A reader writes:
Is it a virtue (minor as it may be) to have or possess "good manners", ie, decent table manners?
It seems to me that if one has never had the opportunity to have been "taught" good manners, then no one would expect such niceties. (For instance, someone in a remote area that has not had any need or exposure to the Western idea of good table manners.) but, on the other hand, if someone has grown up in a culture that has placed some value on nice table manners – and has been taught them as such, and if that person were a Christian, it might be considered part of his/her Christian duty to display these nice manners out of concern for others, (ie, by not grossing-them-out with unsightly table manners – or lack there of.)
This "concern for others" might be interpreted as part of the virtue of charity for others – not just thinking of oneself , and what is easiest or most comfortable for oneself, if others is not important to him/her.
The following thoughts occur to me:
1) Humans need to interact with each other in a smooth manner.
2) In many circumstances, manners and etiquette facilitate smooth interaction with humans.
3) Therefore, in many circumstances humans need manners and etiquette.
4) To faciliate human needs is an act of charity.
5) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of charity.
6) Whatever is a matter of charity is a virtue.
7) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of virtue.
This being said, several additional thoughts suggest themselves:
8) Manners and etiquette tend, by their nature, to be either largely or completely arbitrary. They are like driving on the right or the left side of the road. Neither is markedly better than the other in and of itself, but only due to common usage. Therefore, manners and etiquette should not be looked upon as sacrosanct. In some cultures, burping during a meal is considered rude, while in others it may be considered a sign of appreciation for the food one is eating.
9) The seriousness with which a particular set of manners should be taken depends on the circumstances. For example, it is of the utmost importance that proper protocol be observed when negotiating a peace treaty between nations, but far less significant when close friends or family members are interacting in a private setting. In the former setting, the consequences of a violation (e.g., loss of human life) are greater and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is lower. In the latter setting, the consequences are lower (e.g., loss of human life) is lesser and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is greater.
10) There is such a thing as placing too much weight on manners and etiquette. The whole point of manners and etiquette is that they facilitate certain human goods, but if the niceties of social interaction take precedence over these good or other equal goods then they are becoming counterproductive. Some individuals in particular may be sufficiently concerned with the proper observance of "the rules" that sight is lost of the goods that these rules are intended to foster. For example, it is considered rude to yell at a person, but if a child is about to do something highly dangerous, yelling is appropriate. Observing the "Don’t yell" rule in that case would endanger the child.
11) The relaxation of the rules in particular cases therefore itself cann be a matter of charity. It is not charitable to insist on the observation of standard etiquette rules (e.g., not yelling at a person) when a greater good is at stake (e.g., a child wandering into traffic).
12) We have a greater incentive to relax the rules with those closest to us, both because we have a greater duty to look after their interests (as with a child who may stray into traffic) or because we stand to benefit from them in a greater manner (as with spouses). Therefore, with those closest to us we generally both assume greater tolerance and show greater tolerance.
13) Simultaneously, since (as Aquinas points out) we have a greater duty of love toward those closest to us, we have a greater motive to observe the rules of manners and etiquette with regard to them.
There is thus something of a paradox in the calculus of charity: We should show greater charity for those closest to us, which leads to both a motive for greater observance of the rules and greater tolerance of their violation.
Oh, and one las thing:
14) Men, by nature, tend to be less concerned with manners than women. That’s not to say that they are unconcerned, just less concerned. Probably has something to do with the fact that men are physically and psychologically designed to provide the primary family defense functions.
Regarding #s 12 and 13, I would put the respective points a bit differently: While it is true that we may “have the incentive” to relax the standards of manners around those we love, we also have a greater obligation to ignore that “incentive,” which is actually a temptation to treat our family and friends with less courtesy than we would treat a stranger. Rather we should strive to treat them with greater courtesy, if only because there is greater harm to the relationship if we don’t. (Example: You’ll never again see the stranger whose feelings you disregarded, but you have to live every day with your wife.)
By the same token, we should show the same or greater tolerance for the etiquette slip-ups of friends and family that we would for a stranger because the preservation of the relationship depends on not “keeping score” or letting resentments fester. But there does come a point when the only way to keep something from festering is to lance it and that may mean saying occasionally and in private, “Would you please [correct such-and-so impoliteness]?”
I think we’re basically on the same page here but should underline that we should hold ourselves to higher standards while graciously tolerating the slip-ups of those we love.
BTW, it could be argued that the rubrics of the Mass are “manners,” as manners are any set of protocol that a society or some segment within it uses to order a civilization or a particular activity within it. Seen this way, rubrical violations — some more severe than others, of course — are as jarring to proper worship as a loss of decorum is to courtroom proceedings.
You point out that many rules of manners are arbitrary.
May I point out that language is arbitrary. Nothing in “black” makes in intrinisally appropriate for the color; the French get “blanc” (white) from the same root.
Nevertheless, when we speak the same language, it is ill-advised to assume that because words are ultimately arbitrary, you may use them arbitrarily.
I disagree. The point here is not that we can be rude to the people around us, but rather that the level of elaboration and formalization of relevant social rules is much reduced. Among friends and family we want no “standing on ceremony,” as the expression goes.
For example, eating pizza alone with my family, I might drink a root beer straight from the can; but if we have guests, I would pour it into a glass.
Again, dining at another family’s house, no matter how bad the meal might be I would be obligated to find something polite to say about it, but if I tried that in my own house with my own wife, she would actually be offended, because she would want me to tell her frankly what I thought.
Incidentally, since you give the example of the Mass, I might point out that although the Mass should always be celebrated with due reverence, there is a difference in the level of formality and ceremony that is appropriate to an ordinary Sunday Mass at my local parish and a Mass with our archbishop in attendance, and much more if we were ever to be visited by the Pope.
Steven–
1. While I don’t have a problem with drinking soft drinks from the can in highly informal situations (e.g., the beach, a picnic), I think of the family dinner table as the training ground of manners for children. Teaching children by example that we take trouble for guests that we don’t for family is highly problematic, IMHO.
2. I can only speak personally here, but if I had a spectacular dinner failure I would know it and would not need my husband to point it out for me. I would rather he found something nice to say — e.g., “Thanks for all your hard work, honey. Would you like me to clear the table for you?” — that was an effort to make me feel better than for him to underline the obvious.
3. True. But the rubrics for “regular” Masses and for pontifical Masses are also correspondingly different. It is the rubrics themselves that I was comparing to manners. What I find sad is that there are many Catholics who will take greater care with their church manners for a once-in-a-lifetime Mass (e.g., the pontifical Mass) than they will take for Sunday Mass at their local parish.
And OF COURSE we take trouble for guests that we don’t take for family. My wife and I sit in the living room, I reading one book, she reading another. Can you imagine sitting and reading a book in front of guests and expecting them to amuse themselves? Again, I wouldn’t consider receiving guests, even casually, in sweat pants; does that mean I may never wear sweat pants at home?
Not to belabor the point, but to answer the questions:
1. You’re mixing apples and oranges here. We were comparing a dinner party to a family dinner, not invited guests to kick-back-around-the-hearth time. While a dinner party might be more formal in some respects than family dinner (e.g., written invitations are not sent out to family members), in others they are not. The purpose of decanting drinks is to make the atmosphere pleasant, just as keeping one’s mouth closed while chewing and excusing oneself for audible digestion difficulties makes the atmosphere pleasant.
Besides, my major point was that children learn how to behave at the dinner table when guests are present by the daily tradition of the family dinner. Modeling for one’s children that caring for the sensibilities of guests is more important than accommodating the sensibilities of one’s family is a poor precedent for future familial relationships.
2. I was speaking theoretically as I am not, as yet, married. However, I’ve just made a resolution not to ask a future husband questions that inspire frank answers for situations that are now a fait accompli. 😉 Seriously, I think I would rather ask a more specific question that indicates that I know something went wrong (e.g., “Did you think the meat was overdone?”) rather than a general question that invites a general critique for something now unchangeable.
I’ll let you know how it goes should I one day have a second wedding anniversary. 🙂
Basically, I agree that husbands and wives must have much more freedom to converse without worrying over every little spontaneous word. That’s why I mentioned that family must also have a greater tolerance for unintended mistakes. But, and I’m sure we’ll agree on this, I also think that husbands and wives also have a much more vested interest in respecting each other’s feelings.
3. Point taken.
Thanks for an interesting discussion! 🙂