A Democratic Nation can only be composed of people with Personal Democracy. People fettered by ideas, beliefs, habits, customs and the assorted baggage of past ages, cannot be truly democratic, i.e. free to make individual choices, and willing to respect the individual choices of others.
One of the most complicated social systems we have is the way we identify ourselves. Our real or perceived status is reflected in our titles. Often these titles are now of little help in giving information about the person so described. They are often confusing as well as archaic.
A man, whether or not he is married, has the title of Mr. (contracted from `Mister`, or `Master`) added to his name. A woman, if married, is called Mrs. (contracted from `Mistress`). If she is unmarried, she is called Miss (also contracted from `Mistress`). Ms. (again contracted from `Mistress`) indicates that a woman is married but keeps her own name, or unmarried but does not want to reveal this fact, or married and does not want to reveal it.
The word Mistress originally meant a woman in authority. In a married woman`s case this would be in a man`s household, since she could not own property herself. This meaning has no relevance today. It is better to give no information than to give confusing information.
In a Democracy we are all equal in the eyes of the state. This should translate into equality in relationships. Robert Burns put it this way:
‘The rank is but the guinea stamp -
The man`s the gowd for a`that.’.
If, in a democracy, we are all the `gold`, this means that every man, woman, and child is equal as a person. Titles discriminate, often unfairly. The French Revolutionaries called one another `Citizen`. Russian Revolutionaries addressed one another as `Brother` or `Sister`. However, they were using the titles in the pre-revolutionary manner – as a means of discrimination. A better, and more democratic way, is to omit titles altogether.
A name is the only title we need. Many societies have used only one name, or a descriptive composite name. Our society calls for at least two names. It did not start out that way. we had only one until, for clarity’s sake, in a growing population, a second name, or surname, was added. It was descriptive, as in John (the) Miller, or, as in Iain Mac (son of) Donald, where a person is identified by a family connection.
A title was added to indicate class. Men of no rank were titled Master, or one of its various pronunciations, to indicate mastery of some skill which separated them from the lower, unskilled class. Later when ordinary people were addressed, particularly in correspondence, we were all blessed with the title (Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms.) This peculiarly English custom has spread throughout the world. The French ‘Monsieur’, from the Latin ‘meus’ (my) senior, is even less democratic than the English method of address.
As persons of equal status, we should just use our personal name for identification and address. It should not be too difficult to drop our titles. In some circles in England the second name is used between equals. In Canada, complete strangers are comfortable using first names, perhaps because of the huge variety of surnames. To avoid the use of ‘Sir’, ‘Madam’, ‘Miss’, etc, we need a word to address people whose names we do not know. Fortunately, English has a long history of borrowing and adopting foreign words. The Urdu/Arabic word, originally meaning ‘friend’ is ‘sahib’. We could use the ‘Sah’ part of the word to address people irrespective of age, sex, or status.
A woman should keep her own name after marriage. She is a person in her own right. Her marital status is no concern of others unless she, wishes to reveal it. This would make women and men equal in that respect.
The children of a marriage could take the second name of the father or the mother according to their sex. At eighteen they could choose their adult surname.
It is about time for marriage to be considered a legal contract between two adults, not between two individuals and the Church, or State, where the union is “sanctioned”, with grave penalties if broken without approval. The spectre of illegality for a child born “out of wedlock” has scarred the lives of many. Every child born is ‘legal’ – if that word has any meaning outside a law court.
[...] Posted by deewyess on January 25, 2008 at 5:33 am Filed under: Democracy, Language, Nationality, Time | Leave a comment | Trackback URI Previous Entry: 5… Pictophonic ConsonantsNext Entry: 1… Personal Democracy [...]