The making of selfhood: naming decisions on marriage

Thwaites, Rachel

doi:10.1332/204674313x665913

Cited by 21 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparative U.S./Russian study by Boxer and Gritsenko (2005) suggests that (heterosexual) women change their surnames at the naming crisis point of marriage for a variety of reasons, such as to signal family connectedness (to show marital union/commitment and family solidarity and/or to mark the beginning of a new stage of life) or as a pragmatic means of avoiding confusion over disparate surnames within a family unit (for the UK, see Thwaites 2013; Wilson 2009). These findings support arguments by scholars that surname choices are linked to family practices of the display of connectedness and affinities, of “We” identities (Almack 2005; Davies 2011; Elias 1991; Finch 2008).…”

Section: Marital and Children’s Surnamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In essence, evidence suggests that men are more likely than women are to favor the retention of conventional patronymic and patrilineal surnaming practices (in the U.S., Intons-Peterson and Crawford 1985, Scheuble and Johnson 1993a, b, Shafer 2017; in the UK, Wilson 2009). In a UK study, Thwaites (2013) found that some men became very upset if their female partner even considered the idea of not changing her surname at marriage. For me, such findings suggest a link, for some men at least, between adherence to patronymic and patrilineal surnaming practices and the validation of their masculinity.…”

Section: Marital and Children’s Surnamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A man’s (embodied) sex categorization invariably means that there are no cultural expectations whatsoever that he should, at marriage to a woman, change his surname to hers; precisely the opposite is true for those whose bodies have been categorized as female. Rejection of such surnaming practices might be interpreted negatively as discrediting an individual’s femininity/masculinity (Harris 2008; Robnett et al 2016), or, more positively, as a redoing of gender along more equalitarian lines (Mills 2003; Thwaites 2013; Wilson 2009). Surnaming is, then, related to sex categorization, and it is a tool for the display of gender.…”

Section: Names Gender Identities Difference and Inequalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

Pilcher

2017

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Names, as proper nouns, are clearly important for the identification of individuals in everyday life. In the present article, I argue that forenames and surnames need also to be recognized as “doing” words, important in the categorization of sex at birth and in the ongoing management of gender conduct appropriate to sex category. Using evidence on personal naming practices in the United States and United Kingdom, I examine what happens at crisis points of sexed and gendered naming in the life course (for example, at the birth of babies, at marriage, and during gender-identity transitions). I show how forenames and surnames help in the embodied doing of gender and, likewise, that bodies are key to gendered practices of forenaming and surnaming: we have “gendered embodied named identities.” Whether normative and compliant, pragmatic, or creative and resistant, forenaming and surnaming practices are revealed as core to the production and reproduction of binary sex categories and to gendered identities, difference, hierarchies, and inequalities.

show abstract

Section: Marital and Children’s Surnamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Marital and Children’s Surnamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Names Gender Identities Difference and Inequalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

Pilcher

2017

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I det moderne samfunnet knyttes navn til egen identitet, navnet er forankret i forestillinger om selvet (Thwaites, 2013). Men navnevalget ved ekteskapsinngåelsen er omgitt av sterke sosiale normer og forventninger i USA og England.…”

Section: Etternavn: Individ Eller Familieunclassified

Bryllup i avtradisjonaliseringens tidsalder

Ellingsæter¹

2018

TfS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professor i sosiologi, Universitetet i Oslo a.l.ellingsater@sosgeo.uio.no SAMMENDRAG Avtradisjonalisering er et kjennetegn ved senmoderne samfunn. Utviklingen i ekteskapsinstitusjonen speiler avtradisjonaliseringsprosesser: ekteskapsratene går ned, samboerskap er blitt vanlig, flere barn fødes utenfor ekteskap og flere skiller seg. Ekteskapet har mistet sin selvfølgelige status som institusjonell ramme for samliv og foreldreskap. Men hvorfor fortsetter likevel det store flertallet å gifte seg, også i Norge, et land der avtradisjonaliseringsprosessene er mest markante? Basert på intervjuer med 27 kvinner og menn som enten nylig hadde giftet seg eller planla bryllup, undersøkes følgende to spørsmål i denne artikkelen: Hvilke motivasjoner hadde de for å følge tradisjonen med å gifte seg? Og hvordan skjedde ekteskapsinngåelsen -hvilken plass og mening hadde tradisjoner som frieri, vielse, bryllupsfeiring og navnebytte? Den gjengse motivasjonen for å gifte seg var at ekteskapskontrakten gir økt følelsesmessig trygghet i en tid med ustabile samliv. Tradisjonelle elementer inngikk i bryllupsritualene-men i flytende blandinger og omfang, og valgene involverte ulike nivåer av refleksjon og tilpasninger.Nøkkelord ekteskap, bryllup, tradisjoner, ritualer, kjønn, Norge ABSTRACT Detraditionalisation is a characteristic of late modern society. Changes in the marriage institution signify detradtionalisation processes: Falling marriage rates, rising cohabitation, more children born outside marriage and increasing divorce rates. Marriage has lost its self-evident status as the institutional frame of intimate relations and parenthood. But why does a large majority still marry in Norway, a country where the processes of detraditionalisation are most prominent? Based on interviews with 27 women and men who had recently married or were soon going to, this article addresses two questions: What motivations did they have to follow the tradition of marriage? And how did the marriage happen

show abstract

“…In essence, evidence suggests that men are much more likely than women to favour the retention of conventional patronymic and patrilineal surnaming practices (in the US, Intons-Peterson andCrawford, 1985 andScheuble andJohnson, 1993; in the UK, Wilson, 2009). In a UK study, Thwaites (2013) found that some men became very upset if their woman partner even considered the idea of not changing their surname at marriage. These findings suggest an association, amongst some men at least, between patronymic, patrilineal surnaming practices and the constitution and display of masculine heterosexual embodied identity.…”

Section: Naming the Sexed And Gendered Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Names, Bodies and Identities

Pilcher

2015

Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I argue that the emerging field of the sociology of naming should recognize the fundamental importance of bodies in the range of social practices through which individuals come to have, and to be identified by, names. I introduce the concept of 'embodied named identity' to describe the outcome of identificatory practices of naming fundamentally orientated around and rooted in the body. I argue that the concept addresses the neglect of the body within the sociology of names and the neglect of naming within both the sociology of identity and in the sociology of the body. In my elaboration of the value of the concept of embodied named identity for enhancing sociological understanding, I focus on evidence on naming practices in relation to sexed and gendered bodies, racialized and ethnic bodies, bodies, nicknames and characterisation, 'nameless' bodies and 'body-less' names. Pilcher'. Family members, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, and people in organizations and institutions, know and/or identify me, or administratively process me, as 'Jane Pilcher'. My name is used, by myself and others, routinely and repeatedly in my everyday life -in conversations and in written communications in a multitude of contexts.2 My name appears on numerous cultural artefacts that record and authenticate identity in the UK, including my birth certificate, my workplace ID card, my passport and my utility bills.As my own case suggests, the names we have are at the nucleus of our individual identity and of our family affiliation, as well as our social and civil-legal identities (Finch 2008). Yet, despite the fundamental, ubiquitous and ongoing importance of names in everyday life, the sociology of names remains in its infancy. The most significant body of existing sociological work is comprised of studies of names in terms of displaying or constituting family affiliation or identification (for example, in the UK, Almack, 2005;Davies, 2011;Edwards and Caballero, 2008;Finch, 2008;Thwaites, 2013;Wilson, 2009). As Finch (2008 points out, a more fully developed sociology of naming is potentially wide in scope: it is not my intention to detail it here. Rather, my aim in this article is to contribute to the emerging field of the sociology of naming by focusing on a hitherto neglected aspect: the relationship between names, identity and the body. Names, identity and the body: a neglected relationshipThe relationship between names, identities and the body has largely been taken-for-granted by sociologists. For example, early discussions of naming by Althusser (1971) and by Elias (1991) recognised the relationship between naming and identity, but overlooked the body.Althusser briefly discussed surnames in the context of the 'familial ideological configuration ' (1971: 176); he also noted how names are one of the 'practical rituals' of everyday life which routinely allow us to recognise ourselves and others as unique individual subjects (1971: 173). In turn, Elias briefly mentioned names in his essay on 'I-We' ident...

show abstract

The making of selfhood: naming decisions on marriage

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

Bryllup i avtradisjonaliseringens tidsalder

Names, Bodies and Identities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About