Discussion

Abstract

In 1988 Sharon Lebell proposed a bilineal solution to resolve the last name dilemma of married women. Accordingly, a person defines for herself a source name that may be her birth family name or any other name, to which she feels connected; upon marriage, she keeps the source name; as for the children, girls get their father’s family name as a middle name and their mother’s family name as their last name, while boys get their mother’s family name as their middle name and their father’s family name as their last name. Two important patronymic principles are challenged by the bilineal solution: the family does not have one family name, and the children are not automatically carrying their father’s family name. Women’s identity resources are not disrupted, and children’s names signify the family lineage. When they become adults and face the need to select a source name, they are able to choose whether or not to drop one of the names. The interesting question however concerns the familiarity of the bilineal solution and its chances of becoming a discursive resource. None of our interviewees mentioned this solution; nor was it mentioned in any of the 259 questionnaires that we collected as part of our screening process; and none of the recent studies based on interviews with feminists on their naming practices mentions it either as a concept, a category, or even as a vague idea. It seems fair to assess that most women around the world arrive at their conjugation ceremonies without this potentially valuable resource. Many among them have to struggle with their naming dilemma with little feminist support. While most unfortunate as a political reality, this situation turned out to be valuable as a research opportunity: it allows investigating the discursive practices and resources available to women while facing the option of naming themselves and their children or allowing others to do so.