Why etiquette ain't just quaint

Tuesday, June 09, 2009


Cotillion
.

Growing up in cozy Paragould, Arkansas, it's a word I had never heard until my junior or senior year in high school. But as I got to know people from great metropolises like Jonesboro and Little Rock, I learned about cotillion from boys and girls my age whose parents had enrolled them in lessons given by the Amy Vanderbilts of their towns. They covered everything from how to dance, to how to eat from the proper plate (and with the proper utensil), to how to engage in polite conversation with elders and members of the opposite sex.

Paragould's got a lot. But it ain't got cotillion.

That's not to say I didn't learn manners. My mom was strict about that, particularly when it came to social interaction and conversation: we answered the telephone a certain way, always said "sir" and "ma'am" to adults, and never interrupted someone who was speaking. I heard the admonition, "Remember who you are," on a regular basis when I was headed out the door during my teenage years, which was shorthand for, "Remember that you are a Thompson and act appropriately."

In short, mom taught my three siblings and me etiquette. It wasn't cotillion-fancy, but mom took her Southern upbringing - with its complex standards of graciousness and hospitality - seriously. And she expected her kids to do so as well.

The funny thing is, that very word "etiquette" seems so quaint now. It's a word that really does evoke a figure like Amy Vanderbilt or Emily Post. Etiquette is best left wherever you put the white gloves and patent leather shoes once the debutante ball is over, right?

Maybe not. Few people would argue that there is a certain coarseness to society that didn't exist a few years ago. A lot of that is driven by media, as television, radio, and cinema broadcast images and words and stories that would have been taboo once upon a time. And if etiquette can restrain vulgarity while encouraging charitable interactions between people, then its standards have real value.

But I wonder not so much about the top-down effects of media entertainment (which are easy to see) as I do about the harder-to-see effects of how we communicate. [A quick disclaimer: I'm a big fan of those forms of communication that have evolved in my lifetime. You're reading a blog post that I wrote, after all.] Think about all the e-mails, text messages, tweets, Facebook wall posts, and other impersonal and digitized messages that you have sent to your family and friends in the past month. Now think about how differently you composed phrases, sentences, and paragraph-length concepts.

NE1 SWIM? OMG. It's a real problem. Even with emoticons.

I first experienced this with e-mail, when I would occasionally have my emotional intent or tone of voice misread by the recipient of my message. You've probably experienced this too. And the blogosphere is probably the worst of all, where people hide behind relative anonymity in order to lambast one another. Face-to-face conversations are just different than talking on the phone, which in turn is very different than texting. And you can say the same thing about letter writing - real, paper-based, gotta-use-a-stamp letter writing - which is worlds away from e-mailing and twittering.

In my new Reporter column, I try to look at what happens to etiquette when our communication moves from the patience-requiring arenas of personal conversation and letter writing to the quick-and-easy formats of e-mailing, text messaging, and tweeting. My concern is that, when we start to live most of our lives in virtual worlds where we don't have to be present to real flesh-and-blood people, we start to forget how we're supposed to treat one another. And for Christians who believe that loving our neighbor is a divine command, that's a significant issue. How do you know how to treat another person with compassion - let along come to know that person in a deep way - when the language you speak most of the day is in impersonal sentence fragments, stream-of-consciousness digital blurts, and impoverished abbreviations?

So is any standard of etiquette in our interactions simply in terminal decline? And does that make it harder to learn how to love one another? Y/N?

IDK. It's really TBD. But IMHO, the good of online community and digital interaction comes with a $.

G2G. BCNU L8R. 'Bye.

[Update on 7/7/09: David Brooks offers an interesting view in his New York Times column on the role of etiquette - meaning a disciplined manner of outward, public behavior - in forming inner virtue. He writes about dignity as that characteristic by which we "navigate the currents of [our] own passions," and he compares the positive examples of both George Washington and Barack Obama with the negative examples of other public figures who have been much in the news of late: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, late pop star Michael Jackson, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.]

Labels: , ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Dee Harper said...

Andrew,

I know you are talking about the degeneration of manners and polite-ness in the digital age, but come on you are really just talking about annual conference.

I will see you next week and I hope you have safe travel to Arkansas.

4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i lv u. u r awsm.

4:48 PM  
Blogger Daniel McLain Hixon said...

Excellent post Andrew. These and related issues have been explored by several writers recently. Some have cautioned that the use of "text language" over time will erode the ability of many of us to use the English language properly (or even to understand all those authors from before 1995 who do). I suppose we will just have to see what happens - and maybe read a good pre-digital book, or write a real letter once in a while!

5:03 PM  
Blogger Tom Arthur said...

Andrew,
I resonate with some of what you say about the degeneration of communication (I didn't even understand most of your texting statements), but I wonder about building it on a foundation of etiquette. There is a kind of classism in etiquette. And there is a different kind of etiquette at each level of class. I fear that the kind of etiquette you spoke of has more to do with an upper-class distinguishing itself clearly from the lower class. In the end, what difference does it really make what piece of silverware you use? And what if the answer to that questions is a way of excluding certain people from the table who don't know the right answer?

7:55 PM  
Blogger Andrew C. Thompson said...

Tom,

I think you point to a potent danger when it comes to the issue of etiquette. As I mention in my UM Reporter column, the very word conjures up images associated with Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt or Miss Manners (or, for that matter, like the image I included at the head of the blog post).

But part of what I was trying to do in both the column and the post was to distinguish between the kind of etiquette one learns at cotillion from the kind of etiquette that one learns from parents or other elders in the community. In the latter sense, I think the kind of manners that are represented by social courtesy, hospitality, and generosity are actually the first step in loving your neighbor. And that's the kind of thing I was trying to suggest is damaged by the quasi-shorthand forms of communication we have adopted digitally.

- AT

5:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home