Patriarchy disrupted? Why many Agikuyu sons now carry their mothers’ names

It is observable in Kenya that more and more men from the Agikuyu are using identifiably their mothers’ names as their surnames, contrary to the norm. A connoisseur of this culture indicates that this is resulting from the modern system of birth registration requiring the father’s and mother’s names. He explains that this trend is symptomatic of children born of single mothers but under different circumstances.

First, the child was fathered out of an adventure rather than well-established relationship. Second, there was a breakdown in the relationship between the two biological parents and the mother wishes to obliterate the father from her memory by not having the child carry his name. Third, the biological father denies responsibility and does not go through traditional sanitisation where he pays a penalty for making someone’s daughter pregnant out of wedlock. An alternative ceremony is then done for the maternal grandfather to take over ownership of the child.

Whatever the case, there is a curiosity in that single mothers and men who deny responsibility for pregnancies are not found only in this community. Why then is this phenomenon not evident in the other Kenyan communities?

Read: Single mums: How we became heads of our families

From a theoretical and philosophical perspective, we must ask additional questions. Is it a way by which women are asserting autonomy? Is it sending the message that lineage is not intrinsically patrilineal? Is it saying that the men in question are proud of their matrilineal identity and “feminine” surnames? Is it conveying that if in deed all these men were results of single parenthood, they do not consider it a liability, hence are sanitising it away from the social stigma it has historically suffered?

Mythologists may also claim that this trend is an unconscious reclamation of the community’s genealogical origin, which is that it descended from the nine daughters of the matriarch Mumbi after whom the community’s clans are named.

Incidentally, children taking their mothers’ names is practised in a number of civilisations. In Africa, the practice is found among the Akan of Ghana. Here, the mother’s lineage provides the child’s surname and a man is bound to support his sister’s children rather than his own. Among the Minangkabau of Indonesia, considered the world’s largest matrilineal society, children bear the mother’s clan name and belong to her clan.

Read: What’s in a name? Choosing the right name for your child

Moreover, the man moves to the wife’s home (nothing to do with the Biblical command in Ephesians 5:31). The same happens in the Khasi and Garo tribes of India where it is the youngest daughter who inherits family property and sustains the lineage. Among the Mosuo of China, “children take their mothers’ surnames, live in extended matrilineal households under matriarchal leadership, and men often live separately, with children raised in their mother’s family”.

Writing on the website of the Development Studies Association of Australia, Tahmina Rashid delves into the subject of naming and its connection with patriarchy and colonialism. She argues that “naming practices are reflective of prevailing power structures and hierarchies”. This is manifest in the practice, for example, of Africans taking foreign names and of a woman assuming her husband’s name thinking that this is a show of love for the “better half”, yet it is an exercise in domination and subjugation.  

She traces the origin of surnames to the Norman Conquest and occupation of England in 1066 but much more strongly to the 18^th century patriarchal laws in England, which vested ownership and inheritance of property to the husband, declaring that only his name “became a family name and was subsequently passed on to the children”. This led to the demise of women’s surnames. Notably, this is the tradition that colonialists imported to us, hence a woman becomes “Mrs” somebody rather than remain herself. She challenges social scientists to deconstruct and decolonise these norms.

Unconscious femininity

The psychological constructs of anima and animus also come to mind here. These concepts were originated by Carl Jung to explain our unconscious femininities (for men) and masculinities (for women). Jung characterised anima as consisting of emotion, intuition and creativity (shaped through association with the mother) while animus inheres in logic, assertiveness and independence (modelled in association with the father). Of course, feminists will consider this nothing but stereotyping which, by its nature, does not allow for individual differences but thrives in generalisation. Perhaps a more nuanced way of seeing the concepts is that each human being has a mixture of the two.

Looking at these thoughts, is this trend a deliberate or fortuitous disruption of patriarchy? Is it the beginning of the deconstruction Rashid is calling for? Could the men be retreating to their anima and mythical origins? Are we likely to see other communities replicate the trend?

The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected]).