What’s in a Title?

Headshot 3.13 cropcompressBy Karen
Sternheimer

A title is a way of framing the meaning of a paper, a movie,
a book, a song, a job, and even a person. You might take great pains to come up
with a catchy title for a term paper (or just stick with the tried and true
“Term Paper”). What do human titles represent?

We use titles, information that precedes peoples’ names, in
order to provide meaning about that person. In public forums, titles convey
status and expertise. News programs regularly confer expertise on the people
they interview by including a title, even it is one that is only meaningful for
the story (like “witness,” “neighbor” or “resident”). Our more stable titles
reveal how we create order and meaning of others’ identities on a more regular
basis.

Unlike countries with monarchies, the U.S. has relatively
few formal titles. No Counts, Countesses, Dukes, Duchesses, Viscounts, Lords,
Ladies, Sirs, Dames, Princes or Princesses here. These titles connote family
status, status gained through birth, marriage, and in some cases, status
granted by royalty in recognition of an accomplishment.

American titles may seem simpler, since we have far fewer, primarily
just Mr., Miss, Ms., Mrs., and Doctor. But they too are telling of how our
society makes certain aspects of our identity salient. Go to any automated site
where you “choose” your prefix, and typically your only options are the five
listed above.

We have very few titles that indicate accomplishment. "Reverend," "Father," "Rabbi" and other clergy get titles. For
those elected to public office, often “Senator,” “Representative” or
“President” becomes their permanent public title. But “Doctor” is the one
occupational status that replaces one’s prefix. Medical doctors, dentists, and
people who have earned doctorates can claim a status change based on their
educational attainment, privileging these degrees.

Historically, women’s titles changed when they married,
shifting from “Miss” to “Mrs.,” while men remained “Mr.” regardless of their
marital status. In fact, some references to married women erased her first name
too (e.g. “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith”). Until the late nineteenth century, women
had few legal rights and were essentially in the custody of their fathers and
then their husbands, thus their names and titles changed accordingly. The
wedding tradition of a father “giving away” the bride had literal legal meaning
in the past, rather than a symbolic gesture as in western nations today.

In the middle of the twentieth century, as college
attendance among women rose, the phrase “earning an MRS degree” became more
popular.  Particularly for women from families
that had the means to pay for them to attend, some women attended college with
the goal of meeting a college-educated husband. Some left with a husband but no
degree; when my mother was a student in the early 1960s, workshops for female
students encouraged them to at least finish their degree before getting
married. Just a few years ago, when I asked freshmen in one of my courses to
write about their goals while in college, one student wrote “find a husband.”
So some still seek the “MRS” degree today.

Advocates for gender equality in the 1960s and 1970s who raised
awareness surrounding gender, status, and marriage began using “Ms.” for females, which the U.S.
government approved as a legal title in 1972
. Many women today—married or
unmarried—opt to keep their original last names and choose “Ms.” as their
title.

And yet many adult women, whether married or not, are still
addressed as “Mrs.” A colleague of mine who holds a Ph.D. spoke of being called
“Mrs.” repeatedly by a coworker. In an academic institution, this is
essentially a demotion, since it disregards the doctorate necessary for the
title of “Professor.” She told the individual that he could call her by her
first name or refer to her as Professor or Doctor. Students occasionally refer
to female professors as “Mrs.” as well, regardless of whether they are married,
emphasizing status through marriage rather than their earned doctorate.

We often take titles for granted, yet they tell us a lot
about how a society grants status to its members, as well as what measures a
society uses to establish status. In the U.S., it is a reminder of the salience
of gender in particular. What other titles do other countries or cultures have
to assign meaning to their members? What other titles might we add (or
subtract) from ours?

2 thoughts on “What’s in a Title?”

  1. John Doe's avatar John Doe

    Only an INSANE man would get married in America today, considering how biased the divorce courts are against men and how useless 99 percent of American women really are.
    71 percent of men between the ages of 18 to 34 in America have no interest in marriage:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/young-men-and-women-differ-on-the-importance-of-a-successful-marriage/
    And the following essay really explains very lucidly exactly why so many men are avoiding marriage:
    http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/
    Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

  2. Johannes Veltin's avatar Johannes Veltin

    This article addresses social behavior from less and sometimes more significance. I believe it doesn’t matter much if you are called Miss or Mrs. The difference between these two prefix titles doesn’t discriminate or improve the social positions of women today. Concerning the titles of nobilities, I don’t think that the title matters but the name itself. Some countries as Germany abolished the title of princes; however you can still identify a royal family by its last name. Those people are ancestors of princes, mostly inheriting the wealth and often having a status as celebrity even though they are formally regular citizens without a title. I would agree with the title of doctor making you automatically better than other people. With the title of doctor, you show that you are well educated, a scholar, and people would think you are well employed. I don’t think that titles as President, Reverend, or Rabbi can tell what social class you are from. Those titles are temporary and if you leave office you lose your privileges; the only exceptions I can think of are former US Presidents who earn much more money from being an expert after the time in office.
    I wonder what the purpose of this article is, though. Is the author addressing an issue or is she just fascinated by this kind of human behavior? This is not clear enough because the blog entry is more informative but says little about the consequences or whether it is good or bad. How significant do titles lead to stratification as a whole? Apart from my questions, it is doubtful that inequality is much affected by titles in modern societies regarding that the riches and even most influential people in society don’t have official titles. Something interesting to see, however, is that titles exclude you from the lower class because a title may be regarded as prestigious to other people.
    Titles are something that interests me a lot because in some cultures names and titles are very significant for social classes. However, this doesn’t concern western societies. Titles don’t matter to me at all, while I realize that it matters much more what someone is doing or how much money they have. Therefore, I rather disagree with the article because I eventually conclude that most parts of the discussion aren’t really relevant social class.

Leave a Reply