The new law allowing men to take their wives’ surnames has sparked wide debate. For many, it looks like a step toward equality, a chance for couples to redefine tradition. But through the lens of Fractal Divinity, what appears progressive may actually unsettle the deeper structure that family life depends on.
A surname isn’t just a label. It’s a marker of authority, continuity, and accountability in the collective imagination. When that marker shifts, so does the symbolic anchor of the family. Allowing men to take women’s surnames may sound like freedom of choice, but in practice it inverts the polarity that holds the family task team together.
Families, like any task team, require structure. Equality of worth between men and women is unquestionable—but equality of role is a different matter. In collective life, tasks demand complementarity. To flatten those distinctions in the name of equalization is to weaken the team itself. A family without clear, ordered roles struggles to carry out its purpose, just as a work team would collapse if everyone competed for the same position.
This shift also risks deepening the “war amongst men.” When men fail to maintain coherence with each other, women are drawn into the fallout—carrying burdens they were not meant to bear, forced to legitimize fractured male authority. The surname law makes this dynamic worse: instead of repairing the structure of male coherence, it redistributes symbolic authority onto women, disrupting the balance that marriage as a task team requires.
Seen this way, the law doesn’t advance the health of the family—it erodes it. A surname may look like a small thing, but in truth, it is a signifier of relational order. And when relational order is blurred, the light of coherence dims, leaving both family and society stumbling in the dark.
No Comment! Be the first one.