formality vs informality, aging?

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

[Anon1787]

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."

[Wahoo Redux]

"formalities help to set clear boundaries in unequal human relationships."

Do we want that?

Are we superior to restaurant servers?

[Anon1787]

"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.

[ergative]

"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.

[Hibush]

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?

[downer]

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

[marshwiggle]

"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.

[ergative]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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!).

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[Cheerful]

I would not have said, "Bobby, what up?"

I hope not.  The proper phrase would be "Sup, dude?"

[Wahoo Redux]

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...