"Dressing down a culture"

[adempsey10]

Well, I guess I'm an absolutist then. Manners are a set of mutually agreed upon behaviours. Those who have chosen to move in a different direction are merely behaving in an in-your-face rejection of those who still support an older set.

Yes, I'm offended.

I think it's incredibly arrogant to assume that someone who doesn't think the same way as you is doing so simply out of "in-your-face-rejection"

And it is not mutually agreed upon if we do not all agree on it. And an appeal to popularity, that 'most' people agree, is fallacious, so dont even go down that road.

I don't leave my hat on a restaurant as a F**k you to the norm, I do it because I see no practical purpose to such an arbitrary rule. Eating with one's mouth closed, on the other hand, is practical manners. It's gross to see churned up food in a person's mouth.

[Nathan]

Like grammar and diction, etiquette is and has always been an indicator of one's social class and the quality of one's upbringing. Many working class and middle class people who wanted their children to have class mobility over the years have made great efforts to learn and teach the social etiquette of the upper class/gentry to their children to enable them to blend and interact well among those of a higher socio-economic status. This is very useful when the son of a coal miner becomes a Barrister and gets invited to a fancy dinner at the Law Society.

These manners are not all rooted in practicality. Each fork will bring the food to your mouth equally well, but using the proper one is a sign that you were well brought up. In fact, many table manners are designed to prolong the meal and therefore promote social conversation and interaction as well as to avoid turning the stomachs of others eating with you.

You may prefer to thumb your nose at class conventions and be an iconoclast, bringing everything down to first principles and rejecting them based on your own determination of what does and does not make sense but there will always be those of all ages who will observe you and silently deduce that you just don't know any better and draw conclusions about your upbringing. You can decide that you'd rather not be friends with "those kind of people" if you wish but you may be cutting your own nose off to spite your face.

I usually dine with my head covered for religious reasons and prefer not to wear an identifiably religious hat while so doing. I am fully aware that many onlookers will incorrectly conclude that I am lacking manners rather than honoring my creator. That's not their problem, it's mine.

Do what you like, but understand that your choices have ramifications and you typically aren't given the opportunity to explain or defend them. People look at you, decide for themselves what they see and get on with their lives.

You can decide that it's all a bunch of old-fashioned nonesense, but ignoring manners may cost you opportunities nonetheless.

[adempsey10]

But you forget that many rules of etiquette were created specifically to distinguish the upper class from the lower; a form of systemic social disparity.

I'm not an iconoclast if I 'thumb my nose at' etiquette. That is such arrogant thinking. It assumes that the norm is to be inside and part of your realm of proper etiquette and manner and anyone who doesnt follow these follows is then on the outside. This is where absolutism comes in. You, and many others here, view the standard rules of etiquette and manners as absolute. That all proper and befitting individuals adhere to these things. Anyone who doesn't is just an iconoclast or low brow individual, not to be bothered with.

Standard defined etiquette is nothing more than a way for someone to judge someone else. It does nothing to bring people together, it only serves to segregate. It is incredibly irrational to judge someone because of their improper use of a fork or their unwillingness to remove a hat. Such privileged thinking; it disgusts me.

[TheOfficialBren]

But you forget that many rules of etiquette were created specifically to distinguish the upper class from the lower; a form of systemic social disparity.

I'm not an iconoclast if I 'thumb my nose at' etiquette. That is such arrogant thinking. It assumes that the norm is to be inside and part of your realm of proper etiquette and manner and anyone who doesnt follow these follows is then on the outside. This is where absolutism comes in. You, and many others here, view the standard rules of etiquette and manners as absolute. That all proper and befitting individuals adhere to these things. Anyone who doesn't is just an iconoclast or low brow individual, not to be bothered with.

Standard defined etiquette is nothing more than a way for someone to judge someone else. It does nothing to bring people together, it only serves to segregate. It is incredibly irrational to judge someone because of their improper use of a fork or their unwillingness to remove a hat. Such privileged thinking; it disgusts me.

A few thoughts come to mind:

1) Repetition of the use of the word "arrogant" used to describe two of my friends whom I consider to be kind and courteous fellows.
2) Repetetion of the idea that "manners" and "etiquette" are specifically employed in today's world to disunify people and continue a tired old class-warfare song-and-dance number. That is falacious thinking, too, is it not? Can manners not also be employed to be considerate of others?

You used the open-mouth-chewing trope to illustrate some bad behaviour. Good example. Now look at it like this: I don't want to expose you to the unpleasant sight of seeing me chew. I shall close my mouth whilest chewing and not speak with my mouth full of food. Not so elitist to me...


3) Lastly, the notion of the righteousness of the cause. It's highly hypocritical to take aim at others because of their views and burn them with a wide-arching statement...only to cherry-pick which aspects of what the other person said earlier you deem valid and acceptable. Is that not a form of elitism? A philosophical elitism...certainly.

Play nice or get out of the sandbox.

[CMcG]

Cultures -- and subcultures -- have their values, ideas, and beliefs, which include manners. These vary from group to group and from place to place. While these may be socially constructed, they are very real. Society has elaborate means of reward and punishment surrounding etiquette and protocol. Whether or not one likes it or believes in them, they will be subject to the controls of any social group they interact with.

Don't believe me? Go ahead and use bad "netiquette" on this forum and see how long your post/thread/membership lasts

One of the difficulties of a place like Xmarks is that the members come from a diverse range of backgrounds. We are discussing issues surrounding the kilt, which inevitably runs up against many socio-cultural issues surrounding a person's attire.

When people express their views and opinions on issues like dress codes and the etiquette of clothing, they are generally speaking/writing from their own experience, sub-cultural group, and social position. That context, however, is tacit because cultural values are often made invisible by processes that make them appear natural. Much of the discussion around here is embedded in traditional Scottish culture with a gentlemanly ideal, but we also have many members who don't run in those circles and don't care to...

Just because styles of dress and manners are technically arbitrary doesn't mean they are meaningless. On the contrary, they are rich in semiotic value to the socio-cultural groups who employ them. I try to read the subtext of what people express, which has to do with their background, and make a mental note to myself about how best to conduct myself according to those mores, if I ever find myself in such a circumstance.

Given the social mobility of modern society and the transnational character of our global village, I tend to see all different types of manners and etiquette as correct -- according to the time, place, and company. In this sense, what is absolute is that there are social conventions, the adherence to which facilitates one's interactions with different groups.

[Nathan]

But you forget that many rules of etiquette were created specifically to distinguish the upper class from the lower; a form of systemic social disparity.

I don't forget - it's kind of my point. Social disparity exists, so the culture and its various subcultures/classes have ways of determining who is an outsider. This sociologial reality exists whether we're talking about the hat removal or firm grip handshake of the mainstream to the "homie hugs" and gang signs of the inner city gang culture. Learning and using proper etiquette undermines the onlooker's ability to easily determine your social class.

Besides, don't shoot the messenger. You're talking about how the world ought to be in your utopian fantasy where the rich are never snobs and the poor never behave inappropriately. I'm talking about how the world is and therefore what math one should consider when they opt to fight the power and reject the social mores and etiquette of their society.

I'm not an iconoclast if I 'thumb my nose at' etiquette. That is such arrogant thinking. It assumes that the norm is to be inside and part of your realm of proper etiquette and manner and anyone who doesnt follow these follows is then on the outside. This is where absolutism comes in. You, and many others here, view the standard rules of etiquette and manners as absolute. That all proper and befitting individuals adhere to these things.

I think in a few years, you may have a different perception of who is being arrogant in this discussion. You are being an iconoclast if you thumb your nose at the icon of proper etiqutte. On the contrary, I don't view the standard rules of manners and etiquette as absolute, as evidenced by my own covered head example. I simply acknowledge that a significant number of people do feel this way and choose not to have bad etiquette hold me back. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with being an iconoclast, I'm just saying it's wise to choose the hill you wish to die upon. For me, this one isn't it. Nobody judges me poorly for having good manners, on the other hand....

Anyone who doesn't is just an iconoclast or low brow individual, not to be bothered with.

I dealt with iconoclast above, but I think the fact that I am "bothering with you" right now and attempting to show you another perspective is a sufficient rebuttal to this point. Just because I understand that social distinctions exist and do not wish to be handicapped by them does not mean that I endorse any kind of "systemic social disparity". That said, if I go into a bar where there are people drinking with their feet up on chairs, yelling, swearing, belching and using spoons like shovels, I'm not a disgusting elitist should I deduce that it's not my kind of place nor my kind of crowd. I'm simply a person who is concerned with my own comfort, safety and good time.

Standard defined etiquette is nothing more than a way for someone to judge someone else. It does nothing to bring people together, it only serves to segregate. It is incredibly irrational to judge someone because of their improper use of a fork or their unwillingness to remove a hat.

Standard and culturally relative etiquette is indeed a way for someone to judge someone else. If I'm at a Japanese event, I will be judged positively if I have taken the time to learn their cultural etiquette when I accept a business card or bow or understand the protocols of serving tea. The more fluent I am with their etiquette, the less I will be viewed as an outsider because my respect for and familiarity with their community will be obvious from my comportment. Adherance to etiquette says to the people with which one interacts says that I respect myself and I respect them. It is far from irrational.

On the subject of arrogance, not giving a damn about social etiquette is the very definition of arrogant. It says, "I have evaluated the mores of this society and find them wanting. I do not respect them and shall not participate in their priviledged elitist shell game."

Such privileged thinking; it disgusts me.

With all due respect, sir...I am the grandson of coal miners who worked underground in slave like conditions and lost life and limb insodoing. I grew up in an economically depressed part of Cape Breton and have witnessed first-hand the crushing and demoralizing effects of poverty, alcoholism, hopelessness and the community destroying impact of mass brain drain and economic migration. You've got the nerve to castigate people for using limited information to judge their fellows but this is exactly what you have done to me. You have made assumptions about my economic and social priviledge and have repeatedly used the defamatory ad hominem attack of "arrogant" in relation to me and my fellows who think that there might be some respect and value in understanding and practicing social etiquette.

My working class ancestors dressed for dinner, were impeccably clean, set a proper table and used proper manners. Their goals were aspirational. Using this etiquette gave them a sense of dignity and demonstrated that class has more to do with your behaviour than your bank account. I think you're missing the forest for the trees...

[adempsey10]

I think you have all missed my point by a great distance. You seem to be rebutting under the assumption that I what I believe is absolute. That my arguments against yours are as absolute as those which I am arguing against.

What I mean to say is that you cannot judge people who do not adhere to your code by your code. It is absolutism to assume that manners and etiquette are universally good for people and that they have intrinsic value. They don't I've tried to make this before, maybe even earlier in this thread. What YOU believe to be right is not universally right. What your cohort or even the vast majority believes to be right, is not universally right.

This is where my use of the term arrogant comes in to play. It's not meant to describe the person as arrogant but rather the way of thinking that is being employed. It IS arrogant if you hold a certain view, i.e. that it is poor manners to not remove a hat when entering a restaurant and then judge that person for not doing so. If you believe some is right or wrong, hold yourself to those standards. Do not judge everyone else by them. They may not have the same view as you and that doesnt make them iconoclasts. And I know that iconoclast is not necessarily a bad thing but the word assumes that there is an active role being played by the person to subvert the code. That is also arrogant thinking. To always assume that people are doing something in relation to you.

To maintain the example:

You are sitting at a restaurant, someone walks in and sits down and doesnt take off their hat, you assume they're doing it to thumb their nose at proper etiquette. That's thinking arrogantly. When in reality, the person just doesn't have the same code of etiquette and so the thought to take the hat off doesn't even come into their mind.

And no, Nathan, I have made no assumptions about your background. Anyone who thinks that someone who uses 'proper' manners and etiquette is better, in any way, than someone who doesn't, is guilty of privileged thinking.

If you have standards, hold yourself to them. Do not hold everyone else to them.

[Nathan]

I think you have all missed my point by a great distance. You seem to be rebutting under the assumption that I what I believe is absolute. That my arguments against yours are as absolute as those which I am arguing against.

What I mean to say is that you cannot judge people who do not adhere to your code by your code. It is absolutism to assume that manners and etiquette are universally good for people and that they have intrinsic value. They don't I've tried to make this before, maybe even earlier in this thread. What YOU believe to be right is not universally right. What your cohort or even the vast majority believes to be right, is not universally right.

This is where my use of the term arrogant comes in to play. It's not meant to describe the person as arrogant but rather the way of thinking that is being employed. It IS arrogant if you hold a certain view, i.e. that it is poor manners to not remove a hat when entering a restaurant and then judge that person for not doing so. If you believe some is right or wrong, hold yourself to those standards. Do not judge everyone else by them. They may not have the same view as you and that doesnt make them iconoclasts. And I know that iconoclast is not necessarily a bad thing but the word assumes that there is an active role being played by the person to subvert the code. That is also arrogant thinking. To always assume that people are doing something in relation to you.

To maintain the example:

You are sitting at a restaurant, someone walks in and sits down and doesnt take off their hat, you assume they're doing it to thumb their nose at proper etiquette. That's thinking arrogantly. When in reality, the person just doesn't have the same code of etiquette and so the thought to take the hat off doesn't even come into their mind.

And no, Nathan, I have made no assumptions about your background. Anyone who thinks that someone who uses 'proper' manners and etiquette is better, in any way, than someone who doesn't, is guilty of privileged thinking.

If you have standards, hold yourself to them. Do not hold everyone else to them.

Well, this is getting repetitive at this point. I think I have acknowledged cultural relativism in my original post. Since you're a fan of classical Greek, I should point out that the word "ethics" and the word "ethnic" come from the same Greek root word, "Ethnos" or perhaps "Έθνος?".

Inherent in this etymology is the notion that ethics/behaviour have some degree of cultural variance. I think I have acknowledged this in my previous posts throughout the thread and have even been asking for people to take a broader view of persons eating with hats on due to our modern ethnic diversity.

That said, my point is that if you appear to be of the same ethnic origin as the majority in your country, many of them will have an expectation that you will know and respect their etiquette.

As a Celtic looking caucasian anglophone in Canada, I am aware of the fact that when I wear my fedora in a restaurant, nobody is going to assume I'm doing it for religious reasons. Those that place a value on traditional manners, will assume that I either A) Don't know or B) Don't care. Both A and B send a message about my upbringing. Are they right? No. Do I get a chance to explain myself? No.

Once again, I'm just objectively reporting the facts of what will transpire. The fact is that manners are a social convention and there are plenty of members of a society who hold each other to them. While there is a certain allowance in a multiethnic society for cultural variance, manners are not 100% relative to the individual. You may wish they were, but alas, they are not.

If I extend my hand to shake yours, it is reasonable for me to assume that you are familiar with the greeting ritual. If you decide it's better to greet strangers with a warm hug, I may not appreciate you invading my personal space. It's not all relative nor is it 100% absolute. One can understand that there are exceptions to a rule while still acknowledging the value of the rule itself.

For example, if I encounter a religious Jewish woman in a long skirt who does not shake hands with men, I would have even better etiquette if I was aware of this in advance and did not embarrass her by extending my hand.

And no, Nathan, I have made no assumptions about your background. Anyone who thinks that someone who uses 'proper' manners and etiquette is better, in any way, than someone who doesn't, is guilty of privileged thinking.

If you have standards, hold yourself to them. Do not hold everyone else to them.

This is simply untenable. Your argumentation lacks a maturity and a real world understanding of interpersonal politics, the way societies are structured and the fact that you will always be judged by your behaviour and comportment by those around you, for better or for worse. Life's tough. Buy a helmet.

[creagdhubh]

Interesting thread to follow with many equally, interesting points raised. I especially like what Nathan had to say.

Cheers,

[WillowEstate]

Life's tough. Buy a helmet.

But don't wear it in the restaurant!

I guess the outcome of the thread will be an agreement to disagree and we'll all form our own conclusions.