Dear me…

Progress is all very well, writes CHRIS BENNETT, but there is such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

A DEBATE of some magnitude seems to be arising in the British press, and doubtless in many other English newspapers around the world, about the decline in the use of the style Dear … when addressing the recipient of a letter or an email.

As far as I can see the question has not arisen with regard to the text, or as we so clumsily call it (being running dogs of our imperial masters, the US) the SMS. But then, considering the contribution of that medium to the written language there is no surprise there. Why use one syllable when you can use three? This train of thought, of course, will lead us to the most meaningless word in the language: basis.

Dear… is an interesting little debate, for it throws some strong light on the modern tendency to ignore people’s surnames and use the familiar, or first name. What seems to have happened here is yet another incursion into civilised behaviour in the guise of political correctness.

Putting aside the probability that most offenders couldn’t spell political correctness, I can only assume that the now widespread habit is an attempt at reinforcing the absurdity that we are all equal.

There used to be a neat expression in English that was, like so many others, a mild warning. It was “Familiarity breeds contempt”; the expression may now be dead, but the sentiment and the principle are surely not.

I am old enough to remember when the world had bank managers whose main concern was the welfare of their customers. In my twenties and thirties my bank manager in Melville eased me into the buying of a house and the financing of a car. He assumed, quite rightly, that these areas were a minefield for a man with no understanding of money, let alone the workings of matters fiscal.

We came to know each other well, and our friendship soon reached the stage where we were on familiar terms, using first names.

This process had considerable value, a value only fully understood, like most values I would think, when the learning curve of the process is complete.

For many, and I am one, to be addressed over the phone by a functionary who uses my first name is a guarantee that things will not go well. Not if I can help it, and especially if that functionary has the temerity to try to sell me something. And as for receiving emails from my bank’s computer using the same contumely, well…

Here endeth the digression.

Dear… as a form of address, has, apparently, too intimate a tone for the 21^st century; surely that is simply to misunderstand the word and miss the point. Dear… has been in use for centuries because it establishes a neutral ground for written exchanges; it has nothing to do with endearment. It is a mark of respect, no matter how laden the word may be. You may recall the stinging, and now very out of date, “Dear George, please give our regards to Mademoiselle your mother.” Those were the days.

“We're losing the art of letter writing. E-mails are becoming like texts - everyone is abbreviating. If we don't get a handle on it, future generations won't be able to spell at all.” So wrote an authority on etiquette, Jean Broke-Smith, on a British website last week.

There is more to this than meets the I.

CB

28/1/11