Forgive the wordy title to this thread, something that was provoked not only by my recent Interfolio experiences, but also by a correspondence I am engaging in with a man (whom I believe is probably around 30, IOW, like it or not, young enough to be my son) in Iowa. This man saw a post I had placed onto a Christian school organization's website a few years' back, asking if anyone would be perhaps interested in establishing a new classical Christian school in the greater RI/ SE Mass. area. He told me that he is part of a team of people, led by his pastor, who have decided that the Lord is calling them to move from Iowa to Providence, and try to plant a church there. We discussed the prospects of maybe starting up some new Christian school around here (they will not be coming for 6-18 mos.) but then he moved to asking me a general question about what I thought he and his colleagues, none of whom appear to have any New England background or experience, needed to know about the differences between the midwest/ Southern culture his people are coming from (their church is Southern Baptist), and ours around here. It got me to thinkin', and I spent about an hour writing an impromptu essay offering my thoughts on this question. (I will actually send it to anyone who asks for it, or even, if there is expressed interest here, send it to the fora). Amongst other thoughts, I told him that, unlike what is my perception of practice in the South and esp the Midwest, around here, one ought never to address a person who is more than just a few years older than oneself (unless you are family or the closest of intimate friends) by their first name, unless specifically invited to do so-- I noted that, due to the Blue state socially liberal politics that modern New England is noted for nationally, people from other parts of the country, esp. Red ones, tend to assume that New Englanders are really across the board liberal, whereas, well, that ain't true. Our culture here remains more hierarchical than what one would see in Iowa, and much much more formal and reserved. (another related point I made to him was essentially to strongly discourage him from seeking converts for his church plant via cold-call door-to-door evangelism, which would go over here like the ebola virus). I stand by my comments on reserved behavior and eschewing of unsolicited first-name bases, in general, around here, but....
I have been thinking on this more, largely as a result of having written that essay, and it does dawn on me that there has been an enormous change in formality and deference to/ respect for, elders, even around here, seen in people, especially Millennials and the ever increasing number of Gen Zers coming on up after them. Really it is stunning to see young people assuming that they should address me by my first name.... but it is almost as stunning to see secretaries in doctor's offices, people writing business correspondence (email or print), calling me 'Kay', instead of 'Mr. Sixteen', or, even better, 'sir'. Granted that I ain't 30 anymore, and things change in society all the time, but I am wondering 1) do you all see some of the same things I am seeing here, and, perhaps more cogently 2) do you yourselves feel yourselves aggrieved when you are first-named by service reps, mere acquaintances young enough to be your kid, etc. (one might also add 3) do you ever try to do anything about it, if the answer to either 1) or 2) is 'yes', and, if so, have you had any success thereat?)
1) I'm not really paying attention that much to generational differences
2) no (but I'm one of those profs that invite any and all college students to address me by my first name)
3) N/A
1) Yes. This has become a first-name world. I find this is true among scientists globally. I'm on a first-name basis even with Japanese scientists whom I have not yet met in person. I suspect I should address them as Sensei were we to meet in Japan. When addressing other faculty in formal written communications, especially when asking for something, I use Dr. or Prof. Otherwise it is first name from the get go.
2) To service reps, etc, I'm just a customer. There is no other hierarchy in the relationship. They don't know me, so it doesn't really matter what they say. They do not reveal their family names for safety reasons. I find that online chatbots are universally on a first name basis. How does one gauge the age difference when they are not even human? The AI behind them is surely good enough to accommodate such social expectations.
3) My name is not pronounced correctly much of the time. In one-off encounters, I don't bother correcting the speaker. If there is an occasion for formal address, I try to set the norm by example, but never by "correcting."
Not a direct response to any of your questions, but part of this is culturally dependent. In many parts of the world, John Smith is referred to as Mr. (or even Dr.) John. This is especially true of cultures with few surnames, such as Vietnam, where there might be six different Mr./Ms. Nguyens in the room but only one Nguyen Thi Phan. Some cultures don't really have surnames at all, and people's names get prefixed by an indicator of age/status. E.g., in Burmese, the use of U for men and Daw for women.
Anyway, yes, a shift toward greater informality/use of first names when addressing people in the USA. Personally I'm ok with it if I have already established some kind of connection/interaction.
1. I live in a rural area where the older forms of address you're talking about are still largely intact. So I haven't experienced a lot of culture shock. What has been startling to me is the way some have recently started addressing me the way one addresses elder elders--Mr./Mrs. First Name, as opposed to Mr./Mrs. Last Name. Guess I'm starting to get old enough to be perceived as a true elder.
2. I've very occasionally found myself somewhat annoyed by sales people and such who call me by my first name on the first contact. But what's annoying is their overall pushiness, not the form of address. Why should I get upset or annoyed by how somebody addresses me, unless it's clearly meant to be an insult? In particular, why should I be annoyed if somebody younger than me or of ostensibly lower status addresses me informally? The only reason I can see would be injured pride. What have I got to be proud about? We're always in the presence of God, and nobody has any business being proud in his presence.
Kay, have you ever spent any appreciable time in Iowa (or anywhere else in the South or Midwest)? What is the basis for your beliefs about the cultural differences between the South, Midwest, and New England?
Dr. is standard where I teach as an address to professors and I've never been interested in going against the grain. I went to a high school where teachers all went by their first name and I'd be perfectly happy to be addressed that way if it was standard. I mostly just would be uncomfortable asking for students to refer to me in a way that cut against the grain.
I really don't care in brief customer service interactions. I usually start with the formal address if I've never written to someone before and am writing them out of the blue. Most people I interact with respond to those messages by signing their first name at the bottom and I address subsequent emails accordingly. I do the same with emails to me.
It wouldn't at all surprise me if the younguns default to first-name more than us oldsters. But then, men don't put on a hat and tie to go out anymore, and women can wear makeup without being considered whores. Standards of formality and decorum change, and although the world is coming to an end, it's not because of that.
The only reason for me to get het up over terms of address is, as apl68 says, when it reflects some sort of insult. That's why we got up in arms over the Jill Biden 'kiddo' discourse, and that's why I hold the line on people who want to call me 'Ms Lastname'. The former was absolutely intended as an insult, and the latter reflects insulting societal norms that women who are entitled to be addressed with honorifics still aren't entitled to be addressed by honorifics they've earned.
Quote from: namazu on January 16, 2021, 07:16:57 AM
Kay, have you ever spent any appreciable time in Iowa (or anywhere else in the South or Midwest)? What is the basis for your beliefs about the cultural differences between the South, Midwest, and New England?
Related: what do these Southern Baptists from Iowa know about demographics and the market for private, religious-based primary/secondary ed in New England? It sounds like a fool's errand. The number of children in the region is declining. The use of "Well, Kay, what do you think about helping us set up a new school in your area?" makes the enterprise sound even more sketchy, unless you explicitly stated "Please call me Kay," which it doesn't sound like you did.
I am happy with being addressed by my first name everywhere, including by my military officer students. We stick with first names/nicknames across the board to avoid inviting service hierarchies into the classroom. Anyone who doesn't know me is likely to mispronounce my last name and/or use Mrs., both of which are as grating to me as being called "Kay" by a young stranger is to kaysixteen (who is almost exactly as old as I am).
I didn't live in Iowa for long, but I don't remember it as a haven for this kind of informality, especially in a small town. California, where I am now? Oh yes, and that's part of why I love it here.
Respect is calling people what they wish to be called, but I never assume I know what that is without asking.
I've only lived and studied in the Midwest and South so I can't speak toward geographic differences. I assume they exist especially in more rural parts of those regions. In the university, clearly things have gone toward first name basis everywhere. When I was in grad school in the early 80s, no student nor staff member would presume to call a faculty by first name unless that person asked to be called that. I don't remember that happening much. Now, grad students I work with routinely call me by my first name even on introduction. I am fine with that. I have an associate who I've worked with nearly ten years now. I asked her very early on to use my first name but she found that difficult until maybe 5 years ago. But she is unique in this regard. No one calls me Mr. or Dr. now except very young kids.
Random thoughts and responses:
1) WRT that guy in Iowa and his plan to potentially establish a Christian school in the RI area, when he and his folks get here to plant their church-- this guy is currently a teacher at a similar Christian school in IA and as such, he and his compadres know and love this particular strand of Christian ed ('classical Christian school'), and wish very much to be a part of such a school here. They happened to see my longstanding ad on a classical Christian school website and decided to contact me to see what I knew and whether we might work together to establish such a school. We still may well do so.
2) WRT my particular knowledge of Iowa, I have little but not none. I actually had an interview with a Christian school there back in '97, and briefly was seeing a woman there then. And I have lived extensively in areas of the country outside of N.E., including Buffalo, which is essentially the Midwest, Indiana, which is, and Florida. I stand by my comments (the substance of which actually agree with what this fellow's church planting agency's New England missions coordinator has already told them-- he sent me the power point presentation they were shown)-- all the areas I have lived in are much much less formal than New England, and with much greater tendencies towards familiarity, first-namism, etc., even back in the 90s, and much much less personal reservedness.
3) There is no question that this change is in part generational across regions of the US (BTW, for fora members from those countries, what is it currently like in the UK and Canada?). That said, given my age, background, and personal disposition, I ain't never gonna accept being first-named by students, who will have to get used to that. And....
4) while I can see apl's opinion (he and I are after all coreligionists), and I deeply respect him, I do not think he is right. Specifically, the Bible is pretty clear on how one should treat and respect elders, which emphatically is not like one's frat bros. This really has little if anything to do with pride.
5) WRT a service rep, maybe I am old, and maybe it is the Massachusetts in me, a residuum of Puritan hierarchicalism, but I do not wish to be addressed by my first name by such folks. Period. Even when I am working a retail job, I would not presume to do this unless I have established a relationship with the customer, and if said customer be old enough to be my parent, it would be very hard to first-name them even if asked (though one would have to obey such a request anyhow). What exactly is it that has made millennials think it is appropriate to address customers old enough to be their parents by their first names? (I am pretty sure I know the answer here but it would be interesting to hear some fora thoughts).
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
What exactly is it that has made millennials think it is appropriate to address customers old enough to be their parents by their first names? (I am pretty sure I know the answer here but it would be interesting to hear some fora thoughts).
I'm an older millennial. When I was growing up, my mother had a wide variety of friends who were all first-named by her, and they invited me to first-name them. My friends' parents invited me to first-name them. My peers were all first-naming me; service reps had first-name name tags. My college and grad school professors invited me to first-name them. My peers at work all went by first names. I invite my students to first-name me (only insisting on 'Dr' if they insist on an honorific at all).
The reason I think it is appropriate to first-name people is because everyone, even in my parents' generation, has always told me to first-name them. I'm aware that this is not culturally accepted everywhere, but it doesn't strike me as at all bizarre to internalize the norms I've been brought up with as a reasonable standard of behavior.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
5) WRT a service rep, maybe I am old, and maybe it is the Massachusetts in me, a residuum of Puritan hierarchicalism, but I do not wish to be addressed by my first name by such folks. Period. Even when I am working a retail job, I would not presume to do this unless I have established a relationship with the customer, and if said customer be old enough to be my parent, it would be very hard to first-name them even if asked (though one would have to obey such a request anyhow). What exactly is it that has made millennials think it is appropriate to address customers old enough to be their parents by their first names?
I'd be curious if most of them do. I grew up in a world where you called your friends parents by their first name and went to secondary schools where everyone, from the principal on down, went by first names. However, when I started working retail jobs I pretty naturally switched over to ma'am and sir. I didn't use them as a matter of course, to me it seems more awkward to use a form of address if you don't have to. However, there were various occasions when I needed to get someone's attention and there really aren't other options in American English that aren't abrasive.
I still ma'am and sir people in those kinds of contexts. The alternatives when someone is walking down the street and has dropped their keys are all kind of weird or abrasive in some form. Yelling "hey you," is pretty abrasive. (I wish American English had the all purpose "sorry" that people use in Ireland for defusing all sorts of interactions that could otherwise seem awkward or confrontational. If you just say sorry with the right intonation constantly you're allowed to bodily grab 40 guys while you push yourself through a crowded room.
Quote from: ergative on January 18, 2021, 03:45:38 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
What exactly is it that has made millennials think it is appropriate to address customers old enough to be their parents by their first names? (I am pretty sure I know the answer here but it would be interesting to hear some fora thoughts).
I'm an older millennial. When I was growing up, my mother had a wide variety of friends who were all first-named by her, and they invited me to first-name them. My friends' parents invited me to first-name them. My peers were all first-naming me; service reps had first-name name tags. My college and grad school professors invited me to first-name them. My peers at work all went by first names. I invite my students to first-name me (only insisting on 'Dr' if they insist on an honorific at all).
The reason I think it is appropriate to first-name people is because everyone, even in my parents' generation, has always told me to first-name them. I'm aware that this is not culturally accepted everywhere, but it doesn't strike me as at all bizarre to internalize the norms I've been brought up with as a reasonable standard of behavior.
Same. Other than teachers, everyone in my life growing up used first names. This was in the pacific northwest, which I do think tends to be more informal and egalitarian than some other areas of the country.
I try to avoid ma'am and sir for strangers-- I find "excuse me" to work quite well for getting someone's attention without presuming their gender.
In some locations "Hon" as in short for "Honey" works, but increasingly less so, especially anywhere near a campus.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Random thoughts and responses:
1) WRT that guy in Iowa and his plan to potentially establish a Christian school in the RI area, when he and his folks get here to plant their church-- this guy is currently a teacher at a similar Christian school in IA and as such, he and his compadres know and love this particular strand of Christian ed ('classical Christian school'), and wish very much to be a part of such a school here. They happened to see my longstanding ad on a classical Christian school website and decided to contact me to see what I knew and whether we might work together to establish such a school. We still may well do so.
If they want to plant churches effectively, they would do well to concentrate on that goal and not let themselves be distracted by trying to set up a school. A school has the potential to suck all the resources out of the church's mission work, and it might well still end up not being enough. We had attempt here to start a church-supported school some years ago. It was a ghastly fiasco that squandered scarce resources and left hard feelings that persist even now. And left some of its (few) graduates in trouble farther down the line. I know a young alumnus of that school who is currently signing up for GED courses because the school's failure of accreditation left him having serious problems applying for work. His employer agreed to take him on only after he had agreed to work on his high school equivalency credentials.
I, also know of three very good such schools that are struggling.
One is in a downtown urban area, and has a strong outreach to disadvantaged urban youth. Teaching and student work is strong, but the funds are not there.
One is in a suburban area where a number of private schools exist, and mostly thrive, although they're all having problems currently. A friend was the former headmaster of this school.
One is in a further-removed part of the state; another friend's wife teaches there and they've all had to take pay reductions, last I heard.
To say nothing of the many RC and other denominationally-affiliated private schools which, whatever flavor of faith they favor, often exist in an area where demographics keep declining, both in numbers of children overall, and in numbers of families with a faith affiliation to the school that will support it come heaven or high water.
Enthusiasm and expertise are great, but homeschooling options, with low overhead and smaller, more focused programs, are a better bet right now.
M.
Were I even thinking of starting a classical Christian education K-12 school anywhere, I would want solid answers to many questions on the nuts and bolts of the running of the school, not just the excitement of the material to be taught. The more I think about it, then more I wonder if this would be an opportunity to work more than a full-time job for a couple years for essentially free and then being out of work again.
1) What is the demand for an in-person school in the geographic region?
In other words, can you get 300 deposits of $100 to hold a place in a school that starts in 18 months? If the answer is no after six months of advertising and beating the bushes, then the demand does not exist. I'm estimating a need for 300 deposits to get a yield of 30-50 students based on other activities that everyone agrees is a great idea, but when the time comes to commit, the drop-off is astounding.
When I look online, I can find several online classical Christian schools available for a very reasonable price of $5-10k per year, depending on age of child. The map of the Association of Classical Christian Schools shows several of these classical Christian schools already exist in the region of an easy drive of Providence, RI. (https://classicalchristian.org/find-a-school/?v=a44707111a05)
2) How will this school be funded?
Catholic parochial schools became much less financially viable when they converted from mostly being staffed by religious folk working for room and board to lay folk who expected middle class wages. In several majority Catholic places in which I lived, the Catholic k-12 schools closed as the financially prudent thing to do for the parish, especially as the number of children declined. Had we still been in SuperDinkyville, Blocky would have been in the Catholic school for 6-12 grades at a price of $5k per year plus the family commitment to attend mass and other events as a non-tithing family in the parish. On the few sites I've checked this morning while researching the questions, total cost to educate one child appears to be about $15k for face-to-face schools with most good schools having a hefty endowment, fundraising, and external support so the cost to the families is only $5k or so.
I don't think of Southern Baptists as having a tradition of parochial schools (i.e., already have a lot of money ready to flow to a new school and the expertise available to send people who know how to set up the school on the bureaucratic side to become self supporting), unlike the Catholics. A quick web search right now does not turn up a vast fabulous network. Thus, the follow up to question 1 is how many people would be willing to plunk down a thousand dollars to save their child's slot and then would be able to pony up $5-15k annually? If that number isn't a good 250 slots, then you don't have much of a financial shot at getting this school off the ground as a good private school instead of a one-room schoolhouse that is short on everything and always scrambling. People paying very little will put up with a lot of scrambling. People paying a lot tend to yank kids quickly when the daily experience is not great.
3) What would families be expecting from this school/type of education?
I suspect the answer depends on what is really being offered.
Some people might go all in on a very religious education that sets up the child to go to seminary as the step after HS or to be otherwise devoting oneself to a life of service (regular working class job with volunteer work, social worker, teacher, helpmeet to the person who graduates from seminary). However, people who are that devoted probably have very definite ideas related to doctrine and thus, again, one might be forced to revisit how many people can and will pay a solid tuition to get exactly the religious education they want for their child to go to a set of particular seminaries and will then choose a brand-new school with no history and few connections to the appropriate place. The one-room schoolhouse that is a bare-minimum literacy/numeracy with religious education for the 20-40 students at a time might make a go of it, but apl68 points out that that education is often not acceptable for anything outside the very small community of true believers. Those folks may also claim to want a classical education for their children, but will be quite angry about how much book learning such an education entails. I would not want to be the teacher trying to enforce the book learning in that situation.
A classical education is far from dead. Many fine schools exist that provide a true classical education that centered around the quadrivium and trivium (note that science and math are the majority of those 7 parts). The demand question becomes why someone who values that kind of education and can afford to send their children to a good, established school would pick a new start-up school. The funding issue comes in as is this new school hiring the best of the best of the graduates from excellent classical education institutions and paying for that expertise. That's not cheap and is now in the range of an excellent private school at $20k+/year.
Or is the school really going to be more like a one-room schoolhouse with 5-10 teachers who are knowledgable, but take a pittance because they are true believers? Of those taking the pittance as true believers, how many have the connections to get the students into the desirable colleges etc. as the next step? Few people will pay excellent money for a classical education that doesn't result in a solid middle class existence afterwards. Even if the school is essentially free, then the question becomes why take an unknown school over one of the excellent Jesuit and similar schools with a substantial history of success that award substantial need-based financial aid?
In short, while classical education is a thing for which tens of thousands of parents pay, it's not clear that a brand-new school in a region with a long-standing tradition of fine education (i.e., many, many fine schools, some of which are already struggling as the K-12 population declines) is a great idea. While Christian education in an essentially one-room schoolhouse is also a thing, it's not clear that starting a new Southern Baptist school in a region renowned for being Catholic is a good idea.
If anything, American Baptist, not Southern Baptist, has a stronger hold in that area, since c. 1646 onwards.
M.
A fascinating addendum to this thread came up for me yesterday-- I got an email from a Christian school headmaster, a Southerner, confirming an appt for a phone interview that had been made for me with him by a recruiter. The letter started 'Hey Kay'. I confess I have never received a professional email like this. When I did talk with the guy today, he appeared to sound like he was in his late 30s, not much older. Perhaps I am overthinking this, but I wondered how I was supposed to respond. I had to email him back to confirm his letter, and then later today I had to send him a thank you email. In both cases, I deferred to my training, and ingrained temperament, and began these emails 'Dear Sir'. Somehow I wonder whether that response will make me look old and overly formal, but what was I supposed to write, 'Hey Dude'?
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 23, 2021, 10:48:38 PM
A fascinating addendum to this thread came up for me yesterday-- I got an email from a Christian school headmaster, a Southerner, confirming an appt for a phone interview that had been made for me with him by a recruiter. The letter started 'Hey Kay'. I confess I have never received a professional email like this. When I did talk with the guy today, he appeared to sound like he was in his late 30s, not much older. Perhaps I am overthinking this, but I wondered how I was supposed to respond. I had to email him back to confirm his letter, and then later today I had to send him a thank you email. In both cases, I deferred to my training, and ingrained temperament, and began these emails 'Dear Sir'. Somehow I wonder whether that response will make me look old and overly formal, but what was I supposed to write, 'Hey Dude'?
Dear Headmaster Lastname?
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 23, 2021, 10:48:38 PM
A fascinating addendum to this thread came up for me yesterday-- I got an email from a Christian school headmaster, a Southerner, confirming an appt for a phone interview that had been made for me with him by a recruiter. The letter started 'Hey Kay'. ... what was I supposed to write, 'Hey Dude'?
Not sure of the Southern tradition, but in the West the response to "Hey Kay" would probably be "Yo, Dude".
How did he sign it? If someone signs with their first name, I respond in kind, so I'd respond "Dear Fristname," or in less formal contexts "Hi Firstname"
I do think "Dear Sir" seems both overly formal and impersonal (like you don't know his name). Step 1 to getting a job you desire may be changing with the times and adjusting to show you can fit their culture, not sticking with the culture you prefer.
Quote from: Hibush on February 24, 2021, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 23, 2021, 10:48:38 PM
A fascinating addendum to this thread came up for me yesterday-- I got an email from a Christian school headmaster, a Southerner, confirming an appt for a phone interview that had been made for me with him by a recruiter. The letter started 'Hey Kay'. ... what was I supposed to write, 'Hey Dude'?
Not sure of the Southern tradition, but in the West the response to "Hey Kay" would probably be "Yo, Dude".
Another appropriately trendy response is "Sup, dude?" If that doesn't get you the job, it's hopeless.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 23, 2021, 10:48:38 PM
A fascinating addendum to this thread came up for me yesterday-- I got an email from a Christian school headmaster, a Southerner, confirming an appt for a phone interview that had been made for me with him by a recruiter. The letter started 'Hey Kay'. I confess I have never received a professional email like this. When I did talk with the guy today, he appeared to sound like he was in his late 30s, not much older. Perhaps I am overthinking this, but I wondered how I was supposed to respond. I had to email him back to confirm his letter, and then later today I had to send him a thank you email. In both cases, I deferred to my training, and ingrained temperament, and began these emails 'Dear Sir'. Somehow I wonder whether that response will make me look old and overly formal, but what was I supposed to write, 'Hey Dude'?
Eh, I'd do for something in between those two extremes: "Good afternoon, Mr. Sixteen, I hope you are well."
I clearly did not get serious consideration for the position, got the form reject from the headhunter firm today.
The conundrum I had wrt how to communicate, as a job applicant, with a guy who addressed a letter to me 'hey Kay'. is that the relationship between job seeker and job hirer is asymmetric. He may well expect formality, deferential treatment, even as he treats me with informality and, let's face it, disrespect. He was younger than I, maybe by upwards of 15 years, but I remained surprised by this level of informality, esp from a Southern 'classical Christian school' boss. It really is depressing to have to psych out how to respond in situations where the old formal rules may or may not be expected-- now that I have been having Zoom interviews, for instance, there is also the issue of how to dress for 'em. Unless specifically told not to do so, ahead of time, I am going to wear dress shirt and tie, because, I guess, even if I find that the guys interviewing me are wearing t-shirts, I am operating on the theory that it is better, more respectful, to dress professionally than to assume it's casual Friday, etc. I may be old, but I am not going to presume to toss out standards of professionalism that used to be normative, esp in more conservative regions of the country (remember that New England, despite certain aspects of liberalism, has long had a rather deferential culture, and the South is, well, the South).
Another thing that has crossed my mind as I have now batted 0-2, likely very soon to become 0-3, in the three interviews I had had with Southern Christian schools so far this year, is that it is entirely possible these people, all of whom were full of folks who were very 'South in the Mouth' accent-wise, could not really understand me so well, and/or figured their students might have that problem. I am not at all sure what could be done about that.
I'm kind of surprised by this. I am Canadian, and spent some time in the deep south. While there, I found that they were much more likely to use titles (although it was often Mr/Dr/Miss/Mrs firstname), as well as sir/ma'am. In fact, I picked up this habit while down there to help with my camoflauge. I know the deep south is different than the midwest and Canada is different than New England, but I would hjave supposed that the midwest would lean toward more formality than new England. Learn something new everyday I guess...
What I have seen more and more often is letters that just avoid the issue entirely. For example, I just got one yesterday that started with "Good Afternoon," and got down to business. I don't really care and generally go with my first name, but I have noticed this trend becoming much more common around here.
The Midwest is actually much less formal than New England, largely because it lacks the Puritan heritage we have here, and the all-but inherited class structure that is a holdover from that time. The Midwest was essentially a homogeneous culture from the get-go. I would not expect as much formality, titles, etc., from a school in Iowa, but I would expect it from Georgia. Which is why the 'Hey Kay' rather floored me.
I am also considering that I really may well sound almost incomprehensible to folks down there, or at least the adults may think I would be such to the children. But there really ain't much I could do about that, shy of adopting a fake Southern accent. Which would not be a good idea.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 26, 2021, 10:55:52 PM
The Midwest is actually much less formal than New England, largely because it lacks the Puritan heritage we have here, and the all-but inherited class structure that is a holdover from that time. The Midwest was essentially a homogeneous culture from the get-go. I would not expect as much formality, titles, etc., from a school in Iowa, but I would expect it from Georgia. Which is why the 'Hey Kay' rather floored me.
I am also considering that I really may well sound almost incomprehensible to folks down there, or at least the adults may think I would be such to the children. But there really ain't much I could do about that, shy of adopting a fake Southern accent. Which would not be a good idea.
You're projecting. Use of "Hey Kay" as a form of address in official written communication is unprofessional. It has nothing to do with geographic region.
Interesting. I am from the west coast, a part of the country generally known for its liberalism (which only exists in the cities). I grew up in a very conservative and reactionary small town.
I ask my students to call me by my first name. I tell them we are all adults. A great many of my students are uncomfortable with this and stick to the "Mr." / "Professor" / "Dr." titles. But I see no point in unnecessary formalities.
I remember my father, who was in the military during the Eisenhower and Kennedy eras, complaining that no one dressed up when we attended symphony orchestra concerts. He and my mother held candle-light dinner parties for which the guests arrive in full business attire. Very uncomfortable.
I personally am very happy with a more relaxed, informal, friendly society.
1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. I expect students to address me formally and reciprocate with the same formality when addressing them. I sometimes assign an academic article that focuses on the downsides of increasing informality. The gist of the article, which mentions an old Miss Manners column in which she complains about the practice of restaurant servers introducing themselves by their first names as if they are friends ("If you and I friends, how come I have to wait on you? But if I can be on equal terms with friends of my own choosing, it doesn't matter if I perform a service for wages."), is that formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships. I cheered President Macron for chiding the teenager who called him "Manu."
Quote from: Anon1787 on March 01, 2021, 08:24:41 PM
"formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships."
Do we want that?
Are we superior to restaurant servers?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2021, 09:42:10 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on March 01, 2021, 08:24:41 PM
"formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships."
Do we want that?
Are we superior to restaurant servers?
A customer is the superior in that business relationship with the server in the sense that the customer gets to make certain demands of the server. Infusing that business relationship with a false sense of familiarity undermines the server's dignity (treating your "friend" like a footman) and makes it more likely that the boundary will be crossed.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2021, 09:42:10 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on March 01, 2021, 08:24:41 PM
"formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships."
Do we want that?
Are we superior to restaurant servers?
I don't think that superior/inferior is the only way a relationship can depart from equality between friends. There are two spectra here: friend/business and equal/unequal. We can and should set clear boundaries in business relationships, and that decision rests solely on the friend/business spectrum. There's no need to bring in the equal/unequal spectrum at all.
Indeed, I would argue that a lot of the problems restaurant servers experience come from a combination of the two spectra: customers put them at the 'friend' end of the spectrum (hence justifying, in their minds, personal comments and sexual propositions), and because they have the power to decide on the size of the server's income through tipping, they also like to think of them as belonging to the 'unequal' end of the equality spectrum (hence justifying, in their minds, the expectation that servers put up with personal comments and propositions if they want to get a tip.)
In a perfect world, restaurant servers would be treated with the same respect as other 'equal/business' acquaintances would, like tax accountants or librarians. But because the power of deciding on the size of a tip makes customers think that there IS a degree of inequality between them, everything else gets messed up too.
In conclusion: tipping culture in restaurants is a blight and restaurants should just charge more for food and pay servers a living wage.
Quote from: ergative on March 02, 2021, 03:22:53 AM
In a perfect world, restaurant servers would be treated with the same respect as other 'equal/business' acquaintances would, like tax accountants or librarians. But because the power of deciding on the size of a tip makes customers think that there IS a degree of inequality between them, everything else gets messed up too.
Going OT here, but it is such an interesting point.
Tipping is often portrayed, at least in online fora, as an act of solidarity with a fellow underpaid worker, including from formerly underpaid workers.
Now there is a different narrative creeping in. Tipping was a method of maintaining strict inequality versus emancipated slaves. Using tipping in place of wages didn't quite maintain the power differential of bondage, but it was pretty effective. Given our current national narratives on race and inequality and on a livable minimum wage, will our national narrative on tipping also change?
I seem to recall this was a debate on the old forums. Anyway, ...
Someone somewhere emphasized the point that Miss Manners made. Formality is helpful to the weaker in relationships.
https://hbr.org/2003/12/in-praise-of-boundaries-a-conversation-with-miss-manners
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 01, 2021, 09:42:10 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on March 01, 2021, 08:24:41 PM
"formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships."
Do we want that?
Are we superior to restaurant servers?
When we were working at a volunteer event to serve meals to homeless and other disadvantaged people, we referred to the people we were serving, aka our guests, as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Hospital staff often refer to patients as "Mr./Ms./Mrs." and so on. It's not making any statement about societal position; it's referencing the role the person serving has
in that situation.
My son is a minister. He explained the purpose of clerical vestments, and even the pulpit itself, as symbols of the fact that
when the minister puts on the vestments and stands in the pulpit, s/he is
assuming the role of the minister. When they step down and remove the vestments, they are resuming their normal role as one of the congregation.
On days I'm *teaching, I wear a shirt with a collar, as opposed to my normal T-shirt or sweatshirt. It's a subtle cue that
in this professional setting, the focus is on this professional endeavour, which happens to be education. When I play pick-up soccer at lunch, sometimes with some of my current or former students, I'm dressed the same as they are and we're just equal players in the game. (Or more likely, they're more skilled than I am and younger as well, so their "status" is probably higher.)
(*all pre-covid, of course)
Formality makes it much easier mentally to context-switch to behaviour which fits the circumstances. By trying to remove all of that it just makes it harder for people to fully engage in the appropriate manner in a new or different setting.
Quote from: Hibush on March 02, 2021, 04:25:04 AM
Quote from: ergative on March 02, 2021, 03:22:53 AM
In a perfect world, restaurant servers would be treated with the same respect as other 'equal/business' acquaintances would, like tax accountants or librarians. But because the power of deciding on the size of a tip makes customers think that there IS a degree of inequality between them, everything else gets messed up too.
Going OT here, but it is such an interesting point.
Tipping is often portrayed, at least in online fora, as an act of solidarity with a fellow underpaid worker, including from formerly underpaid workers.
Now there is a different narrative creeping in. Tipping was a method of maintaining strict inequality versus emancipated slaves. Using tipping in place of wages didn't quite maintain the power differential of bondage, but it was pretty effective. Given our current national narratives on race and inequality and on a livable minimum wage, will our national narrative on tipping also change?
I think both narratives can co-exist. Tipping as a system can have its origins in the desire to enforce inequality; but the way we interact with that system can still be a way of signaling solidarity. In other words, a person might want tipping as a formal means of earning income to die, but as long as underpaid workers depend on it, the person will be sure to tip generously to support them.
Quote from: ergative on March 02, 2021, 03:22:53 AM
In a perfect world, restaurant servers would be treated with the same respect as other 'equal/business' acquaintances would, like tax accountants or librarians.
Have you
seen the way some people treat library staff sometimes? Probably better overall than restaurant servers, but I've heard (and witnessed) some real doozies.
So how should waitstaff address customers?
I am used to the "Hi, my name is Steve and I'll be taking care of you tonight" kind of introduction.
From that point on there is no confusion about whether this is a friend or not----the nature of the interaction establishes that there is a de facto hierarchy built into the relationship from which is reinforced by the controlling agent of the tip. I just want to be respectful to these people as I would hope they would be respectful of me, something implied by first names.
And I really, really doubt if the illusion of equality implied by first names encourages propositions and abuse. If anything, I would say the dynamic works the other way around.
Should waitstaff refer to me as "Mr. Redux" (if they know my name at all)?
Again, I find this sort of conversation fascinating, and (while I hope this does not sound flame-ish) it does strike me as a conversation academics would be having.
Part of my fascination is because, again, I grew up in a rather conservative town. Adults were always "Mr." or "Mrs." or, in the case of a student-teacher, maybe "Miss" ("Ms." was not really on the scene yet) until I had my first FT summer job at around age 15. I worked for a construction contractor with a terrible temper. Suddenly I was "Wahoo" and my boss, with the temper, was "Alan" and the other fella that worked for him, at least 20 years my senior, was "Ed" or something (I've forgotten). We knew who the boss was and who the kid was (and I knew nothing of construction) but everybody was addressed by their first name. It was a brand new personal dynamic for me. Every summer I had a blue-collar job from high school through college----cannery, building painter, sheetrock hauler, among many others----with people my superiors and co-workers, and I learned early that a "Mr." or "Mrs." was met with humorous scorn.
Obviously this is a matter of personal choice.
And I may be generalizing from my own anecdotal experience, but I believe this ideal of titles and honorifics are seen as so much humbug and puffery and, yeah, arrogance in other corners of society (not trying to flame!).
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 10:49:49 AM
And I may be generalizing from my own anecdotal experience, but I believe this ideal of titles and honorifics are seen as so much humbug and puffery and, yeah, arrogance in other corners of society (not trying to flame!).
In the spirit of not wanting to flame:
I remember someone writing to Miss Manners about wedding plans, and saying someone wanted it formal, but the writer wanted it more friendly.
Miss Manner's response:
"The opposite of formal is
informal,
the opposite of friendly is
hostile."
The point was that formality and friendliness are different axes; they are not opposite ends of the same axis. Along that same line, if first names is "more friendly", what about variations on first names? Should someone refer to "Judge Elizabeth Smith" as "Lizzie", to be
really friendly? Since Barack Obama went by Barry in his youth, is that how interviewers should address him? (Should servers in a restaurant refer to him that way?) And if you're going to say former presidents should always be called "Mr. President", does that apply to the newest former office holder as well?
On the other hand, is it an obvious indicator of respect whenever people refer to Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil? (Or Judge Judy, or whoever...)
A title can be used disrespectfully, or a first name can be used respectfully. And vice versa.
Assuming more familiarity than is warranted is a way of showing disrespect, and is pretty universally recognized as such. For that reason, it's safer to assume a bit more formality than may be necessary, which the recipient can correct if they desire.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 02, 2021, 11:16:41 AM
Should someone refer to "Judge Elizabeth Smith" as "Lizzie", to be really friendly? Since Barack Obama went by Barry in his youth, is that how interviewers should address him?
I do see the point of titles and honorifics in the situations where authority must be observed----the military, the police, the courts, the government, and maybe even the church. I see the point of high school students calling their teachers by their titles; teenagers generally need authority to keep the lid on. I even see the point of top executives being addressed by their titles----I met our university president one day and I stuck out my hand and said, "President Topsy, I am Wahoo Redux. Nice to meet you, sir"; I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"
But I don't think these are the situations under discussion here.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 01:59:05 PM
I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"
I hope not. The proper phrase would be "Sup, dude?"
Quote from: Cheerful on March 02, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 01:59:05 PM
I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"
I hope not. The proper phrase would be "Sup, dude?"
Guess my informality is out of date...
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 02, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 01:59:05 PM
I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"
I hope not. The proper phrase would be "Sup, dude?"
Guess my informality is out of date...
And if they ask how you are doing, then I believe the proper response would be, "gucci."
If they ask if you are doing well, then you would say, "bet."
Gucci apparently means "good" or "fine" while bet means "yes."
I learned this a couple years ago so it may be slightly out of date by now.
Quote from: Charlotte on March 03, 2021, 04:02:40 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on March 02, 2021, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 02, 2021, 01:59:05 PM
I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"
I hope not. The proper phrase would be "Sup, dude?"
Guess my informality is out of date...
And if they ask how you are doing, then I believe the proper response would be, "gucci."
If they ask if you are doing well, then you would say, "bet."
Gucci apparently means "good" or "fine" while bet means "yes."
I learned this a couple years ago so it may be slightly out of date by now.
Yes, I learned "gucci" from an RA in 2016 or so, so who knows what kids these days are saying now.
You can Google that too.
One site suggests they are saying: Federer is the GOAT
I'm not sure that can be right.
I miss "Groovy." I was a little kid when that "hip," but it always struck me right.
I use "groovy" all the time. I guess that shows my age!