As humans emerged from the “dark ages” they began to show greater interest in their behavior toward others. It was an essential element in what Norbert Elias called “the civilizing process.” In 1530, for example, we find Erasmus admonishing folks to be “reasonable, courteous and respectful in word or gesture.” One of my favorite of his admonitions was his insistence that “it is impolite to greet anyone who is urinating or defecating . . . A well-bred person should always avoid exposing without necessity those parts to which nature has attached modesty.” These concerns were coupled with admonitions not to be like “the rustics,” which reflect a conviction that some people were simply regarded as better than others. Classes, evolving from the Feudal age, were beginning to form and they would take firm hold well into the age of capitalism and industrialization when they would begin to blur. But the point was that people were becoming aware that others mattered; the “higher” classes were beginning to learn manners and they were also determined that they needed to take care of those who were their responsibility (no doubt because the “rustics” provided them with their living. Here we have a sense of duty born of self-interest). Thus came into being, I would think, social “forms,” which were prevalent well into the Victorian age in England and, to a lesser extent, in this country as well.
But then came the growth of capitalism and the sudden birth of a wealthy class which blurred the old social classes and the “new rich” began to imitate the “well-born.” The blue bloods had been taught from birth to behave well in company and to take into account the impact of their behavior on others. But right and wrong became lost in the confusion over whether or not wealth was a good thing as a waning Christianity weakened the restraints of morality and the Other became less and less important. Manners began to deteriorate as the new rich took up the same forms and tried to mimic those they regarded as the paradigms of society, their “betters.”
This is what was happening in New York in the early part of the twentieth century as reflected in many of Edith Wharton’s novels: ethical restraints were tottering and the new rich were social climbers who took up behaviors that were not natural to themselves and those behaviors became mere empty forms — though those “born to the manor” whom the new-rich imitated increasingly lost sight of what those forms had once meant. I don’t think Wharton had any quarrel with the forms themselves, after all, they were built around a genuine concern for others and focused on what she would have called “good manners.” But when the forms were empty they became a sham, and the young, especially, saw that and also saw the hypocrisy and pretense that hid behind a false front. So the young during Wharton’s era started looking for new paradigms and saw around them the more “natural” behaviors of others who smoked, were disrespectful of their elders, and were increasingly preoccupied with themselves. This they found an easy model to copy and it became the norm.
Again, Wharton’s quarrel was with the pretense and falsehood of the empty forms that were being grafted onto wealthy social climbers who modeled themselves after a “higher” social class who had begun to forget why the forms were invented in the first place. In the shuffle something terribly important was being lost, namely, a determined effort (for whatever reasons) to behave toward others as one would have them behave toward oneself. Indeed, the sense of “other” was soon lost entirely. That, I think, is what bothered Edith Wharton. It bothered George Eliot and Anthony Trollope as well who saw it happening around them in England a generation before Wharton. And we are the inheritors of this legacy. The loss of “good manners” was nothing less than the loss of a sense that the “other” mattered in the least. Thus, if manners are a sign that we have become civilized, then the loss of manners would suggest that we are reverting to a sort of new barbarism in which the individual is the only one who matters.
hughcurtler 
Edith Wharton’s novels are some of my favorites. I guess the term The Gilded Age could apply to manners as well. I noticed this starkly in watching the movie The Great Gatsby last night. The old money people were supposedly more civilized, but certainly acted without heart or regard for anybody but themselves. Poor Gatsby.
Please don’t generalize from that movie! I worked as a tennis pro at a very wealthy club outside Chicago and the “old money” folks were much more polite and considerate of me than the “new money” folks. And there is evidence that this is not unusual.
________________________________
I guess I was generalizing about that time period, not necessarily today’s people. But you’re right. There are mannered and unmannered people in every walk of life.
Another reason why I love Ecuador so much is because of the courtesy that is exchanged between all classes. How refreshing it is to have lived here long enough that, ‘Buen provecho’ has become part of my natural rhythm when I enter a restaurant and there are others dining. The same for, “Salud!” when someone sneezes or “Buenos dias/buenas tardes, buenas noches” when entering a room – even an elevator!
I feel blessed to live in a culture where manners still matter. There is still a strong division of classes, but there’s respect between all.
Manners are simply a way of recognizing the legitimacy of the Other. When parents forget to teach manners they are telling their kids that others do not matter. This is a contagion in this country.
yes you are right; manners are so important.
There are times that life aligns details so precisely that there is no way they happen by chance. Look at Cedric’s post that arrived in my inbox one minute before my above comment was posted!
http://implicado.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/manners-matter/
z
Remarkable! I checked out Cedric’s post. Great minds…. Thanks, Z.
Great post, Hugh. Manners were grilled into me from a very small age. I cannot live a different way and feel guilty when I may have sleighted someone and try to make amends. I think it is in deference to my mother. As I write this, I am thinking of some of the classiest leaders I have encountered – one who was so easy to approach, one who made it a point to remember his employees names who were getting MBAs at a college he trusteed, one who was one of the smartest consultants, but most congenial people I know, one who led many people, but was the kindest and most supportive leaders I have ever met. One of my favorite quotes is “Don”t mistake kindness for weakness.” Manners are a form of enlightenment and strength; I wish more folks knew that. Thanks for writing this, BTG
that is a beautiful reply!
I have seen and felt the changes in attitudes to manners over time in my profession. What was once perceived as a profession of “gentle men” is no longer. The notion of returning a phone call, replying to an email and other professional courtesies have given way to win at all costs mentality and the notion of pure personal expedience. It’s truly lamentable.
Indeed it is. It’s a sign of a much deeper problem.
________________________________
Is it impolite to get grumpy when someone else comes in and behaves rudely, like cutting across your conversation with a demand of their own? Should one put them right?
I love Rudyard Kiplings little girl Taffimai Tamuri which being translated means “Little-girl-without-any-manners-who-aught-to-be-spanked”. Tony
Shouldn’t one fight the impulse to lower oneself to that person’s level?
________________________________
Of course you’re right – that’s what manners are all about. Cheers, Tony