Separated at birth (etiquette, who needs it?)
Separated at birth? You decide.
The first woman is etiquette expert Emily Post. The second is my grandmother, roughly her contemporary, and a person whose own knowledge of etiquette was second to none (with the possible exception of Emily).
The Post article got me thinking how the whole idea of etiquette has more or less died, except for a few stalwart pockets here and there. In its worst incarnations etiquette could be used to harshly judge those and even ostracize those who just didn’t know any better, or who had an excess of zest for life and an antipathy to conformity for its own sake. But in its best incarnation etiquette was a guide to how to behave with respect for oneself and others.
[NOTE: I’m taking a break from politics today. At least, I think this one isn’t about politics.]
In its worst incarnations etiquette could be used to harshly judge those and even ostracize those who just didn’t know any better, or who had an excess of zest for life and an antipathy to conformity for its own sake.
Yes, I remember years ago coming across an article that stated etiquette was a form of power used against the “outsider”. One could say its current manifestation is the behavior of the so-called elites against Sarah Palin: the most egregious is by the “conservative in name only” SOBs.
I guess it’s about politics after all 🙂
No break. There IS no break — that’s what’s so hellish about this period. I feel like my eyelids are taped open.
The first thing that leapt to my mind with regard to this etiquette post was my outrage at the way people feel free to assume that I’m of the same political persuasion that they are. And they’re not, necessarily, even thinking in terms of broad categories, like Republican or Democrat. Last spring, one person — someone with great power over my professional fortunes — assumed that I was not only a Democrat, but a Hillary supporter, like her!
Readers of this blog know the agony of the dilemma that this put me in. Should I have brought a pleasant conversation to a sudden, shocking halt and confessed that not only was I not a supporter of Hillary, but I was also not a supporter of Obama. Should I have put candor and integrity above my fears of professional banishment? I didn’t. Instead I made some noises about some of Hillary’s views that I supported. (Actually, I would have much preferred Hillary. These days I think about her longingly. She would be — much as I dislike her — a known quantity, not a terrifying Manchurian-candidate cypher.)
Surely Emily Post, and your grandmother (who has a much nicer face and much more direct gaze than EP) would disapprove of this kind of thing. I remember my mother telling me not to talk about politics or religion. At the time it seemed quaint and deplorably up-tight. Now I wish…
The notion of etiquette is inseparable from the notion of class – for good and for bad. It can survive only in profoundly class society and usually is associated with nobility. Yes, its main purpose is improving people bechavior so they were more amiable in social interactions, but also to distinguish well-educated and cultured persons from boorish ignoramuses. That is how class differences arise and elites can be schooled to make decent people from them. I do believe that existence of such elites is a vital force for progress of society in general; but this, of course, is a political opinion, so I must shut up here.
Sergey Says:
“The notion of etiquette is inseparable from the notion of class – for good and for bad. It can survive only in profoundly class society and usually is associated with nobility.”
Depends on how complex the rules are. It would just be nice if people wouldn’t kick the back of my seat at movies, chewed with their mouths closed, blew their nose instead of sniffing nonstop for hours, held the door, made way for women, et cetera… basic non class related stuff.
Etiquette still exists in all strata of society but it’s more specialized, venue dependent. I walk into a pool hall and I am expected to observe the “etiquette” of the pool hall. Standardized, formalized, etiquette (for purposes of dining, visiting, calling on, et al) was a requirement of the upper classes. With the passing of the upper classes such etiquette is now passé. The top of the social heap is now the moneyed class and it has become obvious they have no use for etiquette or manners. I now understand the utterly hostile contempt the upper, genteel classes had for the nouveau riche.
My prim New England Aunt Emily taught me that etiquette is “pc” – personal courtesy – at all times, for all peoples. Simply, she is the classiest lady of them all. Personal Courtesy. Ought to be imprinted on cell phones…
A couple of years ago, etiquette was a hot topic here in Germany, with reports of kids being sent to classes to learn how to use the right fork. I sort of prefer the Atticus and Calpurnia approach myself. If anyone criticizes my choice of fork, I consider the source and move on. I usually get on OK by asking politely how things are done in an unfamilar situation and then trying to comply.
It looks like you have your grandmother’s eyes!
Another thing: neither of the two ladies in the pictures you’ve posted is smiling. I’ve noticed this before about pictures which are one hundred years old or older. People look serious; they do not laugh. Today, everybody is expected to smile in a picture. When did this change? Why? I’m curious.
A fan:
I’m guessing the reason is modern dentistry.
I don’t think it was just dentistry. Perhaps it was also the amount of time one had to sit still for a photo? And the idea of what one was trying to convey about oneself.
Here’s one of my grandmother smiling. More of a snapshot type thing, although also taken some time between 1900 and 1910:
It was cropped from this photo, which seems to have been taken outside at some sort of picnic or open-air event, and was placed on a postcard:
etiquette (or manners) never seemed to me to be something to separate the classes or stratas. To me, rules and rituals are often important to define boundaries within which we can conduct civil discourse. Unfortunately these no longer exist to any great extent which I believe had led to all kinds of problems.
Long ago I came to the conclusion that many of the crime problems in urban areas come from our inability to observe common courtesies in densely populated areas. In Japan they have (though not as strong now as it was before) a highly structured system of public ritual courtesy. Though they may be thinking, “In my opinion you are a steaming heap of dog droppings” still they will bow and be courteous. In such population density I truly believe it is only way to keep one’s sanity and maintain a semblance of an ordered society.
I guess I am of an age where I remember being brought up to say please and thank you, respect people (my elders especially), and try not to impose my behavior on others in public. Now I dream of mail-ordering an electrical submission device and waving it at brats of all ages (from six to sixty) in the mall or grocery store while they run away screaming, “Don’t Taze Me Bro”
dane: I once read that one of the problems with the legendarily-crowded Japanese subways is that, since they are a relatively new phenomenon, the traditional rules of Japanese etiquette don’t apply. Without them, the exquisite manners of the Japanese descend into anarchic chaos.
Perhaps by now they’ve developed some rules about subway travel, however. Have you ever noticed elevator etiquette? It’s very strict: don’t talk, don’t be overly familiar. The environment is too close and too confined.
neo-neocon Says:
“I don’t think it was just dentistry. Perhaps it was also the amount of time one had to sit still for a photo? And the idea of what one was trying to convey about oneself.”
I think that was part of it but I also think the idea of smiling is probably new. It’s not a universal human thing. Some cultures just don’t do it. Some use the smile to mean something else (like confusion).
That and I think being serious / earnest was more respected way back when.
“Have you ever noticed elevator etiquette? It’s very strict: don’t talk, don’t be overly familiar. The environment is too close and too confined.”
Elevator etiquette pales in comparison to men’s room etiquette, our entire civilization could break down without it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzO1mCAVyMw
“To me, rules and rituals are often important to define boundaries within which we can conduct civil discourse.”
Very true. The best approximation to ritualized, elaborate etiquette I regularly observe at scientific conferences and seminars, where civil discourse is of paramount importance. Etiquette is a part of so-called social capital, as defined by Francis Fukuyama, and every properly functioned society can build it. It seems to me natural that a man of Japan origin, well knowledgeable of a culture with so elaborate etiquette, made the main contribution to understanding of its social functions.
It is also worth to mention that the advent of Internet gave rise to “net etiquette”, absolutelly necessary to proper use of it. That is how we discern and excommunicate trolls.
Yes – elevator etiquette is a very interesting phenomenon – etiquette born out of fear.
Interesting that Sergey mentions “net etiquette” . I find it very amusing (in a disturbing sort of way) that the same people who will chastise you over the internet for using all caps (or some MINOR infraction) are probably out there Bogarting (hey that tells my age) parking spaces, shoving in line, and letting their kids run amok (thanks Dr. Spock).
Darrell:
That is funny as hell.
Actually, there is a subtle smile on your grandmother’s face, don’t you think? She certainly has a much more attractive demeanor in the photo than does Ms. Post.
RickL: I think we are past the political hiatus so you will love this one too from the same guys, key words “you broke him!” Broken Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qQu8ccNiBU
I used to write a lot that this stuff was important (etiquette), but was mostly lambasted for it like length
I don’t wish to lead us to overcomplicated paths, but I see a distinction between two strains of “proper” social behavior (I can’t decide which should be called manners and which ettiquette). Treating people with courtesy and dignity – simple politeness – should not be a class marker, but a cultural universal.
But because “courtesies” are often elaborate and artificial – the word “curtsy” comes from it – only those who were wealthy enough to have leisure time could afford to invest the time in these arcane arts. They thus became associated with the wealthy, who had an interest in making them as difficult as possible for the lower classes to imitate.
Miss Manners (whom I prefer to Emily Post) wrote a book about American etiquette, going back to our Revolutionary beginnings and pointing out that the American Revolution made necessary not just new economic and political norms but new social ones as well. We were, if not class-free, at least class-challenged: no longer was a person’s class sufficient to understand that person, nor an excuse for treating that person in one way or another. Modes of address changed; modes of dress changed; modes of personal interaction changed.
American etiquette, she maintains, is the ultimate liberating social tool, because it requires that everyone be treated with a certain baseline of civility, and then proposes a merit-based (or sometimes age-based, but not money-based or title-based except as title comes via merit) hierarchy for distinguishing between individuals in an etiquette sense. The business of forks is so secondary as to be almost (but not quite) quaint. (I LOVE Miss Manners.)
Manners are like clothes. For every person you would like to see without clothes, there are hundreds you would beg to keep their clothes on.
Our elites today assume that we want to see them naked: their politics, their passions, their hatreds, their obsessions, their stuff, etc. No thanks.
hNyGPbZrje4sp