My spry friend, David Giacalone at f/k/a, raised the issue of younger people calling elder people “dearie” and “sweetie,” condescending references to those who had either grown too old to be worth the bother or to diminish their dignity and dehumanize them. But this isn’t a problem only with the elderly.
Name-calling has become epidemic lately, and much has been written about who’s at fault. The lawprofs at Volokh call it [Insert Name] Derangement Syndrome, where ideological passion manifests as increasingly outrageous name calling. Even cuter is Orin’s reference as Newton’s Law of Political Derangement: For every overreaction, there is an equal and opposite overreaction.
From my position, this seems to be a natural outgrowth of the rejection of the rules of basic normative decency that guided us for centuries. In the 1960s, we viewed the formalities of titles and protocol as a yoke of oppression to be thrown off to free ourselves of domination by our elders. And it was, but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t need some basic societal norms to limit our wildness and provide a format to address the world around us. This was a problem with many of the best ideas of the era. We identified a problem and arrived at an answer that didn’t quite work.
Putting aside the divisive question of which political candidate’s supporters calls the other worse names, which is a pointless effort since each side knew with absolute certainty that it is right and the other wrong and there’s no benefit to discussing it since neither will yield, consider this in our everyday lives.
When was the last time a person you don’t know, with whom you’ve never spoken in your life, with whom you have neither need nor desire to converse, pushed their way into your personal sphere and immediately addressed you by your first name? No mister or missus, but John or Mary. Who invited them to use such an informal manner of address?
This is commonplace with telephone solicitors, store clerks, even other people’s children. Rarely does anyone respect formal modes of address, as if the choice of address is entirely up to them. In some respects, this is an egalitarian effort, removing the walls of formality because we are all equal, all the same, and no one is entitled to be treated more deferentially than anyone else.
This, of course, is nonsense. The same formalities would apply in either direction, as the sale clerk would be addressed as Mr. Jones as well.
Formalities are also used as a mechanism of control by some, to assert their superior position while diminishing others. The most obvious example are teachers, who routinely introduce themselves as “Mr. Smith,” yet address parents by their first name, to command respect and assert their relative position.
Once the basic formalities are lost, we similarly lose general respect for others. We no longer think in terms of protocol, but rather in terms of familiarity, and the contempt that goes with it. There was a time when we would never discuss a governor of a state by freely using her first name, if for no other reason than the fact that she was a governor, a high executive office which was worthy of respect regardless of whether we felt that she was a particularly good governor or a mediocre one. This is no longer the case.
Marc Randazza posts a video today, in a post that is intended to remind us that those of us writing or reading blawgs (or reading much of anything actually) don’t represent the whole of America. Not that Marc is one to feel particularly bound by protocol, but the content of the video should bring despair to anyone with a high school diploma.
Americans need boundaries to remind them that the execution of social norms keep our lesser instincts in check, and force us to maintain a certain level of human decency despite our inclination to show none. Whether it’s calling an elderly person “dearie” even though they have spent a lifetime earning the right to be addressed by their name, or a person running for high political office with whom you might disagree, or even a person answering the telephone from a unwanted solicitor, the protocol of using a title unless and until being invited to address them informally would force a return to some degree of respect and dignity.
Until we are entitled to employ a term of endearment, let’s return to the use of a title of respect. Perhaps then we will stem the tide of derangement at the bottom of the slope of familiarity. At the very least, it will make for a more restrained conversation. We could use some of that right now.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You had me agreeing right up until “from an unwanted solicitor.” What’s next, civility toward burglars?
I was thinking more about how the unwanted solicitor addresses the recipient of the unwanted solicitation. How many cold callers ask for someone by their first name?
And, wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if burglars were more concerned with the sensitivities of their victims? I mean, really.
The additional rudeness of calling the recipient by his first name is small stuff compared to the solicitor’s violation of the social contract in making the call.
It’s included as an example of a different problem rather than the independent problem of unwanted solicitations.
However, think about this. Most telephone solicitors are taught to address callers by their first name in order to achieve a parity of rank. This notion was first put forward by a failed used car salesman, who asserted that by demeaning the target, it elevated the importance of the caller and made it more difficult for the target to ignore the caller. Thus, it isn’t merely a small act of rudeness, but a attempt at deliberate manipulation.
They are also trained to start off by asking, “How are you doing” — an attempt to get the target used to answering questions.
Thanks for covering this topic, Scott. There are times when it seems people have called me by my given name because they don’t want to botch pronouncing my surname. But, otherwise, you’re surely right that they are attempting to create a familiarity, often to manipulate. (I bet Ron Baker uses first names while trying to decrease the price sensitivity of a client.)
While we’re at it, perhaps I should mention that a stranger turning my given name into a nickname — saying “Dave” instead of “David” — is an additionally annoying form of over-familiarity.
After the dispute we had awhile back about using civility in our postings when referring to human beings, I’m pleased to see that you have crossed back to the civil side of the street.
p.s. Don’t think I didn’t notice your “elderspeak” use of the word spry.
I knew you would catch it.
I was brought up to address most adults by their titles and last names. This didn’t seem particularly formal to me. Adult family members, and very close family friends would be called Aunt…, Uncle…, or Cousin…. This was also standard in public situations when I was a child, such as, “Mrs. Smith, Dr. Jones will see you now.” How offended I was when my own mother, near the end of her life, hada 20-something receptionist in a doctor’s office call her by her first name. I had never called her that!
I figured that when I reached adulthood I, too, would be accorded this respect. I was so disappointed whn I got to college and one of our professors invited us to address him by his first name rather than elevating us to grown up status by addressing us by our last names. It seemed disingenuous since no one believed that we were in any way equals.
Now I am a high school teacher. Students in our school system call their teachers by their titles and last names. I would not think of calling their parents by their given names. That would indeed be very rude. If anything, I prefer to call my students by their last names, too. In this more relaxed society, it may be the only time anyone does this.
I have a bad habit of asking young people I don’t know who use my first name whether we are old friends, and whether that’s why they are of the view that they need not address me formally. They rarely get it, and when they do, they think I’m being a complete jerk. They are entitled to do as they please, and anyone who thinks otherwise is moron/dinosaur.