Comment by kixiQu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kixiQu | Hacker News Reader

Because that's the etiquette norm.

The norm reflects the attitude that someone's name represents them as a person rather than some role of theirs. It is therefore seen as more respectful to use this form of reference wherever possible rather than "reducing them to their role".

Pretty much all norms like this are culturally determined with just-as-strong-arguments being available for doing it some other way, but if you want to play basketball, you have to learn the rules of basketball, and if you want to exist within some particular society...

Within this norm, one introduces the name ("my girlfriend Emma") and expects the other to either remember Emma is their girlfriend or to be able to fake remembering that Emma is their girlfriend (the latter is a major part of the norm).

It's also the case that not using the person's name signals keeping your interlocutor at a distance, equivalent to "I wouldn't want to introduce you to this person", which in informal workplaces is seen as rude. For you as the person who does not have a direct relationship with Emma, it's not inherently disrespectful to the girlfriend to fall back into the anonymous mode of reference ("you said your girlfriend was on a vacation?") but showing that you remember the name is a social signal that you care about your coworker.

There are much more complicated regional/socioeconomic/cultural variants and subtle shades on all this, of course. Among my father's family, given names aren't common in reference, but all references to shared relatives -- even among adults -- are given not relative to the speaker, but to the audience ("your cousin" instead of "my sister", "your father" instead of "my uncle"). This is much harder to do than you'd think if you didn't grow up doing it!

I'm American and I wouldn't do this, unless I had just introduced them. I assume the OP is referring to situations where the introduction of the names, if it happened at all, was a long time ago. In that case, I would argue the etiquette should be the other way: it seems slightly inconsiderate to assume the listeners have committed your family tree to memory if they've never met them.

I agree with everything except that referring to someone as girlfriend is “reducing them to their role”. If anything, it’s adding information to your relations. She is not just Emma (what is a name anyway? Your argument could be followed until the end in which you can only say “that person”). She is Emma and also is your girlfriend. Would your mother be offended or feel diminished if you referred to her as “mother”? If anything she would be proud in most cases.

| I agree with everything except that referring to someone as girlfriend is “reducing them to their role”. If anything, it’s adding information to your relations. She is not just Emma (what is a name anyway? Your argument could be followed until the end in which you can only say “that person”). She is Emma and also is your girlfriend. Would your mother be offended or feel diminished if you referred to her as “mother”? If anything she would be proud in most cases. |

A lot of this is regional-cultural specific and generational. My mother's family is from the south east, for generations back, whereas my father is third generation in this country from Germany and the ways of introduction are, from grandmothers to parents to me, especially when we moved to the pacific northwest were amazingly different. I had friends call their mothers "Mommy" into high-school, which I thought was infantile and embarrassing and other friends call their parents by their first names, which made me nearly hide as I waited for them to be hit for the sheer disrespect.

If I introduced my mother to my friends, I would never give her name, as that would be considered an insult, as "ma'am" was the appropriate title to be used at all times. Also, when in a formal or unfamiliar meeting, or a less than friendly meeting, my father would introduce my mother as his wife, as "ma'am" was what they were expected to call her, giving an implied layer of distance in the relationship. Not all relationships were treated as though they were going to be life long friendships. A certain decorum of formality was maintained which is lost to a sea of history. It isn't necessarily a bad thing.

"Your argument"? I put it in quotes to indicate it's the attitude I'm explaining rather than a belief I'm putting forward.

> Pretty much all norms like this are culturally determined with just-as-strong-arguments being available for doing it some other way

My argument is that social signals of respect aren't inherent or reasoned from first principles but reflect shared narratives and power dynamics. If you are trying to determine One Right Logical Way To Do Things, you're misunderstanding the fundamentals of how social norms work.

It's not the norm to refer to people by their names if they aren't known. Otherwise when someone says "I had to watch Jake play baseball for 2 hours", you end up with the response being "who is Jake"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com