Women and the Family Name
While writing my paper about Literacy in the Feminist Blogging Community, it occurred to me that I wasn’t sure what to do with the names of the wonderful women who provided answers to my interview questions. In most of the research I have read that includes interviews with people, the authors cite the first name and last initial of the interview participants, or change their names all together, to protect the anonymity of the participants. My situation, however, was a bit different. Because the interview was about literacy and technology, I decided to put the interviews on my blog with names and all. Since my participants agreed to that, I wasn’t sure if I could still use their full names in my paper. So I did what any good student would do, and asked my professor. This was her response:
You may want to email your “consultants” to ask them if they prefer to use their real names or pseudonyms. I assume you have permission to use their real names online, so I can’t imagine that they’d object to using them in the paper.
You could choose either last or first names for citing. First names might be more appropriate given the feminist agenda, but I guess the concern might be that such informal reference would somehow of reduce their status/authority relative to theorists cited by last name (e.g., Szwed). It’s your call.
With the decision left up to me, I thought it best to bring in a few backup opinions and opened the question up to my participants and Twitter. Here were some selected responses:
@writergal85 full name first time, then last name. what is context though?
@HappyFeminist It’s always been last name. Are we not worthy of being representative for family name?
@lizadonnelly I don’t agree with that. I think last names better. First names coherent with feminist agenda? Huh?
@mommommom Hey, the NY Times uses mr or ms with last names, I think. I think last names is better, but will go with whatever you choose!!
Rebecca responded: I think it’s [an] odd [idea] that … the “feminist” thing to do is use first names. At worst, it diminishes authority as you said (if, for example, last names were used for males and first names for females) and at best, it introduces ambiguity and confusion (if first names were used for both males and females, and the rate of duplicate names thus increased greatly)… I didnt even know it had anything to do with authority, I thought using last names was just the way to establish professional distance in your writing. I remember in 7th grade I wrote a paper about Jim Henson and was chided for calling him “Jim,” because I didn’t know him personally–that was the rule. Then again, of course, you do know us personally.
So, I believe the overwhelming verdict is that I should reference my participants by using their full name first, then last name for each reference thereafter, just like I would for any other cited reference. What do you think?
That’s how I’ve always seen it done in professional kinds of settings.
I kind of tend to agree that using that last name gives more authority. I remember when I was doing research about the 2008 election, a lot of news sources would refer to Clinton as ‘Hilary’ but would use the last name of all the male candidates (i.e. Obama did this, McCain said that). I found it kind of insulting, but at the same time, could it make Hilary Clinton more relateable because of the first name basis thing?
Even though there is primarily a sexist double standard in play, you also can’t discount that a small part of the motivation behind calling her Hillary in the press is to distinguish her from her husband. For 8 years Clinton meant Bill Clinton.
“a small part of the motivation behind calling her Hillary in the press is to distinguish her from her husband. ”
I would think context would clear that right up, though. IIRC Bill wasn’t running in that election, and if an article/report uses the full name first, and then the last name thereafter, it should be crystal clear. I don’t think I’ve read any of articles about Jeb Bush or George W. Bush that called them Jeb and Junior just because Bush meant their dad.
I think that the leveling response would be the last name, it seems a point of respect to someones accomplishments and position. I’m frustrated though that if Hillary Clinton had not taken her husbands last name there would be no confusion as which were being referenced. I have an unusual name and a matriarchal naming as well. My name (I have 5) starts with Julia Starr Preston, a name passed from first daughter to first daughter. My daughter is the 10th generation, so that my first name actually holds more significance and sense of my self and the women in my family’s gifts and lineage. Professionally I’m know as Chef Starr, not by the married and divorced last name of a man I’ve had no connection to for many many years.
While I agree that referencing “Hillary” as opposed to “Clinton” could have been to avoid confusion, I do also think that the context of her running for president, not him, should have made the use of her last name obvious. Although we did call George W. Bush “President Bush,” he was also referred to quite often as “George W.” or simply “W.” This, however, was not usually within the professional/political/news sphere. The same sort of thing bothered me (and I wrote about it here) about President Obama being called simply “Barack” or “Mr. Obama,” not the formal (and respectful) President Obama. I don’t seem to ever remember President Bush being referred to as “Mr. Bush.” Make of all that what you will.
As far as Hillary Clinton taking her husband’s last name, I believe that is/was her choice. I will never change my last name (see my Good Wife paper series on this blog), but I do believe it is the intention of feminism to make sure women have the choice to do whatever it is they want to do – which includes getting married, having children, and changing their last names.