R: 'What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' As quoted by William Shakespeare. And yes it could not be 'truer'. Calling Rose Rudyard or Orange Omnious would do nothing to the flower or the fruit; but the intelligent beings that humans are, one avenue they have used this 'power' is towards creating divisions and differences. And Names and Titles is one of it's tool.
In India, your last name or sometimes names, could give away your caste and as a result which 'level' on society one belongs to.
And then we have the titles, Sir, King, His Highness, Mr, Mrs, Miss and the list could go on.
An outcome of a patriarchal society is the kid carrying the dad's name. The woman marries INTO the man's family. So even if in today's times, a 'Mrs' chooses to keep her maiden last name( which again is that from her dad!) and that is not frowned upon, in very rare cases that a child takes on the last name from the mom.
A friend who lived life breaking all societal norms and even married an 'enlightened' soul who believed in doing things the right way, could not give her last name to her child without facing subtle push backs from her husband's family and well, severe ones from her own!
So what's my stand on a last name, Mom, Dad or None! Well, as a woman who had gone through the 9 months and labour, lying in the hospital room all bloated with the antibiotics and the drip, I definitely wanted to give my son my last name - it just felt the normal thing to do - but did we, No.
8 years down the line do I think I still want to...well...not as strongly as then...
In any case, since there is so much 'weight' to a last name, what should be the right thing to do?
What do you think S?
S: Well traditionally men earned money and thereby went on to have bank accounts and houses, and so it probably made sense then to pass on their legacy and last name to their offspring. Girls were 'married-off' into another family and then went on to have different last names anyway. So there's the logic behind this, in case you didn't already know ;)
Now of course things are different. Women are more and more self sufficient. They don't even necessarily have to get married to have kids. But when they do, it is sadly still prevalent to have the kids get their husband's last name...
While Sanjay Leela Bhansali still remains some of the notable few to later on take his mother's name, such examples are few and far between.
Society still has ways to evolve, and we may be nearing a future where the couples have an understanding of sorts on this matter...like have 2 kids and let them have different last names ;) But then again, that would be confusing...what would you put down in schools? How would they be known as a single family?
Unless like a legislation is passed for kids to take their mothers' name...yes, we are still a long way off from this becoming the norm.
R: In times when we did not have multitude of documents starting from Birth Certificates, to Driver's license to a passport, the last name was probably used as identification towards a family. In this day an age, a John Smith could be the husband to a Riya Chatterjee, and if both are parenting a Naomi and choose the child's last name to be, say, Ferier - documentation could prove the family status.
So rather than evaluate if it's fair for the child to have the mother's or the father's last name or the last name of a neighbourhood rich aunty who has left the family all her wealth, maybe just getting unique with the last name would not be a bad idea - which is neither of the parents'...
One could argue the need for a last name altogether, and my response to that would be to ensure a unique identity to the individual in case of common first names.
