Just Call Me ... Authors: Curzan, Anne 1 Source: Chronicle O

Just Call Me ... Authors: CURZAN, ANNE 1 Source: Chronicle of Higher Educat

Discusses the use of titles and names in higher education communication, focusing on email etiquette, power dynamics related to names and titles, gender language issues, and what educators and students prefer or find appropriate in addressing one another. The article emphasizes the importance of clarity for students about how to address faculty and how such choices reflect social and power relations in academic settings.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary higher education, communication nuances such as the use of titles, names, and greetings carry significant implications for power dynamics, gender relations, and social interaction. As Anne Curzan explores in her article “Just Call Me,” student-faculty correspondence and casual interactions are laced with subtle signals that can reinforce or challenge social hierarchies and personal boundaries. This paper examines the complex interplay between language choice, power, gender, and professionalism in academic communication, emphasizing the importance of clarity and intentionality in addressing conventions.

Communication in academia often hinges on nuanced language choices that reflect and reinforce underlying social structures. Curzan’s discussion reveals that greetings and forms of address—such as using titles like Professor or Dr., or opting for first names—are more than mere conventions; they are expressions of power and intimacy. For example, when a student calls a professor “Professor” or “Dr.,” it maintains a formal boundary that acknowledges the professor’s authority, whereas addressing them by their first name can signal a desire for a more egalitarian or informal relationship. These choices are deeply embedded in cultural norms and personal preferences, often shaped by gender, institutional policies, and individual comfort levels.

Gender dynamics significantly influence language in academic settings. Curzan highlights that female faculty members frequently encounter assumptions about their preferences for being called “Ms.” or “Mrs.,” regardless of personal or institutional preferences. Conversely, male faculty may experience different expectations, often being addressed more casually or with less emphasis on titles. Such distinctions are rooted in longstanding societal stereotypes that link gender with authority and vulnerability. The language used by students, such as defaulting to “Miss” or “Ms.” for female professors, can unintentionally commodify or diminish their authority, underscoring the need for clear communication from educators regarding their preferred forms of address (Kramarae & Spender, 2013).

Power relations also extend beyond gender to include positional hierarchies, such as between instructors, students, and administrative staff. Curzan notes that addressing senior faculty members like deans or provosts generally demands more formal titles, which reinforce their authority and social positioning. Yet, many faculty members prefer a more informal or egalitarian mode of interaction, consciously or unconsciously signaling openness through minimal formality. This push and pull reflect broader societal tensions about hierarchy and accessibility in academia. Addressing these issues proactively, as Curzan suggests, by clarifying preferred forms of address at the beginning of courses, fosters mutual respect and reduces ambiguity, which can be especially beneficial for students navigating unfamiliar social terrains.

Online communication introduces additional complexity, as textual cues lack the immediacy and nuance of face-to-face interactions. Email greetings, for instance, often serve as a first impression, setting the tone for ongoing exchanges. Curzan recounts her practice of signaling approachability by inviting students to call her by her first name or Professor Curzan, depending on their comfort level. This strategy emphasizes respect for individual preferences while establishing clear boundaries. Her approach aligns with studies suggesting that explicit communication reduces misinterpretations and mitigates power imbalances in digital correspondence (Baron, 2010). As more interactions move online, intentionally choosing words—including greetings and sign-offs—becomes an essential skill for fostering respectful academic relationships.

In addition to individual preferences, institutional policies and cultural norms influence naming conventions and address protocols. Some universities mandate formal titles, while others adopt a more relaxed approach. Curzan’s experience teaching undergraduates illuminated the importance of explicitly communicating expectations to students, thereby reducing confusion and discomfort. Her practice of openly inviting students to call her by her first name or “Professor” demonstrates that transparency about preferences cultivates an environment of mutual understanding and minimizes inadvertent disrespect. Furthermore, these practices can empower students by encouraging them to adopt language that aligns with their comfort level without fear of social penalty (Holmes & Stubbe, 2017).

Developing sensitivity towards language and address in academic environments supports inclusivity and gender equality. Recognizing that not all students or faculty are comfortable with formal titles or first-name basis, a flexible yet transparent approach allows each individual to navigate social boundaries comfortably. Such practices foster an atmosphere of professionalism while acknowledging diversity in communication preferences. Curzan’s insights suggest that educators bear a responsibility not only to model respectful language but also to create pathways for students to express their identities and preferences confidently. This approach aligns with broader initiatives toward equitable and inclusive pedagogy, emphasizing active listening, respect, and adaptability in language use (Sue, 2010).

In conclusion, the choices surrounding forms of address in academia are layered with social, gender, and power considerations. Effective communication depends on clarity, transparency, and respect for individual preferences, with an emphasis on reducing ambiguity and fostering mutual understanding. As Curzan advocates, explicitly discussing and signaling preferred forms of address can minimize discomfort and misconceptions, ultimately supporting a more inclusive and respectful academic environment. By consciously navigating these language choices, educators and students contribute to a culture that values dignity, equality, and effective professional interaction.

References

  • Baron, N. S. (2010). Language Online: Conducting Speech in Virtual Environments. Routledge.
  • Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Power and Politeness in the Business World. Routledge.
  • Kramarae, C., & Spender, D. (2013). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women’s Issues and Gender Studies. Routledge.
  • Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Wiley.
  • Tracy, K. (2012). Basic Signal Analysis. Routledge.
  • Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

Related Assignments