Denton
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 281
- Location
- Los Angeles
Misha Glouberman used to write a column about manners for a Toronto newspaper. Here is how he summarizes his philosophy in a recent book, co-written with Sheila Heti, The Chairs Are Where the People Go:
"When I wrote my manners column, a lot of the time the question posed would be, I think this, my friend thinks that, who's right? And it's funny because often no one's right. If my friend thinks she should drive on the right-hand side of the road and I think I should drive on the left and there's no existing rule, no side is right. What matters is that there's agreement."
I think Jared is making a similar point. Rules of polite behavior do their most valuable work almost below the level of awareness. They communicate things like respect, but almost unconsciously. They make social interaction smooth, comfortable, and invisible. When people treat me as I expect to be treated, then everything feels easy and natural. When my expectations aren't met, then there can be conflict.
In a society where everyone observes the same rules of hat etiquette, hats can have this function. In a society such as ours, where most people don't observe these rules, the meaning of the rules is quite different. They no longer communicate respect, trust, fidelity, and sincerity. They communicate something more like nostalgia. In this sense, as Jared puts it, the rule is no longer a rule.
I would add that, in the past, there was at least as much disagreement on the subject of polite behavior as there is today. The conflicts between 17th-century Quakers and non-Quakers over hat protocols is one example. HamilcarBarca's suggestion that there may be special military protocols for hats is another. At no time in history, in no society, was there ever just one set of rules that everyone agreed on.
"When I wrote my manners column, a lot of the time the question posed would be, I think this, my friend thinks that, who's right? And it's funny because often no one's right. If my friend thinks she should drive on the right-hand side of the road and I think I should drive on the left and there's no existing rule, no side is right. What matters is that there's agreement."
I think Jared is making a similar point. Rules of polite behavior do their most valuable work almost below the level of awareness. They communicate things like respect, but almost unconsciously. They make social interaction smooth, comfortable, and invisible. When people treat me as I expect to be treated, then everything feels easy and natural. When my expectations aren't met, then there can be conflict.
In a society where everyone observes the same rules of hat etiquette, hats can have this function. In a society such as ours, where most people don't observe these rules, the meaning of the rules is quite different. They no longer communicate respect, trust, fidelity, and sincerity. They communicate something more like nostalgia. In this sense, as Jared puts it, the rule is no longer a rule.
I would add that, in the past, there was at least as much disagreement on the subject of polite behavior as there is today. The conflicts between 17th-century Quakers and non-Quakers over hat protocols is one example. HamilcarBarca's suggestion that there may be special military protocols for hats is another. At no time in history, in no society, was there ever just one set of rules that everyone agreed on.
Last edited:
Bollocks to Al Gore and his stupid global warming!
