Re: [xmca] Terms of Endearment

Rom Harre's positioning theory is possibly useful here. PT is a
micro-ethnographic analytical framework of discourse. The insight from
PT that I like is that we all, in all discursive acts, position
ourselves and others - claiming or relinquishing status, power,
friendship, etc. Fold into this, the idea that normative salutations
are a part of our habitus, (plural - habitii ? :-) ) and I think you
end up with the uncomfortable 'rub' often expressed within this
thread.

Cheers, Geoff

On 14/12/2007, Dale Cyphert <Dale.Cyphert@uni.edu> wrote:
> Mike's post brings up an issue that is particularly salient for me...the
> "code switching" that goes on in the presence of others. One of the
> principles that I cover in my business communication course is that
> informal usage within the office (i.e. calling one's boss by his/her
> first name) does NOT extend to "public" venues. That is, when referring
> to the boss in the presence of upper management or customers, it is
> appropriate to revert to the formal title.
>
> I'm wondering whether this is a more universal principle, even given the
> variations on when the informal or formal are used in private. Is it
> always true that an "audience" of sorts trumps the relationship of the
> two speakers?
>
> dale
>
> Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor and Interim Head
> Department of Management
> University of Northern Iowa
> 1227 W. 27th Street
> Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
> (319) 273-6150; fax (319) 2732922
> dale.cyphert@uni.edu
>
>
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
> > Interesting that this discussion has sparked so much interest, perhaps
> > because we are all
> > so familiar with the phenomenon but only know some of its variations.
> >
> > In our afterschool work where we mix play and education and friendship and
> > ...... the undergrads partner up with the kids and play an intermediate role
> > between them and the real authorities.
> > I am not in either of the main activities we are conducting, THE authority
> > when at the site. But
> > I am usually the eldest and the undergrads are in a system where Professor
> > Cole or Dr. Cole
> > is the default.
> >
> > To create some space for me to participate at the sites, a system has
> > evolved over time
> > where I am referred to as Dr. Mike or Professor Mike. At one of our sites,
> > (heavily African American) the adults are expected to be referred to as Mr.
> > Danny or Ms. Veverly. But it was a struggle for people to actually be able
> > to call me Mr Mike and I am the undergrad's professor,
> > so we collectively settled on Professor Mike. But even then, the directress,
> > whose rules these
> > were, had a very hard time referring to me as other than Professor Cole. Now
> > we have gotten to
> > know each other a lot better and she is easy with Professor Mike when the
> > kids are around.
> > But if another adult is there? Professor Cole tends to pop out.
> >
> > My point in writing this is to suggest as (I think we all realize) how
> > deeply cultural these
> > conventions of address are, and how they encapsulate power relations, forms
> > of respect,
> > local norms........ even when we move from one idiocultural system to
> > another in a single
> > national/cultural system.
> >
> > The collection of examples has been great to read about.
> > mike
> > (in this idioculture)
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007 4:51 PM, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>yeah, "mate" also sounds so friendly, especially with an australian
> >>accent!
> >>
> >> "No worries, mate!"
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>Geoff <geoffrey.binder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Australian solution is my favorite, (and not just because I'm
> >>Australian, but because I often forget peoples names) and that's mate.
> >>Mate can be used across gender and in all but the most formal of
> >>situations.
> >>
> >>On 13/12/2007, Kevin Rocap wrote:
> >>
> >>>So the more titles we can come up with for Mike, the more he is like
> >>>arctic snow. ;-) ????...as the driven snow? (or is this just a snow
> >>>job?)
> >>>
> >>>In Peace,
> >>>K.
> >>>
> >>>Paul Dillon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>David,
> >>>>
> >>>>The question of perception and language is pretty complictated. One of
> >>
> >>my first field work experiences involved tests of color perceptions among
> >>Mayan and Spanish speakers in the Yucatan. I haven't revisited that theme in
> >>a long time but I do remember those studies (kay, berlin?) showed a pretty
> >>consistent variation between the colors that people could remember and those
> >>they could successfully communicate to others and that these weren't the
> >>same between the two language groups.
> >>
> >>>>To me it seems obvious that Inuit or other arctic groups would not
> >>
> >>only have lots of different words for snow, but also would distinguish
> >>qualities of snow that folks who don't live in environments where snow is
> >>very important. Maybe these distinctions even involve the development of a
> >>concept of snow generative of snowy language and logics permitting an
> >>ontological relationship completely absent among, say, the Nuer.
> >>
> >>>>In Spanish the use of "tu" and "usted", seems related to the use of
> >>
> >>"Dr. Cole" and "mike", it's not fixed but situational, people with whom I
> >>use "tu" when drinking beer, I use "usted" in a faculty meeting. I think
> >>there might be situations in which mike is addressed as Dr. Cole, there
> >>might even be situations where he expects it. I wonder.
> >>
> >>>>Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>p.s., I've never thought of myself as a "street fighting man", a
> >>
> >>"midnight rambler" perhaps.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>>Dear Mike:
> >>>>
> >>>>The problem is that there are cultures (including ours) where it's
> >>
> >>really TOO intimate to address a colleague by their first name. In most
> >>families in Korea, a younger brother doesn't use the first name of an older
> >>brother though the older brother may use that of the younger (just as
> >>parents may use their children's first names but not vice versa in the
> >>West). I can never get my students to call me anything but "Professor
> >>Kellogg" even though I am really only a lecturer (and that's why we address
> >>everybody except Mike as "Professor" in our contribution to the discussion
> >>on development).
> >>
> >>>>I gather from Paul's comments that "dear" as a letter salutation is
> >>
> >>also considered too intimate now, which was certainly not true when I left
> >>the USA more or less permanently in the early 1980s.
> >>
> >>>>In English teaching we try (very stupidly) to teach terms of address
> >>
> >>as a set of rules, e.g.
> >>
> >>>>a) WHERE INTIMATE: Never use a FIRST name with a title (except that of
> >>
> >>course here in Korea the last name comes first and the first name comes
> >>last)
> >>
> >>>>b) WHERE NOT INTIMATE: Never use a LAST name without a title (ditto).
> >>>>
> >>>>This succeeds in utterly confusing our learners and erects huge
> >>
> >>barriers to human interaction where none previously existed. Language is NOT
> >>a set of rules--not even grammar "rules" are rules, and to to try to teach
> >>respect and collegiality as a set of rules is almost a contradiction in
> >>terms (since rules will inevitably involve a clash between MY rules and
> >>YOURS and the way I end up expressing my respect for you involves NOT
> >>respecting your rules).
> >>
> >>>>So what do I teach? Human interaction, of course. You ask somebody how
> >>
> >>to address them and then you forget your own bloody rules and just do what
> >>they tell you to do. In fact, a question like "What do I call you?" is
> >>EASIER to teach than the so-called "rules" above. But most importantly it is
> >>clearly LIMITING and LIMITED in a way that so-called rules are not. It's
> >>concrete and personal, one might almost say intimate, as human interactions
> >>have to be.
> >>
> >>>>Last night I was reading Paul Bloom's book "How Children Learn the
> >>
> >>Meanings of Words" (MIT: 2001). He has a "rules and words" paradigm for
> >>language, so he spends some of the latter part of the book smirking at those
> >>of us who consider rules and words negotiable and not innate.
> >>
> >>>>He cites the following parody of the Whorfian (and Vygotskyan)
> >>
> >>position on p. 244.
> >>
> >>>>Whorfian: Eskimos are greatly infuenced by their language in their
> >>
> >>perception of snow. for example, they have N words for snow whereas English
> >>only has none. Having all these different words makes them think of snow
> >>very differently than Americans do.
> >>
> >>>>Skeptic: How do you know they think differently than Americans do?
> >>>>Whorfian: Look at all the words they have for snow!
> >>>>
> >>>>First of all, if Inuit who see snow every day have exactly the same
> >>
> >>perception of snow as Americans who have never seen snow in their lives, it
> >>is the skeptics and not the Whorfians who have some tough explaining to do.
> >>Secondly, there is really NOTHING circular about language being both cause
> >>and effect: the language of previous generations is an effect for them and a
> >>cause for us. In the same way, a question like "What do I call you?" is both
> >>effect and cause, and so is its effect, namely the answer. What's so hard
> >>about that?
> >>
> >>>>David Kellogg
> >>>>Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>
> >>>>PS:
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, Paul, though I am not a Stones fan, at heart I am a street
> >>
> >>fightin' man like you.... But you can see that our Dear Mike takes his
> >>pastoral duties on this list very seriously indeed, and that's surely one
> >>reason why the list is such a nice quiet place to work.
> >>
> >>>>dk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>---------------------------------
> >>>>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>---------------------------------
> >>>>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Geoffrey Binder
> >>BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
> >>PhD Candidate
> >>Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
> >>Ph B. 9925 9951
> >>M. 0422 968 567
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> >>Search.
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
Geoffrey Binder
BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
PhD Candidate
Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
Ph B. 9925 9951
M. 0422 968 567
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca