Ideas and perspectives that ignite further inquiry.
Thought Sparks brings together contributions by external authors whose ideas and perspectives stimulate discourse and may inspire future ICD research, analysis, or publication projects. The contributions reflect the perspectives of their respective authors.
Language connects …
… or divides.
A historical perspective on “du” & “Sie”.
Author: Undine Schreiber • September 2026
Private vs. professional: Blurring boundaries.
In private settings, “du” remains the emotional basis for closeness.
For a long time, professional life followed a strict convention:
Those above addressed those below as “Sie”, and those below addressed those above as “Sie”. An informal “du” often already had an exclusionary signalling effect for those who were not included.
Today, this rigid convention is beginning to dissolve. Modern industries such as tech and start-ups use the “corporate du” to increase efficiency.
Temporary “workshop du” arrangements are also common practice.
More “conservative” sectors such as finance and law retain the formal “Sie” as a marker of distance and quality.
Its value lies in situational clarity.
Regional comparisons: Three illustrative perspectives.
International / European
Scandinavia underwent a radical “du reform” in the 20th century. Even kings are addressed informally.
Romance languages – French “vous”, Spanish “usted”, Italian “Lei” – have retained formal distinctions. In southern Italy, the historically partly Fascist-influenced “Voi” is still used in some contexts.
Belgium is divided: the Flemish north tends to move quickly to informal forms of address, while the Walloon south adheres more strictly to formal address.
In Russia, the combination of formal address (“Vy”) and patronymic precisely regulates the balance between distance and respect.
In the Balkans and Turkey, the formal “Sie” (“Siz”) preserves hierarchy, while in everyday life it is combined with warmth through familial titles of respect such as “Abla” (“older sister”).
In Greece, “Eseis” often gives way quickly after the initial encounter to the more connecting informal form of address.
Within Germany
Hamburg developed the “Hamburger Sie” – first name + “Sie” – as a Hanseatic balance between familiarity and respect.
In southern Germany – Bavaria, as well as Austria – the “Alp-Du” is customary in mountain huts; away from the office, using “Sie” there can almost be perceived as an unfriendly form of exclusion. The “Münchner Du” – surname + “du” – represents a folkloric form of familiarity.
The Rhineland playfully bridges such boundaries through the traditional “Ihrzen” or the informal address associated with Carnival.
Historically, the GDR was shaped by the socialist “Genossen-Du” (“comrade du”) as a prescribed form of equality, while West Germany retained the formal “Sie” until the cultural changes associated with the 1968 movement.
Language connects where the pronoun creates closeness.
It divides where protection is required.
The choice remains a powerful tool of social architecture.
International
English completely abandoned the familiar “thou” in favour of the universal “you”. What appears informal today was historically the form associated with greater politeness.
Japanese uses complex systems of honorific language (Keigo) that firmly encode hierarchical relationships.
In Arabic-speaking and African contexts – for example in Swahili – respect for status and age is often expressed not primarily through contrasting pronouns, but through religious and familial honorifics such as “Ustadh” (teacher), “Mama”, or “Mzee” (elder).
Hindi distinguishes between a three-tier hierarchy of pronouns – “Tu” / “Tum” / “Aap” – marking different degrees of intimacy, equality and formal respect. Forms of address shape social distance.
Historically, our modern-day formal “Sie” can be traced back to the Latin “Pluralis Majestatis” of the 4th century.
It demonstrated power and separated rulers from those without power or those dependent upon them.
It was not until the 19th century that the bourgeois “Sie” became established as a reciprocal expression of respect.
History shows us:
Appreciation is entirely independent of the pronoun used.
Respect arises from attitude, not from grammar.
Purpose & function: Protective distance vs. closeness.
The formal “Sie” serves a clear purpose: it creates a professional space of protection. It separates the person from their function and is intended to prevent boundaries from being crossed.
The informal “du”, on the other hand, is intended – particularly in professional contexts – to reduce the perception of hierarchy. In doing so, it accelerates processes and promotes psychological safety within teams.
