story is the Christian - Orthodox philosophical necessity of giving ourselves completely for the other. And yeah, that might mean giving up your recognition of your maiden name on a student paper or even published work - or it might mean moving to live in the foreign country with a foreign spouse because he/she can't handle it in your country (as I have done).
Confusion over who exactly published what is trivial pursuit next to the need to affirm that you and your husband are one family. It's not "quaint" or "old-fashioned" or even "lovely" (do you REALLY think it is?). In our time of general attack on the family, every prop to its unity - and its unity as a specific male-female thing where they DO take one name - is simply essential. Of course it won't fix all the problems. But it's one more axe blow to the tree of the family - now seriously under siege. It is a deliberate reversal to the general tradition of our parents and grandparents under an ultimately minor excuse, and I do think that even the desire to keep stuff under one's maiden name springs from that desire for individual independence - the thing that has been exaggerated in our time until it has come to oppose both family and God.