The “Dear” (or, On Email Salutations)

The fact of our social reality is that we are judged by such silly things. But when we think about how deliberate some of those things are, maybe they aren’t so silly. The decision to favour trousers over a skirt has a distinctly gendered set of connotations for women. I have heard ad nauseam many conversations from women stating to the effect that they hate wearing high heeled shoes but it is expected of them.

 

Thinking about the micro level of interactions. I’ve been thinking a lot about emails. As someone who has to do a lot of emailing for work, and job applications, and everything in between (such as say, organising family things with my sister), I’ve been thinking about email salutations.

 

The issue of email salutations has been on my mind because it has encroached on issues of interactions in terms of gender, age differences, cultural/social backgrounds and just protocol. The issue really boils down to this: can or should I still use “Dear …” as a greeting.

 

Let’s consider a variety of cases:

 

Case one: working in a formal place

 

I sometimes work at a place where protocol is very important. Observing people by title or their ceremonial roles are very important as some of them occupy ancient institutions and are key civic figures. In this context it is not only appropriate, it is a sign of good Britishness to uphold the ‘Dear’ and other related customary salutations. This is the case in which the Dear is absolute, and in this situation I cannot ever get rid of the Dear.

 

Case two: at work: emailing someone who is literally behind you

 

I also work in a context where I am often in a lot of different desks and departments (see hotdesking) and there are often a lot of first introductions with people, sometimes meeting them physically after I contact them by emails (so I don’t recognise them by face). I usually do an anonymous Dear as a form of protocol to email people, including when I am unfamiliar as to where they physically are. If in some instances I am near someone that I need to contact, but I would need to email them because they are working on a caseload or on the phone or I just can’t judge their availability to deal with something, I would email them. I would often agonise over whether Hello is too informal for someone I don’t know, or if Dear is too naff and over-formal. These tend be the main cases in which a salutation becomes an issue of social interaction.

 

Case three: Dear and Gender

 

Antisophie put it to me in this way: would you call someone Dear to their face in the same way I might in an email with the same frequency? The answer to that would be a resounding no. It is true that when working with senior figures; Rt. Hon., Lords or your everyday Sith Lord, you would accord the correct title and greeting to them. If I worked more in this environment I certainly would take formality to be more frequent. Going back to the question Antisophie posed: would I call someone Dear? No. It’s incredibly gendered, and context of the other party’s acceptance of the term needs to be established. For example, an acceptable instance of me using Dear would be as a joke or an informal or familiar context with someone, and usually its to men and women that I know very well, and the quaintness of the utterance forms much of its acceptability. Outside of that it seems distinctly patronising at best, misogynistic at worst and horridly outdated. Antisophie gives me a reason to think that I should purge Dear altogether! Although if I’m writing a job application I wouldn’t want to undermine any chances by getting a little thing like the protocol of a salutation wrong. If we were living in a philosopher’s world I’m sure something like ‘Dear’ would be eradicated as a default.

 

Case four: to and fro emails

 

The usual kind of emails I get, which go something like:

 

Me: Dear n here’s my update on the situation

n: Great thanks, can you also account for so and so?

Me: Sure thing here you go

n: great thanks

(a bit later)

n: (unrelated question/topic with previous thread included in body text for some reason)

 

In these instances, sometimes it is a really quick fire of emails in a short period of time. Or it might just be a long thread. In these instances I think that putting Dear at the top is not only artificially distant, but also not germane to the discussion’s material. To and fro’s typically requires just the facts and even a greeting after the 2nd or 3rd reply isn’t necessary.

 

Case five: making an impression

 

I sort of hinted at this with the job application point. There are points where the formality of a situation is not established because you don’t know the person and or they are new to you (note I made a distinction here). Having a clear greeting and honorary salutation is crucial here. Having the Dear is important to establish a new connection, as in this context it is not presumptuous as a more informal greeting might be. With someone new having an impersonal distance is the default. My Latin American friends think that this impersonal distance with new people is absolutely quaint and quintessentially English (or in their words: soo cute!). There are instances where Dear is used to communicate a lack of salutations. Hi is too informal, Hello is awkward sometimes, and Hey? Well lets go to that.

 

Lemma: On ‘Hey’

 

Like the 19th and 20th Century aestheticians who had a fundamental dislike for the sublime. I too am not a such a great fan of hey. Hey is an informality that needs to be earned, like people who call me Mike. I am not a fan of hey and instead of communicating disapproval openly to practitioners of the word, I simply avoid participation.

 

Our salutations reflect our definition of the situation. I am eternally reminded of Dr. Kieran Flanagan’s example of the definition of the situation, in which a younger version of him was in a hotel in Minnesota and the hotelier asks: how are you today? To which he replies: I’M FUCKING AWFUL! Despite the values we have on authenticity, we still aren’t allowed to be honest when we aren’t okay, or in Flanagan’s case, fucking awful. I suspect that salutations exist in this same baffling way.

Advertisements

Reading Goffman (3): The Front and Back (or, ‘On our online presence’)

Reading Goffman’s Presentation of Self can be difficult, much of it is quite dry and abstract, and then you have little moments where he presents eccentric examples of his ontology which perfectly reflects the terminology he has constructed. The emergence of Social Media, and its effects on our presentation of self is a neat way of highlighting the nature of Goffman’s notion of the front and back, as well as the moral crisis of character presented by his division.

Goffman presents our behaviour as social agents in terms of a performance for an audience, and as away from said audience. The essence of the distinction between the front and the back relies upon this. This presumes the presence of an ‘in’ group and an ‘out’ group; for from another perspective, an audience and a performer. Goffman’s Presentation is said to have an obvious relevance for the service industry, as we can understand it in terms of social actors in roles where performance is essential. Upholding a standard of customer service, and the customer’s presumed ideal of servitude is enforced and often met. When it is not met it is presumed that a failure has occurred on the basis of what is presumed to be correct behaviour or service in terms of being treated as a customer, or sometimes, in what is expected of a customer.

The world today places a high emphasis on image, and a binding set of norms on what we presume of the appearance of a known person. In other words, a person may behave in certain ways which creates an expectation, and acting beyond these terms thus violates these expectations and our image of them. This image, this construction can be so damaging that it inhibits the range of possible behaviours of an agent, at least so in public, or among the relevant ‘audience’ where said agent is a performer.

Lately I’ve been thinking of how constructions such as the Facebook Profile or the Twitter account reflect Goffman’s Front. The Facebook Profile is almost ubiquitous around the world, across continents and across cultures. When one looks at Facebook profile, one looks at a carefully constructed image made by that person. When we create a Facebook profile, we do not create an image of ourselves ‘warts and all’, but one which fits what we consider to be our standard of acceptability.

The online profile is increasingly ubiquitous in the industrialised world. It is as commonplace as the suit is in any office. It is part of our inventory for social acceptability as say, a mobile telephone is or a pair of shoes. The online profile is the merging of the front with the back. Through one’s Tweets or Facebook updates, we communicate ourselves, but we also (at least often) write to be read. We expect to be recieved in our views or what we say.

Our Facebook status updates can be signifiers of social class and other tacit signs of character. People are increasingly aware of the importance of personality management in our online identities as it is to manage our personality and appearance in face-to-face social interactions. Our ‘Front’ in face to face interactions communicates features that are not our choice, such as disability or ethnicity, and are unfortunately adversely discriminated upon (and sometimes positively). Online profiles are distinctly different in that one can hide certain stigmatising features. Unless you knew me, you wouldn’t know my ethnic background, or know if say, I had a history with a speech impairment when I was younger. Disclosing these facts invariably changes my appearance to others when I present it to my front side.

Employers and recruiters in an increasingly difficult job market are forced to use background checks such as going through personal Facebook or Twitter profiles to gain a perspective on a person and if they are right for the roles they are being considered for. With the recent spate of arrests and furore over Tweets, it is becoming evident that what we tweet is important towards how we present our ‘Front’. I consider this a worry as normally Facebook status updates and Tweets are forms of self expression which communicates one’s inner world and thoughts. The online world has been considered in some ways an escape from our everyday ‘Front’. I could play World of Warcraft and be a Troll, where on real life one may have more pedestrian adventures by contrast to that Troll.

The worry present in Goffman’s ontology was that the Back stage was pushed further and further away as the Front becomes ubiquitous. If so much of our behaviour is presenting a Front, an image of acceptability, what becomes of our inner world? Let’s put that in more modern terms: we are ever cautious of what we have to say, whether that’s in person or online. The online world is beginning to be policed in terms of offence and trolling has been redefined as defamatory behaviour (without acknowledging there are non defamatory and harmless forms of trolling, if we used a broader sense of the term, like answering the door to a pizza delivery wearing a horse mask).

We are ever cautious of the appearance of our public profiles, and this affects the scope of our presentation. What we choose to share on Twitter or Facebook betrays of our political or otherwise ideological and ethical views, and the backstage has become our Front stage. Sometimes people choose to share aspects of their backstage behaviour on the likes of Twitter, such as their dissatisfaction with a customer or a those moments of solace, which is within their rights, but we should be aware that the medium does not affect the message anymore, complaining about a (say) customer or client in front of an audience is just as bad and damaging (to yourself or who you may represent) as being public about it.

What of the social media in relation to Goffman’s Front and Back? We could say that it allows for a melding of the front and back stages, or this melding pushes back further the space in which we can truly be backstage. I see this analysis as relevant towards the role of online anonymity.

Destre (this post established from conversation with Michael)

Reading Goffman (2): Props and Teams

One of the primary drivers of our social interactions are the things that signify or confer some form of identity. In some cases these signifiers may denote a particular role we seek to perform, or see others performing. This defines our expectations and parameters with them. These props are useful tools to govern interaction.

Following the dramaturgical analogy of Goffman, the props that constitute social interaction are much like the props in a stage play, these are the costumes of the actor, or perhaps the scenery of the set. Carrying a defective table set with a missing leg in the returns queue of Ikea is the primary motivation of an angry customer to the customer service person at the till, and forms the basis of their interaction.

This is not to say that props are necessary or criterial of interactions, however they are such important drivers of interaction that interactions without props may involve creating new forms of props with significance internal to the agents who confer meaning to such a prop. An example of this was an energy driink that I bought for the sole purpose of making an in-joke with a certain friend, following a conversation about a certain brand of energy drink that we had a month previously.

Props are signifiers of roles, but are not necessarily conferring of roles. A related aspect of Goffman’s social ontology is the role of teams in interactions. People working with a shared goal, or under the auspices of a shared identity, be it of an organisation or grouping by creed (or something else) work in collusion with each other, when interacting with outsiders. There is a distinct world that the colluding team try to portray towards those outside of this group, and a certain set of behaviours or rituals of activity are performed in before the outsider.

Teams can be placed under a strict form of behaviour. Disagreement between members of a group can be downplayed or even unacknowledged towards outsiders. Some organisations have their own official and unofficial codes of conduct to give guidance towards the proper image and impression that is given by the organisation. Team behaviour can be highly regimented and controlled, either overtly by one of the members, or tacitly and among several agents at the same time.

When reading Goffman the worry does emerge about how strictly controlled social interactions can be. I see this regimentation in two opposing senses. In one respect it can be affirming towards uncertainty and a loss of face, in that rule-following behaviour, whether tacit or not, provides the pool of options an agent has in a given social situation. On the other hand, one could see the regimentation of such team behaviour and the application of props to be an almost tyrannical form of control over the individual. This is a tyranny not of the political persuasion, but the kind we all agree and consent to, which in a way is even worse. People often speak of the political tyranny of policing behaviour and thought, when the state is percieved in some way to intervene. However, what if collective humanity may be responsible for uniformity of interactions viz the regimentation of behaviour through props and teams? This is a tyranny of another sort, one which paints Goffman as a social cynic, and anyone who would agree with his viewpoint.

So with that I would ask: what goes against this vision of the world?

The next post will be on the ‘front and back regions’.

Destre