Table Manners, Gender Wars, and Democracy: A Few Thoughts of Modern Etiquette

By Brianna M. Springer

Until recent years, people strove for perfection ... Now, however, it is our faults for which we are loved. Imperfect table manners are considered a sign of subscribing to the principles of democracy; ignorance of high culture to be an indication of spiri­tuality; and blurting, rough speech to be a clue to perfect honesty. ~Miss Manners

Never don any fair except for sable when you are in mourning. Never wear white shoes before Memorial Day or after Labor Day. Never position the knife blade away from the plate when setting the table. These dictums and a myriad like them are sadly the only conceptions most people have of etiquette. The impression they leave is hardly flattering, for they sound horribly stuffy. And in this age of free-spirits, spontaneity, and self-discovery, sounding stuffy is tantamount to social suicide. So etiquette, the once punctiliously-studied and venerated art, has become woefully-neglected and maligned. This state of af­fairs should not be. Etiquette is no villain, no enemy. Rather, etiquette is a victim, a martyr to modern edu­cational deficiencies and to egalitarian malaise.
The charges brought against etiquette by her de­tractors are as unthinking as they are numerous, and it is difficult to know where to direct my humble, yet honest efforts. However, three charges have recurred most frequently in my experience and it is these that I will address. The charges are: First, that etiquette is arbitrary and artificial. Second, that etiquette is confusing. And, third that etiquette is aristocratic by nature, designed to highlight the inequalities of man. I will discuss each of these in turn.
To begin, then: Is etiquette indeed arbitrary and artificial? The monosyllabic answer is: yes. It is true enough that etiquette is both arbitrary and artificial. But, before Mr. Backus begins any celebratory bar­barism, please allow me to explain. I believe those terms lead to a couching of the debate that is unneces­sarily negative. It is my position that arbitrariness and artificiality are not always bad and that, in the case of etiquette, they are actually necessary and laudable. I
understand that this is counterintuitive. Perhaps one or two examples might be helpful. First, I suggest that we take a lesson from the calendar. Yes, that kind of calendar, the sort you hang on the wall and depend upon for getting you to dental appointments or dates at the opera. The calendar is a bulwark of societal regularity and function, and there are few indeed who would deny its merits or its usefulness. I myself have spent countless pleasant hours contemplating the glories of our dating system. The pertinent, and oft forgotten, fact about the calendar, though, is that it was begun quite arbitrarily and artificially by Pope Grego­ry XIII in the late sixteenth century. There is nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it was necessary to correct certain deficiencies in the old Julian sys­tem. After the change, the calendar more accurately reflected the pre-existent order of the natural world. And so it is with etiquette. Rules of etiquette may be arbitrary in their origins, but they are meritorious in their service. They too are meant to accurately reflect the pre-existent order of the natural world. And, as with Aquinas's conception of human law, etiquette can and should be amended whenever it transgresses natural law.
Now, for my second example, I ask you to sit back and imagine, if you will, a scene occurring several centuries ago. There you are a calm bystander on the streets of some small European hamlet. As you take the air your morning stroll is interrupted. Down the lane dash dozens of small Backi, the ancestors of my worthy opponent. Their arms are flailing in pure, un­restrained, boyish joy, and they are hurling small pro­jectiles of various kinds at several pretty lasses. The lasses seem to be enjoying the sport less assiduously, or keenly than the boys, though. Now, our ancestors, in their wisdom knew that merely telling the Backi not to throw things at girls would not stop them for a moment. Young boys are energetic, and they need exercise to keep their arms in shape. I think it is no coincidence, therefore, that the arbitrary and artificial contrivers of etiquette devised the custom of raising ones hat to a lady. This courtesy may be performed vigorously or delicately as the gentleman feels the need. Either is correct. Both are effective.
Now let us move to the second charge, namely that etiquette is confusing. I will point out first that there are two ways in which one can interpret the word "confusing." In the negative sense of the word many, many examples can be brought, not the least of which are the American tax code and German syntax. However, etiquette is not confusing in any such sense. Rather, etiquette is confusing only in the sense that each gender is mysterious to the other. It is understandable for a man to throw up his hands and say that he cannot remember which fork to use just as it is understandable for a man to grip his forehead and moan that his girlfriend is an enigma. Now, most men in their charitable, non-misogynistic moments do not wish to dispense with all women. Neither should they wish to dispense with all social rules merely because of the perceived complexities of the fork. Instead, they should take a scientific approach and seek to discover the operational theorem for each rule of man­ners. For the fork, this theorem has actually been dis­covered and is really quite simple. It can be grasped easily even by the uninitiated. I give it to you now as a bonus. Ready your memories, the mysteries of the fork are about to be revealed: Use the one furthest to your left. That is all. And it is not in the least confus­ing; it is even comforting. As a side note, the opera­tional theorem for women is equally simple, but I have no desire to destroy the livelihoods of psychiatrists everywhere by disclosing it. Also, some things must remain Gnostic or women's magazines will perish. Now we arrive at the third charge, that etiquette is aristocratic by nature, designed to tread upon the common man. This is a very heady charge in our
democratic era, but I fear this one least of all. For nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing is easier to refute by a simple appeal to reason. It is true that manners can be used to put down the unsuspect­ing, just as guns can be used to kill innocents. One hears tales of senators' wives in Washington, D.C. social circles that freeze the blood. But just as guns ought to be employed to save lives, so manners ought to be used as a means of grace, of dignity for all. You see, the rules of etiquette apply to everyone, small and great alike. And when they are employed properly they serve, like law, as a noble equalizer. This is dem­onstrated beautifully in the hierarchy of the table. You see, no matter how lowly the hostess or how lofty the guest, the hostess is the ruler at dinner. She is the one who begins the proceedings by taking the first bite, even if the Queen of England herself were in atten­dance. Etiquette, in this sense, bears a striking and not incidental resemblance to the Magna Carta. And, just as the tyrants of former times were brought to their knees by blind Justice, so hubristic socialites in our day can be cowed by blind Etiquette.
In closing, I implore you to examine the evidence in Etiquette's favor. Realize that etiquette serves as a bulwark and an enrichment of our society. It may have its flaws, but its merits are many, and they add up to a sublime and valuable whole; a whole well-worthy of the defense of all.
[Editor s Note: This was first delivered as a speech in response to Mr. Austin Backus.]