INTRODUCTION: AN EXAMINATION ON THE THEORY AND PRACTISE OF ETIQUETTE
Emily Post's most timely observation at the time she wrote her first book of etiquette was that, "Everything has now changed because of the War." Indeed, Ms Posts prophetic works served to acknowledge a socioeconomic and cultural shift that began with the American and French Revolutions, rumbling during the Civil War and World War I., but that became incontrovertible after World War II. The aristocracy and it's codes of hierarchical status with corresponding standards, (and double standards), of behaviour ceased to have relevance in a world where the common man began to seize his personal rights from the vacuum left by the eradication of despotic traditions spanning thousands of years of human history. The pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction of absolute control. But as a result, time tested prescriptions for civil human interaction were being discarded over night. Like the great manifesto of the Bauhaus, these bourgeois ideals were being purged and mankind had now a chance to start from zero... I imagine Emily Post envisaged herself as the medium through which a more thoughtful transition could be made... a "think-tank" if you will for the preservation of human decency in a time of anarchy. Notwithstanding, it could be argued that a less noble intention was to desperately preserve the nuance and spirit of the privileged world in which she was raised... a last rebels stand for the aristocracy sequestering itself in an antiquated romance with a world defeated by true democracy; now shared with those who would heretofore never be invited into the exclusivity of it's ranks. Her book announced, "bourgeois or not, we are still here together with those who love us".... and so the romance continues...
It has always been my keen theory that although we like to think of ourselves as being thoroughly modern, we are in fact poised within the last stages of the Victorian era... There is a huge cultural lag between The Civil Rights Movement, The Women's Rights Movement, Gay Rights Movement, the rise of workers unions and a host of other important cultural and social movements and their establishment as cultural norms generally acknowledged and enforced matter of right by the population at large. The points between which the socio-cultural revolutions of the twentieth century became law and the point when they will have become assimilated by the American population is the displacement between the policy and culture itself. The points along the displacement represent the degree to which popular culture has absorbed policy.
I watched while a woman waited for the door to be held for her as she left a public building. Beforehand she mentioned she fully expected a man to pay for everything and execute every provision including transportation for a date. Later, in our conversation over a dinner for which we went dutch, she mentioned that she felt she was not given the same respect as male colleagues simply because of her sex. I mentioned that I had been raised by my parents in a liberal household that respected the equal rights of men and women. Therefore, in an attempt to treat women as equals and not be viewed as patronizing I assumed to refrain from the typical stereotypes associated with Victorian concept of a woman being a weaker and less intelligent, helpless sex. This meant abandonment of door holdings, and hat tippings and standings up at dinner tables when a woman walked in and a host of other standards of etiquette I imagined would insult a progressive woman wanting to be treated on equal terms with men. So I informed her that it was not only unethical but confusing for her to expect a man treat her as an equal at work or in the world at large and also administer Victorian courtesies reserved from a time when men definitely used such behaviors to justify the social inequalities they imposed upon women. I was able to discuss this matter of highly personal nature as a gentleman with a woman of uncompromising beauty, gentility, intelligence and professionalism because we were well acquainted and had established rules for entering into political argumentation. To me, the way to administer most of the rules of etiquette is by closely analyzing ones context. The blind and strict adherence to rules of etiquette will produce a sterile and obsequious environment which it is not the general intent. The general intent of rules of etiquette is to establish basic rules of social engagement we can all agree to in order to facilitate the many types of interactions we experience as human beings. Because socialization should be enjoyable and because it is so specific to the nature of the people who interact including variables such as their level of familiarity and even their temperament etiquette must be modified to meet the demands of the situation. Peoples who are engaged in business and who have never met will more likely have a more formal application of the rules of etiquette than a father and his son. So let me get on about the business of identifying some of the matters which I find most in need of review by males living in the early quarter of the twenty-first century. As this is a very broad subject I am publishing an unfinished version and will be updating the demi-blog constantly during the life of its evolution. I hope you will enjoy it and contribute to the discussions initiated within its body.
PURPOSE AND MISSION:
If the twentieth-century has evinced anything at all it is that not just popular culture, but culture as a whole evolves at a rapid pace and just like the inexorable updates which characterize our cell phones, computers and technology, culture which moves at light speed must make frequent updates. The purpose of this Demi
While it's purpose is hugely theoretical and academic in nature the mission of this demi-blog lay at the other end of the spectrum. As a mature man in my forties I began to increasingly realize how absolutely chaotic the world about me appeared to have grown. I was and remain happily a product of this tumultuous society which seems not to be able to evolve away from intolerance and incivility as a matter-of right. Civilised behaviour seems no longer to be the norm... civility has come to be viewed as a weakness in a society where ego has no new horizons save intensified violence and oppression; society is no longer possessed of a release valve so it explodes upon itself. This I attribute in part to the the global overpopulation of the species we fondly call, "Homo Sapiens." Indeed, the human footprint upon this delicate planet earth is driving us closer together with unresolved issues of community and our reaction to this phenomenon, since the cold war has been a direct path to self-imposed extinction. Humans need space... But alas! It is not the lot of us humans to have such luxury of space at the dawn of this new century. The era of "Manifest Destiny" is long gone... the boundless ancient forests are gone, replaced by malls and industry. It should all work out very well then since homo sapiens is a highly social organism... overpopulation should suit man rather than hermitage... and perhaps it does... we just have not figured out how to live in close quarters as well as, for example, our more evolved cousins the ants and bees and highly communal organisms. Is it a stretch of the imagination to say that these organisms, insects, flattened beneath our feet... have developed a more highly evolved sense of etiquette than we? That may be another argument better suited for entomologists than sociologists. Well, as a man I am most intimately keyed into those aspects of what is generally considered to be etiquette that directly relate to the behaviour of men. I am not novel in noting as a mature man, that I am unsettled with the level of tact, or lack thereof, of contemporary males, men and gentlemen. Go back through the centuries and you will discover that every mature and cultured man felt his generation was more respectable than the next... I am not without exception, and fall into the long line of men who consider themselves to be highly acculturated gentlemen who deem themselves to be polished, a vanity I admit with tongue-in-cheek. Although it dates me... I have no issue with history... and so am pleased to administer my opinion, acknowledging that it is indeed only... my opinion and not gospel nor any incontrovertible law of earth and cosmos. I will state here and now that in my humblest of opinion and to the best of my knowledge no person has died and made me king of etiquette. My opinion is not sacrosanct! I am no living epitome of style no dais has been carved for me upon Olympus! "On With It then Man! State Thou Mind and Be Done"! For the benefit of men, who in their busy lives have not time to muse upon the particular aspect of a gentleman's behaviour and presentation; for men who had not had the benefit of tutelage from an elder man who, himself was a gentleman having the ability to impart his wisdom; for established gentlemen who endeavour to entertain and perhaps enlighten themselves, who appreciate the ever constant task of refinement, the mission of this demi-blog is to inform, advise, debate and entertain males, men and gentlemen of what passes for civilised gentlemanly behaviour in this first quarter of the twenty-first century.
ON MALES, MEN AND GENTLEMEN...
In the last sentence of my statement of mission made a clear delineation between males, men and gentlemen for depending on the level of maturity and enlightenment we will fall into one of these broad categories.
The term, "Male" is a label intended merely to identify sex. We believe masculinity to be determined at the instant of conception, a random selection of two sets of chromosomes that fuse to form one master DNA. An infant, child, boy and adolescent is a male. Although our culture does not any longer preserve ancient rites of passage from boyhood to manhood it is still a very important philosophical transition. A male of our species carries no responsibility, he is still in the lengthy process of nurturing and tutelage that will ultimately allow him to assume the responsibilities of manhood.
Although the prerequisite for manhood is that one must first be a male the status of manhood must be earned through years of practise. Young males role-play imitating the mannerisms of men who they admire. It is not until they coordinate the behavior with their complementary responsibilities to self, family, community and environment that males make the successful transition into manhood. Men are principled, reasonable and grounded to an ethical foundation that places them in a position where integrity drives their shared stewardship of humanity and its environment as a whole.
While manhood is the primary level of achievement for most males, there is an even higher level of refinement, and this echelon is reserved for gentlemen. In the past the term gentleman was used to identify men of the highest socioeconomic status who were bound by an intrinsic code of ethics and behaviour called etiquette. Because these were typically men of leisure, it was thought that they had time to more eloquently develop mannerisms deemed to be hallmarks of polite society. By today's standards a gentleman is still considered to be a man who has transcended the rudimentary faculties of manhood having refined his demeanour and philosophy to far exceed the basic achievements of manhood. The term is easily construed as being dandyish, foppish and even dilettante in nature. Hollywood has done it's very best to blow up the term into larger than life proportions but the concept is really quite simple.
A GENTLEMAN SHARES AND REQUESTS PERSONAL DATA: What types of personal data a gentleman should disclose and what types of personal questions he should or should not ask.
A gentleman does manage himself in such a manner that he neither discloses personal matters nor violates the privacy of others with the exception that it is the nature of his occupation and he is conducting professional business or that he communicates with family including close associates concerning matters of mutual and established history when appropriate.
It is important for a gentleman to understand the proper rules of socialization so that he may not either offend others or present himself to them as rude and unrefined. When asking a question, any question at all, a gentleman must first be sure that his audience, the recipient of his inquiry, is ready to receive his quire. This means that he must take time to properly assess the object of his inquiry to gauge if it is apropos.
When a gentleman approaches one or more persons who are already engaged in conversation it is rude for the third party to break in either redirecting the subject or jumping in on an established line of communication. The gentleman ,who is the third party, will stand by waiting to be acknowledged and only when given a clear directive to intercede will he proceed, first thanking the first and/or second party(s) for allowing him to intercede. On no account should a gentleman "Bogart" an established conversation by charging in without having been first acknowledged and given leave to speak, for this is the ultimate insult to one or more persons who are happily engaged in a conversation. By showing deference, the gentleman is telling his audience that he respects the importance of their communication even though he may feel that his particular issue is more important. The obvious and only exception is when in the event of an emergency a gentleman wishes to warn one or more parties, who are previously engaged in conversation, of an imminent matter of danger. Otherwise never interrupt an established conversation without due cause. If the party(s) you wish to interrupt do not acknowledge you, or do so but resume their conversation without offering to allow you to join, the the gentleman should wait until the conversation is over or until he is given proper leave to intercede. If the conversation is lengthy and the party(s) do not gesture to wait or to see them another time then a gentleman should assume that he is not excused and that the parties do not wish to engage him at that time in any type of conversation. This is why only a simple, kind nod of acknowledgement is required to say, "I see that you are already engaged and I intend to move on, hope to catch you at another opportunity for conversation." Likewise, a gentleman should not hold anyone at bay any longer than a minute or two if he has no intention of taking time to speak with them or listen to what they have to say. The gentleman may politely nod, acknowledging the outside parties presence without insulting his fellow conversant by interrupting them. When he realizes that he will not be able to speak the gentleman should interrupt his ongoing conversation politely excusing himself and perhaps introducing both parties notifying the third party, "I am so sorry that cannot take time to speak with you at this moment, however please do contact me as soon as possible especially if it is a matter of extreme importance." In this way the gentleman has neither offended his fellow conversant by interrupting them at a mere whim, nor has he offended the third party by acknowledging them and quickly rejecting their offer to cut in on an already established conversation. To the contrary, he has both acknowledged the third party and that their message is important to him even if it is not.
A gentleman should never ask how much money a person earns as wages or inquire as to the nature of their personal finances except when it is legal policy during a business transaction. If someone chooses to disclose this information whether they be an close acquaintance or a stranger then they have elected to disclose a matter of utmost privacy. Even though a person may initiate such an improper personal disclosure, a gentleman will refrain from delving further into details of another persons finances but he may listen politely so as not to be rude since he has been trusted with information of a highly personal manner. The gentleman will also refrain from disclosing or discussing any item of another mans personal finances when they have been disclosed to him as a matter of mutual trust such trust shall be assumed to be the intent.
A gentleman should never demand of another gentleman, or of a woman disclosure of their occupation unless it it a matter of mutual business in which such data is required and germane. If a man or woman should disclose their occupation freely within the context of a conversation with the gentleman then it may be duly noted. A gentleman should never eavesdrop upon a private conversation while other persons are discussing and therefore disclosing matters of their occupation; it should be assumed that their conversation is private and sacrosanct unless they should formally invite the gentleman into their circle of discussion. Likewise, the matters discussed should remain between the parties in the discussion especially involving the details of the other parties occupation. If a gentleman wishes to disclose matters of his own occupation it is perfectly reasonable but it should never be done in a condescending manner and a gentleman must always be sure he is not perceived to brag about his occupation even when being challenged. Which leads us to another dynamic of personal disclosure.
It is fine for a gentleman to disclose some information of a general personal matter within any social context as a means of familiarizing himself to others. But the gentleman must be vigilant that his audience is particularly interested and curtail his conversation accordingly in acknowledgement of the politeness of his associates if he perceives they are quietly enduring his banter. He will be sure not to brag or seek to demean or belittle others in comparison. Respect for the views and opinions of others regardless of whether the gentleman agrees is paramount. In cases in which either the gentleman or his colleagues become uncomfortable with the nature or intensity of a discussion or account of personal matters the gentleman should excuse himself and politely remove himself from the conversation. Although profanity is subjective depending on whether one is religious and therefore actually considers a word, phrase or idea to be sacred or profane it is not polite to use it in public or within the professional milieu.
No comments:
Post a Comment