Becoming “Us”: Marital Name, Gender, and Agentic Work in Transition to Marriage

Abstract

Objective The article examines gendered expectations in marital naming and gender differences in how Finnish couples of the opposite sex engage in agentic work when negotiating names in the transition to marriage. Background Whereas most literature focuses on women, this study investigates the decision‐making as a process participated in by both partners. Negotiation on names illustrates the process of becoming “us,” a new family unit in which the name is an important symbol. In this process, the Nordic ideal of gender equality effectuated by the Finnish Names Act, which treats partners symmetrically, collides with the practice of patrilineal surnaming considered as being the “traditional way.” Method A total of 19 couple interviews were analyzed from the perspective of gender reflexivity and agentic work engaged in by two partners. Results Qualitative analysis highlighted the following three patterns in couples' reasoning: patrilineal naming as self‐evident, “it's her choice,” and equivalence. In most cases, however, the couples resolved the ambivalence between gender equality and patrilineal naming practices by the agentic work of women, whereas men were privileged to withdraw from the negotiations. Conclusion Gendered dynamics of decision‐making point out the subtle ways in which a patriarchal mind‐set continues to have a hold on family formation at the micro‐level of family relationships despite the widespread acceptance of gender equality in society.

Family diversity in a configurational perspective

“…The configurational perspective provides concepts and tools that add to our understanding of family diversity by going beyond the composition of households. There is much to be learned about the various definitions of family we-ness and the logics of the development of family interdependencies (Castrén 2019). The agency of each member is consequential, as it shapes family configurations beyond the confines of households.…”

“…To summarise, identifying the individuals who belong to a family we, and the extent to which this we-ness is inclusive by going beyond the individuals living in the household (Castrén 2019;Castrén and Widmer 2015), makes it possible to understand family diversity in middle adulthood in reference to individual agency.…”

Emerging adults’ preferred surnames: Reasons and social cognitive dispositions

“…Gender equality is a difficult ideal to pursue given the widespread practice of patrilineal naming. Castrén (2019) found that differences in surname conversations among Finnish couples could be characterized by the reasoning they employed in their conversations. While some couples reasoned as if the one-name-per-family model was self-evident, other couples respected each other’s’ positions as they explicitly reasoned together about whose surnames to adopt upon marriage.…”

Decisions on marriage? Couples’ decisions on union transition in Sweden

“…Such behavior may vary by context, for example, being visible in the USA but not in Sweden (Evertsson & Nermo, 2004). Another example close at hand is the choice of name after marriage in Finland, where subtle forms of patriarchy continue to shape the decision-making process (Castrén, 2019). In addition, higher educational level is often used to indicate genderequal attitudes and leads to more equal sharing, for example, through parental leave in Germany (Geisler & Kreyenfeld, 2011).…”