Noah, a learned friend, keeps in touch with his legal colleagues here and abroad. Recently he showed me a missive from the UK Law Society discouraging its members from using the salutation “Dear Sir”.
When I enquired, he said the objection was not to the use of “dear” – in common with the rest of us, lawyers in the UK will still be permitted to express a fondness for others though none is felt. Hypocrisy, there as elsewhere, is still pervasive.
So what is the problem? You guessed it. The committee of the Law Society, after earnestly considering the matter, concluded that the use of “Sir” is bad. No less offensive in their view is the use of “Sirs”; that the word denotes a collective, something much favoured in lefty circles, was patently not enough to save it from damnation.
These two words are, to be sure, so nondescript and rarely noticed that, were Robbie Burns not just another dead white male, they might properly be compared to the “wee sleekit, cowering, timorous beasties” the poet-person wrote about.
But, to the committee, the words were anything but trivial and their use anything but unimportant. They were an abomination to be utterly forsworn, totally interdicted, absolutely enjoined, and completely banned. They were, in a word, sexist.
In its circular letter, one replete with orotund phrases so characteristic of the law, the committee members “counselled” their constituents – the people who were once termed the legal “fraternity” until the left discovered this meant “brotherhood” – in these terms:
“The historical use of ‘Dear Sirs’ as a standard greeting in legal correspondence originates from a time when the profession was predominantly male.
This gendered greeting perpetuates the assumption that the recipients of correspondence are by default men.
This is no longer accurate, representative or appropriate in today’s diverse society, where we want to account for and represent the broad scope of recipients including women and individuals with other gender identities including non-binary.”
Ever the lawyer, Noah ponderously explained the memo to me. “A ‘Sir’ is a man – a much-respected man, perhaps, but still a man. The word cannot refer to a lady or even a woman. Nor, for that matter, can it be taken to refer to a non-binary individual who pro-tem chooses not to be a man. Bear in mind, moreover, that to salute women as ‘Dear Lady’ or ‘Dear Ladies’ would be just as sexist, and so no less objectionable. The memo may not say so expressly, but this surely is its effect – the reference to a ‘broad’ sector in no sense implies that broads can be addressed in gendered terms.”
Foundations of our society
It is, Noah continued, the making of the sexist assumption – that is, assuming the addressee is male – that so undermines the foundations of our society. If the addressee says he (or, less usually she) wants to be saluted as “Sir”, we remain free to do as bade. The same is true when, to our knowledge, the non-binary prefers to be addressed in one gender rather than another. Our concern is not with exceptional cases, but only with the “default” position.
In the default position, an uncomfortable place halfway between the erect and the sedentary, we must now know how best to proceed. Happily, the memo provides us with a set of gender-neutral choices that it sees as helpful.
The list is long and to recount it in full, while good for a round of music-hall ribaldry, is to engage in an exercise in futility. A sample will do. “Dear team”; “Dear managing partner”; “Dear head of HR”; “Dear legal team”; or “Dear all” when all else fails (succeeds, rather). By means of such “alternatives”, the memo stresses, lawyers can maintain professionalism while ensuring that the communication is “respective” (by which is meant “respectful”) of all gender identities.
In South Africa, lawyers are every bit as concerned to appear professional, so they too should revise their salutations. They are just as guilty of using the “Dear Sir(s)” salutation. The problem is to find a comparable list of expressions, suitably indigenous and homespun, that they might be encouraged to use.
“Howzit my bruvvers”
The issue brooks no easy solution. “Hey Bru” won’t do, and nor will “Howzit my bruvvers” – these expressions are both gender-specific. “Hi, my China”, smacking of Sinophilia and racialist for that, is also a no-no. “Spot you, my mate” is a bit blokey. “Greetings” sounds like the opening words of a ship’s captain on being confronted by warlike natives, and “Your Excellency” is obviously reserved for State Presidents only.
Especially troubling is the proper way to address a set of siblings such as the three Gupta brothers. Commencing this onerous task, you might initially toy with “My Guppies”; but this won’t do – they are not small fry. Nor will “Salutations, my Tertiaries”, although this at least has the advantage of demonstrating a higher level of respect than we binaries receive. It’s a puzzle to which I have no answer.
All I know is that, when the boys are eventually extradited (a homecoming much to be anticipated), a resolution of this problem will probably be provided by the Commission of Enquiry set up to investigate their conduct.
In the meanwhile, I am content to shake my head. Not because I am nodding off, but at the sheer effrontery of the hapless Law Society. Not since our Grade 1 teachers told us how to cover our books have I seen a set of instructions so presumptuous, so condescending, and so absurd. What a bunch of clots.
“Improve your agenda”
If I had the time, I would write a stern letter to the committee, headed “Dear Sirs or Madams”, and tell them off. “Time to improve your agenda,” I would say (quite wittily, I think).
But wasting time is not my shtick. I am too busy encouraging Noah to observe the legal canon of construction, heralded down the ages, that “in these presents, the masculine, wherever appearing, shall embrace the feminine”.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend