Academic Argument on Husbands Using Wives’ Surnames: A Cultural, Constitutional, and Philosophical Perspective

 

Academic Argument on Husbands Using Wives’ Surnames: A Cultural, Constitutional, and Philosophical Perspective

Introduction

I, Uerimanga Tjijombo, a scholar and the Himbacracy Philosopher, write from both an academic and cultural lens to engage with the Constitutional Court ruling of South Africa which allows husbands to adopt their wives’ surnames. While this ruling is legally grounded in the principles of equality and non-discrimination under the South African Constitution, it must also be examined against the cultural, historical, and philosophical context of African societies.

This argument seeks to balance three dimensions:

1. The constitutional and legal reasoning behind the ruling.
2. The African cultural traditions concerning surnames, lineage, and ancestral identity.
3. A philosophical reflection on whether modern legal reforms can coexist with deeply rooted cultural practices without erasing indigenous ways of life.

1. The Constitutional Court Ruling and Equality

In 2024, South Africa’s Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provision in the Births and Deaths Registration Act that prevented husbands from adopting their wives’ surnames. Justice Leona Theron emphasized that this law discriminated on the grounds of gender and was a colonial import. The Court highlighted that in many African cultures, women historically retained their birth names and children often carried their mother’s clan names.

The Court’s reasoning rested on Section 9 of the South African Constitution, which guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination based on gender. The ruling restores freedom of choice, allowing couples to decide, without state interference, how to arrange their surnames. Importantly, the decision does not compel men to take their wives’ surnames but simply permits it, thereby expanding personal and marital autonomy.

2. The Cultural Significance of Surnames in African Societies

In African traditions, surnames carry meanings beyond administrative identity; they embody lineage, ancestry, and spiritual belonging. Among the Ovaherero, surnames are tied to Oruzu (clan lineage) and rituals such as Omaze wonganda, in which oils are applied to induct a person into a particular household and lineage.

For men, surnames are not just labels but sacred markers of paternal continuity. They connect the living to ancestors, regulate kinship relations, and determine rituals, taboos, and social obligations. To alter this through adopting a wife’s surname raises profound cultural questions:

• Which ancestral line does the man now belong to?
• Does the ritual transfer apply to him, as it does for women when they marry?
• What becomes of his paternal lineage obligations and prohibitions?

Thus, in African cultural logic, a surname is not only a “certificate” of identity, as in Western legal systems, but also a spiritual and cultural passport into ancestral belonging.

3. The Clash of Cultures: Western Import vs. African Tradition

The Constitutional Court itself acknowledged that the custom of women adopting their husbands’ surnames was not originally African but a Western imposition by missionaries and colonizers. This raises an irony: while the Court seeks to undo a discriminatory colonial law, it simultaneously risks unsettling African traditions that equally resist the idea of husbands taking wives’ surnames.

In reality, African societies often did not require women to abandon their surnames upon marriage. Many retained their birth names while still fulfilling their roles as wives and mothers. This demonstrates that gender identity in African culture was not historically expressed through surname changes, but through kinship rituals, clan ties, and social integration.

Therefore, allowing men to take wives’ surnames could be seen as adopting a “reversed colonial practice” rather than genuinely restoring African cultural norms.

4. Philosophical Reflection: Himbacracy and Cultural Continuity

From the perspective of Himbacracy Philosophy, the surname represents the living voice of ancestors. It is not merely a legal identity but a sacred continuity. To tamper with it without cultural legitimacy is to break a chain of belonging.

I argue that technology, modernity, and globalization may transform aspects of our lives, but not every cultural root should be uprooted. As Western societies modernized, they preserved essential cultural symbols, national days, flags, ancestral rituals. Likewise, Africans must defend the cultural essence of surnames even as they navigate constitutional reforms.

In this view, the legal permission for men to adopt their wives’ surnames should be recognized as a matter of individual choice under democracy, but it should not be normalized as a cultural expectation. Each man must weigh whether this act respects or disturbs his ancestral ties.

5. Reconciling Law and Culture

The Constitutional Court ruling opens the legal door to choice, but it does not erase the cultural debates. In African societies, law and culture must be reconciled rather than placed in opposition. A culturally sensitive approach would include:

• Respecting the right to equality while affirming that cultural heritage provides legitimate reasons for individuals to reject such a practice.
• Recognizing that surnames in Africa are not gender-neutral administrative markers, but ancestral symbols with cultural weight.
• Allowing families, clans, and communities to continue defining surname practices in line with rituals and beliefs, while safeguarding individuals who choose differently.

Conclusion

The South African Constitutional Court has advanced gender equality by permitting husbands to take their wives’ surnames, recognizing that previous restrictions were discriminatory and colonial. However, from an African cultural perspective, surnames remain sacred, binding men and women to ancestral lineages, rituals, and spiritual obligations.

As a Himbacracy Philosopher, I conclude that while the law may open the space for freedom of choice, culture and philosophy remind us that freedom without cultural consciousness risks alienating us from our roots. Men may legally take their wives’ surnames, but culturally they must ask: what becomes of their oruzu, their ancestors, and their identity?

Thus, the ruling is legally sound but culturally contested, demanding a careful balance between constitutional equality and ancestral continuity.