19
husband teased her – asking whom it was for and why she made it. They pestered her
until she shouted, “I made it for you! Let it go, alright?”
Mead’s (1934) notion of the generalized other – the creation of a set of characteristics
that define a person and a situation so that one has a sense of how to behave – can be
used to understand the given role of “guest.” As a polite stranger who had been invited to
enter the home, my place as guest defined not only how families should act but also
provided a model for I should be treated. In the generalized other role of guest, therefore,
I must be addressed as Mrs. X. Contrast this with families who put me in the role of the
student, where I was “the study lady”, or who saw me as a person with parents and
children of her own, where I was called by my first name. The families who cast me as a
student or a person were less formal than families that began our relationship with me as
a guest. Such terms were explicit, as evidenced by the number of children who were
chastised if they were not deferential in how they addressed me.
Calling me “Mrs.” – even when I introduced myself to the children by my first name -
- may also reflect cultural differences and social positioning. In both the 1999 and 2000
studies, formality, and politeness was more normative in lower SES families than in
higher SES families. Constructing me as a guest, moreover, may have resulted in
families feeling less willing to show their not-so-polite but everyday faces to someone
outside the family system.
Though home visits to families during the 2000 V-chip research were briefer, there
was often a period of discussion in “guest” settings when the research team found it
necessary to decline beverages, snacks and full-course dinners. Even during the 1990
dissertation research, I found the tendency toward hospitality cut across social classes
Convention