This immensely amusing and eminently sensible, but sadly out of print, booklet is based on a John M. Olin Distinguished Lecture that Judith Martin (aka, Miss Manners) gave at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Her purpose was to "call attention to the need for a philosophically acceptable and aesthetically pleasing standard of American etiquette." Thomas Jefferson crops up in the title of the book because in 1803, he did in fact propose a system of manners to his Presidential cabinet. As Miss Manners notes, this project offers some unique problems in an egalitarian democracy :
The problem with which Mr. Jefferson wrestled, and
which promptly defeated him, was how to
adapt European systems of etiquette and protocol,
based on court life and hereditary social classes,
in order to make them appropriate for a democracy.
It was a noble endeavor. From its birth,
America has badly needed a way to express equality,
individual freedom, social mobility, and the
dignity of labor in the language of human social
behavior (which is what etiquette is).
But as a quick glance at Jefferson's Memorandum suffices to demonstrate, old Tom failed miserably :
Memorandum on Rules of Etiquette :
I. In order to bring the members of society together
in the first instance, the custom of the country
has established that residents shall pay the first
visit to strangers, and, among strangers, first comers
to later comers, foreign and domestic; the character
of stranger ceasing after the first visits. To this
rule there is a single exception. Foreign ministers,
from the necessity of making themselves known,
pay the first visit to the ministers of the nation,
which is returned.
II. When brought together in society, all are perfectly
equal, whether foreign or domestic, titled or
untitled, in or out of office.
All other observances are but exemplifications of these two principles.
I. 1st. The families of foreign ministers, arriving
at the seat of government, receive the first visit
from those of the national ministers, as from all
other residents.
2d. Members of the legislature and of the judiciary,
independent of their offices, have a right as
strangers to receive the first visit.
II. 1st. No title being admitted here, those of foreigners give no precedence.
2d. Differences of grade among the diplomatic members, give no precedence.
3d. At public ceremonies, to which the government
invites the presence of foreign ministers and
their families, a convenient seat or station will
be provided for them, with any other strangers
invited and the families of the national ministers,
each taking place as they arrive, and without any
precedence.
4th. To maintain the principle of equality, or of
pele mela, and prevent the growth of precedence
out of courtesy, the members of the Executive will
practice at their own houses, and recommend an
adherence to the ancient usage of the country, of
gentlemen in mass giving precedence to the ladies
in mass, in passing from one apartment where they
are assembled into another.
This minimalist form of manners, known as Pell Mell Etiquette, gives
precedence only to hosts and, somewhat, to women--of course, in our own
times even the gender differences have been eliminated.
I know some will be nonplused by this, finding it perfectly consistent
with our national ethos of equality, but is a society which countenances
an able-bodied young man maintaining his seat on a crowded bus while an
elderly woman stands really that much better than one where Rosa Parks
was forced to sit in the back ? Are we willing to sacrifice simple
civility and decency on the altar of complete egalitarianism? Note
that there is a significant price that we all pay for this attempt to have
an etiquette free America :
The lack of agreement about manners results in an
anger- ridden, chaotic society, where each trivial
act is interpreted as a revelation of the moral
philosophy of the individual actor, who is left standing
there naked in his mores. We must standardize American
manners, not only to complete Mr.
Jefferson's unfortunately sidetracked project of
developing a democratic etiquette, but to make order
of the current chaos and to relieve people of the
burden of developing and defending individual
choices in the most common, everyday matters.
In the absence of such standards, the man who yields his seat is just as likely to be branded a sexist pig as to be thanked.
The other uniquely American dilemma that Miss Manners identifies is the disappearance of private life. With nearly the entire population now in the work force, with the decline of community and organized leisure activities, and with the near national obsession on making money, business is becoming the center of our lives. In this situation, however much we may proclaim our allegiance to the idea of equality, one's identity is inevitably derived from one's status in the inherently unequal business world. The unfortunate result of this is that, absent a private sphere in which to be measured, it becomes necessary for everyone to assert an equality which manifestly does not exist in the workplace; hence the boss who wants to be your buddy, the professor who insists you call him by his first name, the waitress who wants to participate in your conversations, dress down days, and so forth. Eventually, thanks to this manic attempt to avoid acknowledging differences in status, we arrive at :
A complete lack of recognizable distinctions among
types of people, so as not to say classes, on any
basis whatsoever, and a thorough leveling of all
hierarchies . . . doesn't work. What you have when
everyone wears the same playclothes for all occasions,
is addressed by nick-name, expected to
participate in Show and Tell, and bullied out of
any desire for privacy, is not democracy; it is
kindergarten.
And at the end of the day, no matter how many times your boss tells you to call him "Bill," he can still hire and fire you--we've bought in to an illusion of equality in the only remaining social sphere where we measure ourselves.
Miss Manners proposal to address both of these problems is to more clearly differentiate between the workplace and private life, to recognize that all jobs have intrinsic dignity and to judge people, not by the position they hold in the business world, but by the personal qualities that they manifest in private life. This would allow us to honor the busboy for the work that he does (without feeling compelled to invite him to share our dinner), while also allowing him to take pride in his current occupation (and continue to aspire towards owning the restaurant), but more importantly, to derive his ultimate sense of societal worth from the type of person he is in private, where we do all truly stand as equals. In private then, it will be those individuals who are courteous, well mannered, and decent, whom we will recognize as superior, be they taxi drivers or billionaires.
This is a terrific short book on a topic that receives too little consideration.
American society has taken on a pronounced coarseness, which manifests
itself in everything from rap music to road rage. Though we all recognize
how unpleasant our interactions with others have become, we give little
thought to how to remedy the situation. In her various
columns, Miss Manners routinely offers sage advice on how to repair
the social fabric and here she presents a sustained vision for how to create
a healthier and happier society through better etiquette. Oh yeah,
and she's very funny. If you can find the book, read it.
(Reviewed:12-Oct-00)
Grade: (A-)
