The Liberating Bonds of Social Restraint: Minding our Manners

By Brittany Wilkens

Honors Senior Thesis

March 24, 2006

 Wilkens 2

Introduction

Something has gone missing in modern society. Perhaps the elderly notice it most

keenly. They notice it when a man blandly watches while a woman struggles with heavy

luggage; they notice it when she coldly refuses another mans offer of assistance; and

they notice it when a younger person treats them as outdated and a burden on society.

The younger generation also seems to feel that something is lacking in its social

interactions, but the youth have more difficulty in identifying exactly what it is and when

it occurs. Many of the younger generation call the missing social element respect for

my rights, but the elderly know that it is manners. Of course, manners cannot truly go

missing. Modern society has a very distinct set of manners. Indeed, every community,

every society, and every individual has a set of manners. The difference lies in whether

they are good or bad manners. Good mannerly systems lend stability to a society, while

bad systems allow and may even cultivate behavior and attitudes that foster instability.

This paper will endeavor, first of all, to define good manners. It will affirm their

importance within society, explaining the reasons for the recent, rapid demise of good

manners, and examining what role manners play in the relationships between men and

women and between young and old. Finally, it will discuss the benefits that the return of

good manners would have both on individuals and on a community as a whole. The

paper will argue that good manners at their most fundamental level are knowing and

accepting to the fullest extent the attitude and behavior appropriate to ones gender, age,

and station. Good manners are inspired by deliberate agape love (or charity), and their

ultimate goal is to make others feel not only at ease, but valued. Unless citizens assume

their proper place within society and exhibit an intentional charity, a community cannot
 Wilkens 3

attain the stability, prosperity, and grace of those communities whose citizens, through the

presence and manifestation of manners, know they are both secure and prized.

Manners Defined

It would be foolishness to assume that mere outward adherence to a particular

code of behavior could, by itself, imbue a community with stability, prosperity, and grace.

Indeed, it is not strict observance to a list of rules that makes a person mannerly; it is,

rather, to have the spirit behind the rules so deeply ingrained into ones character that the

desired behavior becomes instinctive and spontaneous. Manners, fundamentally, are

simply role-playing. Good manners, therefore, require that an individual understand what

role is his to play, and this demands an understanding of his own identity. There are three

major distinguishing factors between people within a society1: gender, age, and rank2. If

one does not understand the expectations his culture places upon him by merit of his

gender, age, and rank3, as well as the expectations that same culture places upon the

people with whom he is interacting, manners have no context within which to operate.

Manners are often accused of being affected and false. But these are not the manners

of which this paper speaks, nor, indeed, are these true manners. A proper understanding

of manners will not repress personality, but will channel it so as to enhance its strengths

1
There is, of course, a multitude of other ways to distinguish between people, but gender, age, and rank are
those which guide the fundamentals of behavior between people within a society.
2
The distinction of rank will not be discussed in this paper because of its comparative lack of relevance in
modern, Western culture.
3
Race is often added to this list. If this term refers to country of citizenship, it is important to recognize
that every manners system is peculiar to its own specific culture; no particular code of manners is world-
wide. Therefore, if people of differing geographical locations meet, it is, in essence, a meeting of different
mannerly contexts, and a decision must be made as to under which context they will operate under, if
confusion is to be avoided. Of course, it goes almost without saying that if race refers solely to a
persons ancestral lineage, to use different manners when interacting with them falls deservedly under the
category of racial discrimination.
 Wilkens 4

and minimize its weaknesses. Former Cambridge Director of Studies in English,

Caroline Moore, writes:

Outward manners, according to W.R. Browne, are only the visible sign of
those inward manners which make the man. Mere outward manners deteriorate
into mere etiquette, mere formality, foolish prescriptions. Observing the letter of
social laws never gains the freedom of the true gentleman, but only entraps one in
mere gentility.4

Thus, the essence of manners has nothing whatsoever to do with a list of rules, but

everything to do with how a person perceives himself and those around him. For this

reason, it is quite possible that a man may not follow all the rules of etiquette, but by

virtue of a proper understanding of his place in society, he could not be called anything

but a gentleman. Dr. Moore addresses this as well: The true mark of a gentleman, it is

widely agreed, is spontaneity. He is frank, natural, unaffected. . . . Generosity and

spontaneity are part and parcel of a largeness of heart which overflows mere forms . . . .

The gentleman is never a sterile precisionist.5 Not only can a man be a gentleman

without scrupulously observing every iota of the mannerly laws, but a gentleman must

not. In many of the situations in which he finds himself it would seem stand-offish and

even rude to cling to every formality. For example, if a man treats his own children with

no more familiarity and affection than he does any other children, they have some valid

cause to complain. This is not to say, however, that manners may be discarded when

dealing with ones family and intimate friends; on the contrary, there is no context in

which they are more appropriate, but the conception of ones role within a family unit is

quite distinct from that of ones role within the community as a whole. Thus the

4
Anderson, Digby, ed. Gentility Recalled. Great Britain: Social Affairs Unit Publications, 1996,
55.
5
Ibid., 54
 Wilkens 5

understanding of ones place in all of the many situations of life is far more essential to

the understanding of manners than a knowledge of all its specific rules.

Grasping the full meaning of ones place within society is a very significant step

toward being mannerly, but there is one attribute which every mannerly person must have

in addition: agape love (charity). This love is deliberately chosen. It may be an easy

choice if the object is someone for whom the lover already feels affection, but more

likely the choice will require self-denial to some degree. This is a determinedly giving

and self-forgetting love. C.S. Lewis links it closely with forgiveness:

The invitation to turn our natural loves into Charity is never lacking. It is
provided by those frictions and frustrations that meet us in all of them;
unmistakable evidence that (natural) love is not going to be enough
unmistakable, unless we are blinded by egotism. . . . But in everyone, and of
course in ourselves, there is that which requires forbearance, tolerance,
forgiveness.6

It is possible for the dictates of manners to be executed for selfish reasons, and yet this is

not the gentility which exerts an uplifting force within a community. Using the scenario

of manners between a husband and a wife, Christian writer Elisabeth Elliot observes,

Courtesy is sacrificial symbolism because each act is a very small sign that you
are willing to give your life for hers. When you pass the salt to her, youre saying,
You first. When you help her on with her coat, youre not saying Youre too
weak to do it yourself; youre saying that youre willing to take trouble for
her. . . . Love is willing to be inconvenienced.7

There must be a deeply sincere desire to do good for the person with whom one is

interacting even before one acts for ones own good. A useful, if certainly not all-

encompassing definition of charity is to use ones own strengths not primarily for

6
Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. New York, New York: Harcourt, Inc., 1991, 135
7
Elliot, Elisabeth. The Mark of a Man. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1981, 118
 Wilkens 6

personal advantage, but for the advantage of another. Although admittedly not entirely

adequate, this is the definition of charity which will be used in this paper for the sake of

clarity and simplicity.

Therefore, in short, to be mannerly is first of all to accept whole-heartedly who

one is man or woman, child or elder, inferior or superior and to embrace the

responsibilities and expectations that accompany this identity. The mannerly person then

performs the responsibilities and conforms to the expectations peculiar to his gender, age,

or status in a spirit of charity in order to make those with whom he is in contact feel not

merely comfortable, but sincerely valued. These, not a list of rules, are the manners

which will be addressed in this paper. It is not a mere adherence to rules that Western

society needs so much; it is a deep respect for and understanding of manners that it

requires so urgently.

The Role of Manners within Society

It is very common to hear complaints about the moral and political paths down

which America seems to be headed. Yet while there are people who notice and often rue

the continuing shift away from traditional manners, there is a certain sense of resignation

to their loss. Many citizens, for better or for worse, passionately seek political and

religious reform, but the attitude toward manners seems to be that manners are a lost

thing of the past. Manners, though, are neither lost nor a thing of the past. They are very

much alive, though often drastically changed from the past, and unfortunately changed in

many cases for the worse.8 The apparent unconcern for the state of manners springs

from a misunderstanding of the importance of their role within society. Indeed, manners
8
Bad manners are not a lack of manners, but rather, a violation of good manners. There is no such
community as a mannerless community. Manners, good or bad, exist as long as there are interactions
between persons; manners would only cease to exist in a situation in which a person had neither contact
with human beings nor did his actions affect another person in any way.
 Wilkens 7

are on par with morals and judicial laws as one of three especially significant influences

within a culture. Morals serve to express the principles by which people abide in order to

live lives of timeless significance; laws provide the minimum guidelines of behavior that

enable people to live safely together in communities; manners bestow color, order,

individuality, and beauty to a community. The relationship between the three might be

illustrated by architecture: Every building must be constructed in such as way as to allow

it to exist within the parameters the laws of nature (such as gravity) have set for it, and

the building will survive as long as its structure adheres to these laws. Just so, morals are

the unchanging principles by which every society must abide in order to flourish. The

presence of the building is made possible by its foundation and structural framework

the minimum of what architecture demands. In the same way, judicial laws allow

communities to exist by providing the most basic guidelines for the security of its

inhabitants. A building which consists of only a bare framework, however, is not

considered complete. It must have full walls and divisions between rooms, and it must

have interior and exterior finishing and decoration, furnishings, and all the things which

make it beautiful, unique, and comfortable. Good manners lend just such an

indispensable grace to communities. And yet, the three must work together. The laws of

nature must instruct both the framework and the decoration of the building; the

decoration cannot contradict the framework, but it may, even must, go beyond the

framework by putting a beautiful painting where blank wall would have been just as

functional, and so on. Just as morals and laws should support each other in almost every

instance, so manners, while quite distinct from both, should support and be supported by

both morals and laws working as complimentary forces with one another.
 Wilkens 8

The Interaction of Manners and Morals

The most significant practical distinction between manners and morals is

manners adaptive quality. Because morals are the link between a man and his

significance (i.e. his purpose for living), and because the reason for mans existence

cannot change with time, morals also remain constant within a certain cultural context

throughout the ages. The specifics of manners, on the other hand, change almost

continually. For example, it was morally wrong to kill another man in cold blood five

thousand years ago, it is morally wrong now, and it will still be morally wrong five

thousand years hence. In contrast, manners formerly allowed an offended party to

challenge his offender to a duel to the death, while today to challenge someone to a duel

or to accept a challenge to a duel would be considered so inappropriate that to call it rude

would be an absurd understatement. Manners are determined by a selection process

similar to that in Darwins survival of the fittest theory. In the words of Ralph Waldo

Emerson, That [which] makes the good and bad of manners [is], namely, what helps or

hinders fellowship.9 Therefore, if a certain behavior breeds discord between the

members of a community, it will normally be discarded and a different, more peace-

promoting behavior put in its place. As science, technology, and philosophy develop,

manners generally adapt in order to maintain amity between people.

Morals and manners further differ in the degree to which they may legitimately be

imported to other cultures. The specifics of morals are those convictions which people

consider to be universally right. Therefore, missionaries, each believing himself to be

the bearer of timeless and absolute Truth, devote their whole lives to spreading their

moral convictions to a part of the world whose morals, the missionary believes, are
9
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Manners. Philadelphia, PA: Henry Altemus, 1896, 22
 Wilkens 9

erroneous. Manners, on the other hand, are culturally right, but not universally so and

ought not to be enforced in foreign contexts. A relatively miniscule number of men have

set out with the expressly articulated purpose of winning others over to their own

cultures manner code. Unfortunately, some missionaries do confuse morals with

manners, and wrongfully attempt to inflict their manners upon a culture in the name of

converting its morals, but few of them do so deliberately as their primary stated cause.

While it is important to recognize the distinctions between morals and manners, it

is in their cooperation that manners social potency becomes evident. Morality demands

consistent adherence to manners as far as the two standards do not directly conflict, for

Love does not behave rudely.10 Indeed, as H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., a scholar of

bioethics, puts it: There is an obligation to have good manners so as appropriately to

discharge obligations (e.g., adequately to express thanks) and to show respect. Insofar as

courtesy supports the moral life, courtesy is morally obligatory.11 Thus morals and

manners not only can coexist, but much of the time must coexist, for morality requires at

least a minimum adherence to manners. Morals, however, must emerge as the more

compelling force if the demands of morals and manners come into conflict. Good

manners ought to function within and uphold the boundaries morals have set up, but

although morality enthusiastically supports manners, it sometimes happens that in order

to maintain ones morality, one must break the rules of etiquette.

Oddly enough, although manners are, to a certain extent morally obligatory, to

be mannerly one need not necessarily conform to strict morality. Indeed, one of manners

greatest beauties lies in its ability make deviations from morality less blatant, not by

10
I Corinthians 13:5 Taken from the New King James Version
11
Anderson, Digby, ed. Gentility Recalled. Great Britain: Social Affairs Unit Publications, 1996, 185
 Wilkens 10

rendering immorality tolerable, but by requiring at least a minimum standard of outward

decorum in the interest of others.12 For example, a man may decide that swearing is an

effective mode of self-expression. This is a violation of some moralities, but the man no

longer considers this reason enough to restrain himself. If he is at all polite, however, he

will, at least, not swear in the presence of men who are offended by it, or before women

and children at all. Thus, the mans behavior is not in any way excused or made less

heinous, but rather its potential harm to the community in general is minimized. In a

society that values manners, though a man rejects morality, chances are he will, at least,

not flaunt his actions, as manners will inspire in him at least some degree of shame.

Modern societys constant charge to obey only the impulses that feel good is evidence

that shame is a concept which today has been dismissed as harmful to a mans self-

confidence and self-image (which may be a factor contributing to the reason both

traditional morals and manners have become rather unpopular), and yet Homer referred

to shame as an emotion which does much harm to men but profits them also.13

Certainly shame destroys a mans sense of pride, but nevertheless it very often prevents

him from committing acts far more harmful to himself and others, and perhaps it is not so

lamentable if a mans pride is hurt when he has done something not worth being proud of.

When the threat of future eternal damnation ceases to become a compelling reason for

morally upright behavior, sometimes the present menace of social rejection remains

effective. Thus, while good manners and morals are two distinct concepts, they

nevertheless uphold one another and further one anothers causes.

12
Ibid. 32, 183
13
Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1961,
XXIV, 45
 Wilkens 11

While manners are important because they can dilute the immediate harm

immorality brings upon a community, an even more significant aspect of manners is their

power to define morals. To use the example of the duel again, morals forbid murder

while manners at one time sanctioned, under certain circumstances, what might be termed

murder, but now manners forbid this method of settling disputes. Thus, manners, in this

case defined morality by differentiating between murder and the mere defense of ones

honor. Manners may sometimes define moral statutes rightly and sometimes wrongly,

but nevertheless this is the power they wield. To put it differently, morals set the standard

for right and wrong, while manners set the standard within situations on which morals

have failed to pass clear judgment: the gray areas. If it is morally permissible to kill in

self-defense, is it morally permissible to kill in defense of ones honor especially if

honor is dearer than life, and the killing is done in a straightforward way and according to

the rules of fair play? Of course, it is now very poor manners to fight duels; the proper

procedure today if ones reputation has been wrongfully besmirched is to summon the

accusing party to court from which either party, right or wrong, may come away utterly

ruined financially. There seem to be some problematic moral implications with this

means of obtaining justice as well, but this is what is now defined as mannerly and

appropriate, and so this is what is done. Whether dueling, or court, or some other

method is the proper way to handle disputes, social pressure, which is the influence of

manners, clearly plays an instrumental role in preserving or devaluing morality within a

society.

The Interaction of Manners and Laws

 Wilkens 12

The other great societal force along with manners and morals is judicial law. Like

manners, laws are subject to natural selection, yet the difference between the two lies in

the fact that manners cannot purposefully be altered overnight, nor can they be

enforced in the same way as laws. As previously noted, manners are a product of social

evolution, not the mandate of a governing body. Therefore, it is not practically possible

for it to be in accordance with the standard of etiquette to handle a dispute with a duel

one day, and a violation of etiquette to do so the next. It is, however, quite possible for

dueling to become illegal overnight. A legal emendation, however, does not always

imply a change in the social perception of a certain action, and it may be, as indeed it was

in the case of dueling, that the forbidden action is practiced in secret well after it has

become illegal, and will only become extinct when manners forbids it.

It is, in fact, a legitimate cause for some alarm if the law begins to interfere

significantly with the natural development of manners, for it is just this sort of

government that may eventually require its subjects to head their letters with Comrade

instead of Dear Sir.14 Manners are fundamentally the guiding principles for the finer

points of interaction among individuals within a society, and for a government to exercise

too great a control over this interaction is for the government to grow dictatorial.

Furthermore, if manners are truly to be manners, they must spring from a deep

understanding of and appreciation for the spirit of manners not just from the outwardly

imposed rules. One need not have lived long to know that it is very possible to adhere to

the rules of manners and yet still be terribly rude.

Manners and the Modern Concept of Political Correctness

14
The illegalization of dueling, however, perhaps may arguably have been an appropriate government
intervention since it had a direct connection with preserving the lives of citizens.
 Wilkens 13

Therefore, because manners, by their very nature, must be allowed to change and

to become deeply integrated into a persons very view of life, the modern concept of

Political Correctness is rather impotent as a system of manners. First of all, Political

Correctness did not evolve, but rather, it was invented. Whereas manners should change

gradually and easily indeed, almost imperceptibly, the PC system is forced and

inadaptable. According to Digby Anderson who is director and founder of the Social

Affairs Unit in England,

The legalistic codes of political correctness and charters drawn up by civil

servants and governments can never supply the same instinctive readiness. . . .
The achievement of manners is to control behaviour without the use of law or
government and through custom and informal community sanctions. In contrast
with the evolving, sophisticated control by manners, control by political
correctness committee is clumsy and, because it often involves explicit legalistic
rules and monitoring, oppressive.15

A system that legally enforces a way of thinking and speaking ought to be viewed with, at

very least, initial suspicion. While it is unfair to judge a movement entirely based on its

name, it is worth noting that words translated as politically correct were used in Russia

to identify someone who held fast to Lenins ideals; it was frequently employed by Mao

Tse-tung in his Little Red Book to distinguish his own ideals from others; and politically

incorrect was used to describe a man mistreated for depicting a German concentration

camp as he had personally seen it, not as one was SUPPOSED TO SEE IT.16 The fact

that Leninists, Communists, and Nazis used the term as a positive adjective does not

necessary denounce the movement in America, but it should inspire extra caution.

15
Anderson, 30-31
16
Allen, Irving Lewis. Earlier Uses of Politically (In)correct. American Speech. Spring 1995,
Vol. 70, No. 1:110-112. Duke University Press, 110-112
 Wilkens 14

Because the P.C. code of behavior was legally and not socially enforced, it has

been unable to adapt to the ever-changing demands of an ever-changing society, and

therefore, even if it had started out well-suited to the time, it would have been outdated

almost as soon as it was established. It is in the general nature of manners gradually to

leave behind customs that no longer bring stability and to adopt new ones well-suited to

the new demands of the culture. To impose a system such as the Politically Correct,

however, is to thwart the natural progression of manners to fit society and instead to

change society to fit a carefully selected code of manners. It is possible that at some

points the end result would even have been the same, but the point would not have been

reached naturally and gently, allowing the new behavior also to be natural and sincere.

Good manners, with use, become second nature and instinctive, and therefore

genuine. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to absorb Political Correctness

because it often contradicts logic. Who could guess, for example, that a married woman

would take offense at being addressed as Mrs. Smith rather than Ms. Smith? In former

times, a sincere desire to be pleasant, coupled with a minimal understanding of the

customs of the culture was all it took to ensure that one did not cause serious offense, but

now the PC code of behavior has made personalized social maneuvering counter-intuitive

by legitimizing overly touchy responses. According to Anderson:

The manners, the codes, the rules once covered everything. They gave men and
women ways to behave, virtues and appearances to take on, ways of relating to
each other, conduct for this, that and every occasion. That understanding was
built up over years. It was a wisdom. It is now derided and in its place are put
slogans, charters, and politically initiated directives on behaviour. Manners have
always had to change in history. What is happening now is not gradual organic
change but ideologically driven political correctness, much of it based on a poor
understanding of past manners.17

17
Ibid. 32
 Wilkens 15

By making the mention of differences taboo, we have, in fact, robbed our society of a

profound grace and even wisdom. Not only do the mandates of Political Correctness

leave us bereft of social ease, but they also take away our particulars the distinctions

which we may draw between our community and others, the traditions from which we

see whence we have come, those points by which we identify ourselves and of which we

may be proud. Alasdair MacIntyre, Senior Research Professor of Philosophy at

University of Notre Dame, predicts the fate of just such a community which rejects the

cohesive force of tradition:

The social and cultural condition of those who speak that kind of language [is] a
certain type of rootless cosmopolitanism, the condition of those who aspiring to
be at home anywhere except that, of course, in what they regard as the
backward, outmoded, undeveloped cultures of tradition are therefore in an
important way citizens of nowhere . . .It is the fate toward which modernity
moves precisely insofar as it successfully modernizes itself and others by
emancipating itself from social, cultural, and linguistic particularity and so from
tradition.18

Political Correctness attempts to make every aspect of life so vague that it cannot

possibly offend anyone, and yet in doing so it turns us into a colorless people, devoid of

any particulars to call our own. Political Correctness cannot rightly be called manners

because manners of necessity make distinctions between people and communities,

whereas Political Correctness seeks to destroy distinctions. True manners, however, by

their very nature, cannot use differences to insult, but to enhance and build up the life of

the community. Manners recognize the unique privileges and responsibilities peculiar to

every social position, whereas Political Correctness concocts and caters to a power

struggle. Manners create a very different, yet equally significant place for every

18
MacIntyre, Alasdair. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1988, 388
 Wilkens 16

individual, while the P.C. system seeks to eradicate places within society. Manners

gives grace and dignity to difference; Political Correctness denies its existence. Manners

and the P.C. system address very many of the same areas of our culture. Yet, because the

P.C. system has been drawn into the realms of judicial law, it must not be categorized as a

manners code unless we are willing to relegate all interpersonal interactions to the

control of the government. Therefore, while manners and morals share a very close-knit

and interrelated coexistence, manners only comment on laws is to adhere to them as far

as they do not contradict morals, and laws, though holding a very significant place in

society, ought to have very little, if anything at all, to say about manners.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners

If good manners are truly vital to the workings of a community, why then have

manners seen such a dramatic decline into ever worsening manners over the last century?

Fundamentally, it is because modern culture has decided that it values other things more

than good manners. Some of the products of manners our society still finds attractive:

predictability, restraint on passions (a few of them anyway), and general goodwill in

social encounters, but these are rarely acknowledged as the specific products of manners

because good manners do not coexist well with some of our cultures latest pet idealistic

developments such as the concepts of individualism and relativism. Bryan Wilson, a

professor of sociology at Oxford University, calls the overall effect of these developments

the de-moralization of society. This term reflects the cultures rejection of morality and

disregard for tradition; fundamentally, the loss of shared values:

Societies were once held together as integrated and coherent systems by a widely
shared value consensus, a common mentalit, a pervasive moral consciousness.
Men identified with the community in which they lived, regarding its folkways
and mores as god-given and right. People appraised the community itself, its
 Wilkens 17

objective possessions, and the comportment of its members in common moral

terms. . . . Society was a moralized domain, and all aspects of comportment were
not matters of indifference, but were subject to moral judgment. 19

Of course, it is not that every person in former societies agreed on every point, but they

did share a larger, fundamental vision of life. While there were certainly differences of

opinion on finer points, the members of a community had a common view of the larger

issues of life. Traditions and shared morals were, and still are what make one society

distinct from another. Without these a society becomes context-less, unwilling to define

itself. Manners require both context and culture, but both of these have been lost with the

de-moralization of modern communities. The reasons for this are many, but some of

the more significant include the melting pot characteristics of America, the rapid

development of technology, and the influence of the 1960s.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners: the Melting Pot Characteristics of America

Manners are, without doubt, cultural. Every civilization has constructed a code of

behavior it deems proper; as time has progressed and demanded slightly different

behavior, manners have adapted. It has always been tacitly understood, however, that if a

person relocated from one community to another, he did his best to learn their customs

and abide by them just as he would do his best to learn their language and use it to

communicate. It was not only a matter of compliance, but a matter of survival. A man

would never be profitably integrated into a society to which he insists on remaining a

stranger. Just the same, when great waves of immigrants came to America, it was clear

that they must learn the English language if the United States wished to remain a united

and cohesive nation. Language barriers are so blatantly inhibiting that immigrants

19
Anderson, 16-17
 Wilkens 18

distinctly and urgently feel the need to overcome them. The barriers of customs (i.e. of

manners), on the other hand, are much more subtle, but no less important, for customs are

the language which interprets life including the spoken word. Certain actions and

comments which are the height of refinement according to some cultures are just the

opposite in others. Christian author and former missionary, Elisabeth Elliot, remarks, It

is a mistake to dismiss customs by saying, Its only cultural. It is cultural, but it is within

the context of our culture that we communicate selfishness or unselfishness.20 It is

important to learn to understand the spoken language of ones community, but if one does

not fully grasp the significance of ones words within the context of a certain culture, the

usefulness of the language is greatly diminished. Furthermore, there is much truth in the

proverb, Actions speak louder than words, and if one cannot properly interpret actions,

the barrier between peoples is great indeed.

Understanding this, it is not surprising that America struggles to maintain its

identity while absorbing millions of immigrants from all around the world. And yet, the

American reputation that inspires millions to take refuge there makes very it clear why it

is important that America does remain American. When asked on a CNN television

program to explain the lack of manners in America, sociologist Andrew Young remarked,

I say were all in the same pot, but were more like a stew than a soup. Everybody

wants to preserve their identity and history and heritage and culture so that while were

all in the same pot, weve got to admit that youre not going to change to accommodate

me; Im going to have to learn to respect you and appreciate you just as you are.21

America has become so infatuated with the idea of multiculturalism that it has ceased

20
Elliot, Elisabeth. The Mark of a Man. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1981, 119
21
Decline of Civilization CNN Presents. CNN. 1994
 Wilkens 19

to take pride in its own culture, and instead seeks to embrace the mores and customs of

every culture together as one. Emphatically, it is good to appreciate and seek to

understand cultures outside ones own, but we need not adopt these other cultures in

order to value them fully for what they are. If an American visits another country, it is

proper and right that he do the best he can to conform to the culture and make himself

agreeable within it. But when an American is in America, he has every right, and indeed

an obligation, to be American and to expect from foreigners the same deference to his

culture that he should try to show when visiting their culture. The survival of manners

does not require America to shut its borders to immigrants, but may America also always

be proud to be America and may she always strive to preserve what it is that made her

America: independence, strong convictions, and the pluck to fight for these convictions

against all odds. This does not mean that it is necessary or desirable for immigrants to

destroy every vestige of their origins, but that it is quite reasonable to expect them to

preserve their roots in such a way as not to be demandingly and disruptively obtrusive.

Allowing the American way of life to be superceded by every other culture is not only

confusing, but also reinforces the idea that the traditions and customs which make

America America are expendable and may be replaced with any others as whim

dictates. To disvalue American-ness is to cast aside the American context, and manners

can only operate within a context. By trying to become every culture at once, we do not

know who we are anymore, and this, of course, cuts into the very heart of manners.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners: The Rise of Technological Innovation: Personal

Character Devalued
 Wilkens 20

Another contributing factor to the demise of manners has been the rapid rise of

technological innovation. The rise of technology is one sign of a healthy economy and

need not be looked upon as a negative development, but the overall value of technology,

like the influence of immigration, is determined by the way in which it is permitted to

affect the culture. Much good has come from the technological boom, but it has also

crowded out some of the indispensable values of earlier days. For example, while

employers still value honesty, industriousness, and other moral virtues, social grace has

increasingly become a less significant factor in hiring criteria. According to Bryan

Wilson, technical knowledge and experience has become far more vital in the business

world than manners:

The individual increasingly becomes a role-player, his responses contractually

specified, and his performances impersonally defined and executed. His personal
virtue becomes irrelevant to his performance in his work-role, which is judged
entirely by technical criteria. . . . Reliance on technical competence reduces
dependence on personal goodwill, inherent grace, gestures of respect, and hence
the self-esteem that looks for confirmation in the esteem of others.22

Once, businesses survived not on their reputation for efficiency and quality alone, but

also largely on their personal reputation. Now, an increasing number of jobs involve

behind-the-scenes upkeep of machines which perform the tasks humans once did, thereby

lessening the dependence on personal skills. Whereas once all professions required inter-

personal dexterity, now there are many services in which the human factor is invisible.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners: The Rise of Technological Innovation: The

Elderly and Their Values Regarded as Irrelevant to the Present

22
Anderson, 18
 Wilkens 21

Another marked way in which technology has affected manners is in the popular

perception of the elderly. While society previously highly valued and treated the aged

with great respect because of their past contributions to society and the wisdom and

knowledge they had acquired over the years, the youth today far outstrip them in up-to-

date knowledge of current technological expertise, and these are the skills which

businesses require. Technology grows and changes so exponentially that it is impossible

for the elderly to keep pace. As a result, the elderly are being dismissed as out-moded

and therefore unprofitable members of society in a world in which age used to be

profoundly esteemed. This mentality encourages the youth, already prone to inflated

self-importance, to feel that they really are wiser and more knowledgeable than their

elders and therefore need not treat them with respect. Then also, if the knowledge of the

elderly is considered obsolete, the next logical step is to dismiss their wisdom and values

as well. Again, Wilson remarks that, Their manners and their moral sense mark them out

as yesterdays men: what relevance can their conscious regard for respectful social

comportment have for the realities of this radically changed world?23 It used to be the

honorable duty of the aged to pass on the values and customs of their culture to the

younger. But the younger generation, giddy with their newfound importance, feels the

wisdom of their elders to be irrelevant and their manners old-fashioned.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners: The Rise of Technological Innovation:

Hedonism

23
Ibid., 19
 Wilkens 22

Yet another force which proves to lethal to manners is the increasingly hedonistic

mindset of the West due largely to the increased productivity made possible by

technological innovation. The West has become an extremely wealthy society a society

continually wanting more, but in actual need of practically nothing. It is, of course, a

wonderful thing that starvation is virtually unknown in our country, that almost every

child receives an education instead of having to help support the family, and that we can

expand our horizons by travel. All of this has come not without great cost, however.

Before the present age, just to maintain an existence required long, hard days of labor.

Money and time were not wasted on the fancy of a moment or a capricious whim. It was

necessary to make sacrifices in the present so that one might enjoy a slightly more

bountiful existence in the future. Furthermore, life was rough and hard and men found

their stay in religion and in the belief that one day their hard work would be rewarded in

Heaven. In short, it was a society that was working for future, not present, gratification.

Mr. Wilson describes this ethic, saying,

In the producer societies of the past, in which there was scarcity of resources, the
prevailing conditions demanded of most people that they work, save, put by what
little they could for the future, and hence postpone present gratification. Scarcity
demanded self-restraint and self-denial, which was made less harrowing by an
ascetic ethic, a morality of forbearance, and the promise that virtue was its own
reward for the righteous.

Scarcity demanded self-control at the present moment in the hope that recompense would

come in the future. Abundance, of course, has the strong tendency to encourage living

for (n.b. not in) the moment under the direction of whim. There is no longer an emphasis

on living responsibly, sacrificing now that the future might be secure. Rather

advertisements, the media, and even some intellectuals and religious persons are urging
 Wilkens 23

us to live under the direction of our feelings. We follow this leading because we can and

it is easier and more pleasant at the moment to do so. To quote Mr. Wilson again, The

ethic changed: hedonism replaced asceticism. . . . Self-restraint [is] out, self-indulgence

[is] in.24 Unfortunately, this mindset defies the very spirit of manners: self-denial, self-

control, self-restraint, selflessness. It is impossible to believe that I deserve what I

want, that the highest purpose in my life is to enjoy myself, and at the same time be

truly mannerly. If a man believes he deserves whatever he wants, then anytime manners

requires that a man give up his comfort (however small) for another, or inconvenience

himself in any way for another, or even stop thinking about himself for a moment (and

manners actually require constant self-forgetfulness), he is betraying his fundamental

goal in life: to please himself. Good manners and hedonism cannot co-exist.

Reasons for the Decline of Manners: The Influence of the 1960s

The final cause of the decline of manners which this paper will discuss is the

effect of the 1960s emphasis on self-expression and freedom from boundaries and

restraints. In that decade natural instincts and impulses were glorified to the extent that

its natural became a valid excuse for previously unacceptable behavior. The former

ideas of trying to avoid giving offense were discarded as old-fashioned and repressive.

Good manners, quite clearly, could not be preserved in this environment. As Mr. Wilson

explains:

The upsurge of violence among students in the backwash of the hippy movement
of the mid and late 1960s may not have had manners as its primary target, but
manners were certainly one of the intended victims of the assault. That revolution
failed in its immediate, overt objectives, but the process of attrition which has
relentlessly followed has seen the debasement of social order and the marked

24
Ibid., 20
 Wilkens 24

deterioration of the standards of everyday civil behaviour fully in conformity with

the political ideals which the revolution failed to achieve.25

The 1960s ushered in an era in which the desire to establish and express oneself as an

individual superceded the former desire not to shock and cause offense. When asked to

explain the role of manners in our civilization on a CNN television program, Judith

Martin (Miss Manners) replied, It is a very counter-intuitive concept that there are other

people in the world and that their feelings have to be taken into consideration. . . . It

suddenly occurs to very well-meant, but perhaps nave people that the artificiality of

etiquette is wrong. Why dont we just be ourselves? . . . . Why is civilization declining?

Too much doing what comes naturally.26 In other words, while it may perhaps be

pleasant to envision a world which could be safely governed by instinct, a world in which

self-control and self-discipline are unnecessary, a world in which we could all get along,

do whatever we feel like, and let Nature take her course, unfortunately, this is impossible.

Man is naturally profoundly selfish and selfish people generally provoke other selfish

people to unpleasantness. Manners are indeed unnatural in that babies are not born

with them and they, therefore, must be inculcated. There are, however, very few

virtues, if any, with which babies are born; neither morality, ability, education, nor,

indeed, manners are innate, whereas disobedience, helplessness, ignorance, and

selfishness abound. Manners, like any other proficiency worth cultivating must be

pursued with self-mastery and denial. One sometimes sees children who have been

allowed to naturalize even more than most, and these decidedly do not endear

themselves to others in their vicinity. Adults acting according to their natural desires,

however, commit far greater wrongs to their fellow men than do their younger

25
Anderson, 19
26
Decline of Civilization
 Wilkens 25

counterparts. Heinous crimes such as theft, murder, and abuse are a result of nothing less

than selfishness and a lack of self-control, but even these have been all but validated by

excuses having to do with such ideas as genetic tendencies toward violence, temporary

insanity, a disturbed minds expression, or a rough background. Surely, if true, these

are serious disadvantages and yet, they remain very poor excuses. Bryan Wilson explains

this phenomenon:

There has been a diminution of culpability, and corresponding increase in

excusability: its not his fault its the system or hes not wicked, hes sick,
and a willingness to pass off both criminality and a lack of manners under the
rubric of self-expression or the individuals endeavour to tell us something.
Since the expectation of mannerly behaviour demands only the lightest form of
restrain on the individual, empowered by the mildest of sanctions (public ridicule
or disapprobation) it is manners that have experienced the most direct onslaught.27

If morality struggles to survive in a culture which can no longer find within itself the

backbone to deal heavily with the perpetrators of crimes (we do still, at least allegedly,

frown upon the crimes, but not often upon the criminal, and this makes all the difference

in the mind of a criminal), how much less can manners stand? French author Camille

Pernot deems this glorification of individual self-expression, without doubt, the most

harmful progression in the process of modern thought to the survival of manners. She

observes that self-affirmation and self-expression of ones singularity (or what one thinks

of as such) is today considered a dignity and a duty. On the other hand, the attitudes to the

contrary, namely, the recommendations of decorum: discretion, modesty, consideration,

are passed off as weakness, disownment of ones self, and hypocrisy, and are rejected.28

The very heart of manners demands a self-forgetfulness in the interest of forwarding

27
Anderson, 17
28
Pernot, Camille. La politesse et sa philosophie. Paris, France : Presses Universitaires de France, 1996,
369
 Wilkens 26

anothers wellbeing, and this attitude can certainly not coexist with an attitude caught up

in the expression of self.

Manners between the Genders

Perhaps the most profoundly significant distinction in the universe, excepting that

of rational being vs. irrational being, is that between male and female. It exists not only

within humanity, but is also mirrored throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. The

ancients recognized this distinction and even perceived the earth as feminine and the sea

as masculine. Masculinity and femininity have a mysteriously beautiful relationship --

one of complement and contrast, compatibility and contradiction. Yet, increasingly

society makes an effort to obscure as thoroughly as possible the characteristics which

differentiate between the genders, claiming that to distinguish is to discriminate.

Therefore, women are expected to fill the traditional roles of both women and men by

being mothers and wives as well as firewomen and CEOs, and men are expected to fill

the traditional roles of neither men nor women because to act like a man is chauvinistic

and to act like a woman is unmanly. Because of this ambiguity, both men and women are

extremely confused about who they are and what is expected of them. They therefore

become too insecure to practice charity because they cannot be sure that it is anyone

elses role to be watching out for them and so they must watch out for themselves. Thus

manners are lost. However, if men and women would realize that there is no shame in

being who they are and would act accordingly, and if they would recognize the strengths

they have as men or as women and use them unselfishly for the advantage of others,

much progress could be made in restoring good manners and the stability, harmony, and

beauty which accompany them.

 Wilkens 27

Manners and the Man

The modern man who sincerely wishes to live up to what society demands of him

finds himself in a difficult quandary, for society offers little guidance beyond demanding

that he be neither man nor woman. He must not imitate the gentleman of past years,

treating a woman like a lady, opening doors for her, standing when she enters the room,

for this is often enough interpreted as an insult to a womans physical, intellectual, or

leadership ability. Indeed, treating a woman any differently at all will not uncommonly

fetch for a man the label of a chauvinist. No, a man must not act like a man, for in order

to do so, he must treat a woman like a woman, and this is discrimination.

A man may opt to attempt to treat women just as they treat men. In practice,

however, this is just as unacceptable as treating women as women. Every woman has her

own idea of how men should treat her, and although these individual ideas are many and

extremely varied, she believes them to be perfectly, even morally, clear, and reserves the

right to be offended if he fails to comply. Even the simple act of a man holding a door for

a woman can prove volatile. While some women feel grossly insulted if a man holds the

door for her as she passes through, others will automatically think a man unspeakably

rude if he does not act according to the code of chivalry and stop, stand back, and hold

the door for her. What is an arrogant insult to one, is a fundamental, basic courtesy to

another, and these are, of course, examples from the extremes of the spectrum women

take their stands on every point between these two. Clearly a man cannot win by treating

a woman like a woman, but it can be even more dangerous to treat a woman like a man,

no matter how much she demands it. Women who feel the need, in essence, to be men
 Wilkens 28

are often the most insecure, and it takes very little for them to think themselves abased or

abused.

Since acting like a man appears to be unacceptable even if a man treats women

like men too then, perhaps he should take on the traditional role of a woman. Perhaps

he could decide to stay at home with the children, clean the house, cook the meals, do the

shopping, and become thoroughly domesticated. Once again, however, this is not

satisfactory for the woman or the man. Very few women truly respect a man who will

allow himself to be primarily led by her, who is content to be dependant on her

financially, to whom she is more like a mother than a wife. Similarly, very few men are

fully content to be thoroughly domesticated, not to go out and leave their mark by

struggling with the world, arduous as it may be.

What role then is left for a man? He is forbidden to be either a man or a woman,

and he can no longer find a place in society where he is valued. So what is there for him

to do, but to live guided by how he feels like living? Psychologist Dr. James Dobson

describes this dilemma, saying:

Men are in a state of confusion over the meaning of sex-role identity. We know it
is unacceptable to be macho (whatever in the world that is), but were a little
uncertain about how a real man behaves. Is he a breadwinner and a protector of
his family? Well, not exactly. Should he assume a position of leadership and
authority at home? Not if hes married to a woman whos had her consciousness
raised. Should he open doors for his wife or give a lady his seat on the train or
rise when she enters the room? Who knows? Will he march off to defend his
homeland in times of war, or will his wife be the one to fight on foreign soil?
Should he wear jewelry and satin shoes or carry a purse? Alas, is there anything
that marks him as different from his female counterpart? Not to hear the media
tell it.29

Modern culture, and women in particular, seem constantly to be determined to convey the

message to men that the world does not need them, and therefore men quite often find
29
Dobson, James C. Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives. Wasco, Texas: Word Books, 1980, 155
 Wilkens 29

that they do not know what their place is within the community. They are told they are

unappreciated, and therefore, rather than having the freedom and security to use their

strengths for the good of others, they must use them for their own advantage because no

one is looking out for them.

If society places unreasonable demands on a man, what then do manners require

of him? In other words, what is the essence of being a gentleman? Ralph Waldo

Emerson describes a gentleman thus:

The gentleman is a man of truth, lord of his own actions, and expressing that
lordship in his behavior, not in any manner dependent and servile either on
person, or opinions, or possessions. Beyond this fact of truth and real force, the
word denotes good-nature or benevolence: manhood first, and then gentleness. . . .
My gentleman gives the law where he is; he will outpray saints in chapel,
outgeneral veterans in the field, and outshine all courtesy in the hall. He is good
company for pirates, and good with academicians; so that it is useless to fortify
yourself against him; he has the private entrance to all minds, and I could as easily
exclude myself as him.30

According to Emerson, the essential components of a gentleman are gentleness and

manliness. Manliness Emerson defines as commitment to truth, (which implies that he

knows who he is and what is expected of him), self-control (which is necessary if he is to

act according to who he is), and dignity (which means he is not ashamed of who he is).

He sets high standards of behavior wherever he is by his own example; he adapts himself

to fit into whatever situation he finds himself; and he possesses the practiced ability to

exercise perceptiveness so that he may direct his own actions in such a way as to meet, as

nearly as possible, the needs of those around him. This, of course, does not mean that he

allows others expectations to dictate his behavior, but rather, that he is a gentleman not in

action alone, but in essence, and this enables him to adapt his gentlemanliness to any

situation in which he might find himself.

30
Emerson, 7,10
 Wilkens 30

This is an element which is missing from the requirements of modern society.

Modern society demands certain actions, but fails to set inward standards. Peter Post,

great-grandson of Emily Post addresses this very issue:

Good manners are not a matter of simply following the rules. Whats important
is the reason underlying the desired behavior. . . . We hold the door for a woman
not because theres a rule that says we should, but because it is an act of kindness
and a way to make the woman youre with feel special. When you act in this
spirit, she will know it and appreciate you for it. If you hold the door just because
thats the rule, shell see right through you. 31

At the root of the problem is this: Political Correctness, or whatever it is that is

determining mens behavior, does not address what a person really is, but only how he

acts. It tries to create a man without a specific context, just as it is trying to create a

context-less culture. A man who can hold a door for a woman, or not, with indifference

cannot be a gentleman. It is true that even the most assiduous of gentlemen may on

occasion find it more in keeping with the spirit of gentility to let a woman open a door for

herself if she truly feels that she is being insulted otherwise. He will, however, find doing

so counter-intuitive and will be uncomfortable with it feeling slighted himself and

robbed of the security of knowing his place in society. With no set of inward standards

by which he may assess a situation and judge how best to react, a man finds himself at a

distinct social disadvantage. Therefore, a true gentleman is a gentleman at heart, not

merely a gentleman in action.

It is at least partly on account of their strength and generally more dominant,

aggressive personality that men have taken the leadership roles within communities

throughout time. They are well suited for it. This is not to say that women cannot be

31
Post, Peter. Essential Manners for Men: What to Do, When to Do It, and Why. New York, New York:
HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2003, 4
 Wilkens 31

good leaders. Women obviously can be good leaders as the lives of the Hebrew judge

Deborah, Queen Elizabeth, Joan of Arc, and many other women testify. To be a leader, of

course, is to have a distinct role, and to play the role properly, it must be accepted with

selfless sincerity. Good manners depend on role-playing, and in general, most men tend

to find leadership roles more suited to their masculine natures and most women tend to

find supportive roles more suited to their feminine natures. For many this is an unpopular

sentiment, but it is important to remember that every role has its advantages and its

limitations. One must accept the privileges of ones place and the accompanying

limitations inherent to the privileges. There are as many difficult aspects of being a

leader as there are of being led, and likewise, both roles have their advantages and

qualities worthy of respect. Furthermore, to call men leaders does not need to imply that

women are oppressed as followers. The terms leave much room for interpretation in the

outworking of the relationship. The aim of this paper is not to define roles between men

and women, but rather only to assert that since good manners require an understanding of

roles, then there must be specific male and female roles if manners are to flourish. There

does, however, seem to be a strong case for the role of initiator to fall to the male, and for

the sake of example this paper will assume leadership is the primary role for a man to

occupy. Therefore, let us say that for a man, to be a gentleman, at the most fundamental

level, is for him to know and accept his leadership role.

The other imperative element of manners is charity. According to the definition

of charity applied in this paper, a man would use the strengths particular to masculinity

for the benefit of others specifically women in this case before using these strengths

to benefit himself. While there is a small minority of people who believe that men and
 Wilkens 32

women are truly interchangeable, far more often society accepts that they are different in

at least some respects. For a man to act selflessly toward a woman he must understand

these differences. Although there are many gifts peculiar to masculinity and perhaps gifts

that are more significant, the most obvious is physical strength. A man may, of course,

use this physical strength for his own advantage or for a womans. He can abuse her,

either literally or metaphorically, or he can use the strength he has been given to make a

woman feel safe and valued. Practically played out, this can mean anything from giving

his life in her defense, to holding the door for her. Indeed, this latter act, though it has

received much criticism, is in reality much more of a commentary on the man than on the

woman. No one truly believes women are incapable of properly opening doors for

themselves, but for a man to do it for a woman is for him to demonstrate that he is willing

to use his gifts for her advantage. Furthermore, if he has been granted both the privilege

and the burden of leadership, he has, if possible, all the more responsibility to exhibit

charity, for the choices he makes will greatly affect those whom he is leading.

Manners and the Woman

Before it begins to appear that the entire weight of social stability rests on the

shoulders of men, it must be pointed out that the ideal of the gentleman and the ideal of

the lady go hand-in-hand. They are a single unit. To try to mesh the ideals of the

gentleman with those of the liberated woman is similar to trying to fit together two

puzzle pieces that are not meant to go together: it can usually be done with sufficient

force, but not without doing serious damage to each piece, and never without marring the

beauty of the whole puzzle (i.e. the community). Unfortunately, the unpopularity of

manners has dealt heavy blows to the concept of both the gentleman and the lady, but the
 Wilkens 33

lady especially has suffered. One rarely even hears the term lady or ladylike at all,

much less as something to which women should aspire. Women today are urged to take

on traditionally manly characteristics such as assertiveness, aggressiveness, and

forcefulness. These are not intrinsically flawed traits, but even in men they must be

closely monitored, and moreover they are not in keeping with how a lady (the counterpart

of the gentleman) should act. If women make it bitingly clear that they have no use for

men, or worse, if a man feels that when he makes himself vulnerable by putting the

womans interests before his own, he will then not only be unappreciated, but taken

advantage of, why would he expend the effort to be gentlemanly? The way a woman

acts will bring certain, specific, responses. It is absurd to think one can take an action

and then selectively choose its consequences. Women cannot opt to act like men and still

reasonably expect men to treat them with the same gallantry as they would a woman

acting like a lady. One can either select ones actions or ones consequences: if a woman

desires to act a certain way, she must be willing to take the consequences; if she wishes

for a certain outcome, she must have the discipline to act in ways that will bring about

these outcomes.

Modernity lays unfairly high expectations upon women higher expectations,

perhaps than in former times. Today women are expected to live the lives of both a man

and a woman, and to do so with panache. Women must have a flourishing business

career replete with responsibilities, raises, and cocktail parties. They are expected to be

physically trim and fit, to dress fashionably, and to be good to themselves. They must

have a buzzing social life, be a volunteer, and hold a leadership position in a club or

organization. They are expected to be always right, always beautiful, always intelligent,
 Wilkens 34

and always very pleased with themselves. This alone is an unreasonable order to impose

upon any person, but if this woman wishes to have a husband and children (and if they

were honest, the vast majority of women do), how much more over-crowded is her life?

Dr. James Dobson describes this new modernized woman well:

Todays woman is always shown as gorgeous, of course, but she is more much
more. She roars around the countryside in a racy sports car, while her male
companion sits on the other side of the front seat anxiously biting his nails. She
exudes self-confidence from the very tips of her fingers, and for good reason: she
could dismantle any man alive with her karate chops and flying kicks to the teeth.
She is deadly accurate with a pistol and she plays tennis (or football) like a pro.
She speaks in perfectly organized sentences, as though her spontaneous remarks
were being planned and written by a team of tiny English professors sitting in the
back of her pretty head. She is a sexual gourmet, to be sure, but she wouldnt be
caught dead in a wedding ceremony. She has the grand good fortune of being
perpetually young and she never becomes ill, nor does she ever make a mistake or
appear foolish. In short, she is virtually omniscient, except for a curious inability
to do anything traditionally feminine, such as cook, sew, or raise children.32

Of course, no one really believes that this woman truly exists, but nevertheless, the media

consistently presents her as the epitome of womanhood. So, naturally, this

superwoman becomes the paragon of womanhood to which women aspire and against

which they compare themselves. This ideal (if it is an ideal) is a tall order for anyone, but

many women try to attain this as well as have a husband and children. This is, quite

frankly, impossible. The vast majority of women do, deep inside them, want to have a

husband and children, and so they follow their hearts as well as attempting to follow

the demands of society. Clearly many aspects of these roles are contradictory and

incompatible. The inevitable stress which results from trying to lead this kind of life has

received its own medical term: Hurried Woman Syndrome. In a publication by Texas

Tech University Health Sciences Center, Brent W. Bost, MD explains that, The Hurried

32
Dobson, 140-141
 Wilkens 35

Woman Syndrome is the term we coin because it seems to underlie the cause of the

problem, which is stress and hurry, and busy lifestyle choices that a lot of people have

assumed are normal. . . . The syndrome often affects women juggling working outside the

home and family. 33 Symptoms of the syndrome include weight gain, moodiness, and

fatigue, and with time, these trigger changes in brain chemistry which are reportedly

similar to depression. It seems that if a woman is to live a life she can actually carry on

with competency and control, she must choose either a career, or wife and motherhood.

Let us observe that unless in large numbers she chooses wife and motherhood, the human

race will find itself in a dangerous position.

As it has with men, modern society has left women with context-less aspirations.

While men are asked to be neither the traditional man nor the traditional woman, the

woman is asked to be both man and woman. Of course, a fundamental requirement of

being mannerly is knowing who you are, what is your place in society, and the

expectations connected with who you are and what your place is. Unfortunately,

traditional manners for women have fallen into disrepair largely because women no

longer appreciate their own identity. The role itself, however, is not the problem as much

as womens perception of the role. Yes, the roles of the genders are different from each

other, but different need not imply that one role is more elevated and one is more

demeaning. Indeed in this case, different means complementary, as Elisabeth Elliot

points out: The lists are different. What is right for men is wrong for women. The roles

are complementary, planned to enable husbands and wives to function together without

33
Bost, Brent W. Hurried Women Syndrome. Safety Reporter Jan/Feb/March 2003, Vol.49, Issue
3: 1-2. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Vantage Press, June 2001. 12 Aug. 2005
<http://www.ttuhsc.edu/Admin/safety/reporter/Jan-Feb-March2003.pdf>
 Wilkens 36

bumping into each other or stepping on each others toes, and in such a way as to

contribute, rather than deprive, to free, rather than to shackle. 34 To a certain extent,

nothing is any more demeaning than one makes it.35 If a king were to be dethroned and

put to work doing the lowest of labor, the job would be only as demeaning as he allowed

himself to believe it was, and as his actions testified it to be. If he carried out his work

with honesty and quality, acting worthy of his nobility and treating every man with

dignified respect simply because they were human beings like himself, only a fool would

call him demeaned. On the contrary, he would have proved the steel of his character in

a way he never could have otherwise. He accepted his assignment and took pride in it.

Women are assigned to be women. Truly being a woman is not demeaning; rather,

rejecting womanhood to pursue manhood is one of the greatest insults one could give

to the sex. Moreover, to be a true woman in the traditional understanding does not, in

any minds but those of feminists, necessarily imply enforced stupidity, social

awkwardness, lack of style, oppression, lack of self-confidence or self-realization, or

dowdiness. On the contrary, a women needs intelligence, social grace, confidence,

ingenuity, capability, leadership skills, energy, and enthusiasm if she is going to manage

her responsibilities with success.

For a woman, manners also demand charity, which, again, implies using her

strengths for anothers benefit before her own a mans, in this specific case. One of

womans greatest strengths is her understanding of emotions how they affect people,

how they can be stirred. This ability can, of course, be put to good use or bad use.

Women can use their emotional advantage to inspire and empathize, or they can use it

34
Elliot, 84
35
Acts of cruelty that de-humanize, such as those that were inflicted upon Jews in Nazi concentration
camps are demeaning in such a way as to be much farther beyond the control of the victim.
 Wilkens 37

manipulatively to gain their own ends by controlling other people emotionally. Various

studies have been done on the particular strengths and weaknesses of both female and

male business executives which support just such differences between the sexes. The

combined research of Hagberg Consulting Group, Management Research Group,

Lawrence A. Pfaf Personnel Decisions International Inc., and Advanced Teamware Inc.

demonstrate in various research tests that while men excel in business areas such as

strategic planning and technical analysis, women score higher in motivating others,

attention to detail, and fostering communication. Women also take a much less

competitive, more self-sacrificial approach to leadership roles.36 Growing out of the

results of studies such as these are men-only training programs which seek to develop in

men the management skills which are prevalent in women. According to BusinessWeek

magazine, these include the [ability] to communicate, build teams, and develop

flexibility. David Bancroft-Turner, a participant in one such program, commented to

BusinessWeek reporter, Pallavi Gogoi, Its about learning to listen and work in

harmony. Gogoi goes on to say that these training programs work on communication

skills, feelings, and emotional expression. The director of the Hay Group management-

development services, Annie McKee, says their program seeks to recognize the

emotional hot buttons that are not taught in business schools.37 It seems apparent from

these and other such studies that women, in general, possess a better understanding of

emotions and their powers. This is not to say that women are more intelligent than men,

but again, that their mental strength lies in a different realm. This power to perceive and

control and inspire emotions can, just like the physical strength of a man, be used for
36
Sharpe, Rochelle. As Leaders, Women Rule. BusinessWeek Online. 20 November 2000. 12 August
2005. <http://www.businessweek.com/archives/2000/b3708145.arc.htm>.
37
Gogoi, Pallavi. Teaching Men the Right Stuff. BusinessWeek Online. 20 November 2000. 12 August
2005. <http://www.businessweek.com/archives/2000/b3708145.arc.htm>.
 Wilkens 38

others advantage or disadvantage. A woman has a uniquely sharp ability both to

perceive underlying distress in another person and instinctively to know what it is that

will encourage or inspire that particular individual. Ralph Waldo Emerson has a rather

beautiful, if somewhat romanticized way of expressing this feminine trait:

By the firmness with which she treads her upward path, she convinces the
coarsest calculators that another road exists, than that which their feet know. But
besides those who make good in our imaginations the place of muses and of
Delphic Sibyls, are there not women who fill our vase with wine and roses to the
brim, so that the wine runs over and fills the house with perfume; who inspire us
with courtesy; who unloose our tongues, and we speak; who anoint our eyes, and
we see? . . . . Was it Hafiz or Firdousi that said of his Persian Lilla, She was an
elemental force, and astonished me by her amount of life, when I saw her day
after day radiating, every instant, redundant joy and grace on all around her. She
was a solvent powerful to reconcile all heterogeneous persons into one society:
like air or water, an element of such a great range of affinities, that it combines
readily with a thousand substances. Where she is present, all others will be more
than they are wont. She was a unit and whole, so that whatsoever she did, became
her. . . . [she believed] that by dealing nobly with all, all would show themselves
noble.38

A woman has the capability, and thus the opportunity, to create an elevated environment

around her by using her gifts to inspire and encourage and understand and stabilize. This

is using her unique power for the benefit of others. Equally, the very same gift can have a

negative effect. A woman can actively do harm by manipulating others emotions for her

own ends, regardless of their feelings, or she can passively do harm by living by her

feelings and simply not bothering to expend the effort it takes to build up her family,

friends, or co-workers. This has just as detrimental an effect on the vitality of manners as

does a mans apathy toward using his physical power for good rather than ill.

Manners between Generations

Age is another distinguishing force whose boundaries are fast dissolving. In

times past, there have been distinct borders between generations. Almost without
38
Emerson, 30-32
 Wilkens 39

exception, throughout history, the elderly have been treated with great respect because of

the wisdom they had attained through many years of life. The younger took the

deferential role, understanding that if they survived long enough, they too would reach

the exalted status of the aged. The youth were not without a place in society, however.

They possessed the physical capability which their elders most often did not. They were

expected to employ this vitality honorably (directed by the older generation), making

them worthy of respect in their later years. Both age brackets were necessary to society;

the difference between them lay in the fact that the aged were assumed to have proved

themselves worthy of respect, while the youth were still going through the process of

earning this respect. In contrast, our modern culture has replaced this understanding by

putting a premium on youth and dismissing old age as useless to society.

Manners and the Elderly

The role of the elderly in todays society is very simple to keep out of the way

of progress. Because we have become a hedonistic society, the ability to generate

wealth is of the highest cultural importance. Due to the increasingly rapid development

of new technology, the otherwise invaluable knowledge of the aged has in many cases

become obsolete and economically irrelevant. Because older people, in general, are no

longer significant sources of needed knowledge and thus of income, it is assumed that

their principles and wisdom and advice are irrelevant as well. Therefore, they are left

with nothing to do. They are unable to compete with the youth in the business market,

their physical power is quite limited, and they are no longer valued as rich sources of

wisdom. Usually the elderly respond to their displacement within society in one of two

ways. Some give up even trying to be a part of society and only live to see what society
 Wilkens 40

can give them. Others do their best to hold onto their youth dressing like the young,

acting like the young, speaking like the young, hanging out with the young, and doing

their best to defy their age. Both of these reactions have disastrous implications for

society, for the elderly do have a place, responsibilities, and manners specific to their age

within any culture no matter how honored (or dishonored) they might be.

The elderly who choose to abandon all attempts at relating to or living in their

society also abandon their obligation to impart their experience and knowledge to the

youth for their benefit. It is true that the elderly in this society may not be able to pass on

a trade in the same way as they could in earlier times, but they have experienced life

and this is a priceless wisdom that youth, by definition, cannot possess. While the

particulars of life change incessantly, there are a vast number of constants that are

timeless, universal, and utterly baffling. The older members of society must fill the role

of helping to guide the younger through life, hoping thereby to protect them from

potential harm. Indeed, according to good manners, the elderly have no permission to be

consistently crotchety or in any avoidable way to make themselves incompatible with

the present society thereby distancing themselves from it.39 While they have earned

respect, this by no means implies that they may abandon manners. Just as it is very rude

for youth to act as though the elderly have no significance in their lives, so is it rude for

the elderly to act as though the youth have no significance in theirs. There are some

principles about living well that even the wisest of youths cannot know, and if he is truly

wise, he will consult the experience of an elder to gain wisdom. Among these things are,

indeed, manners themselves. Prof. Anthony OHear, Honorary Director of the Royal
39
This, as will be discussed later, does not mean that the elderly ought to seek to be like the youth. It
means, rather, that they ought, as far as they are physically able, purposely to seek out cordial and edifying
interaction with those inferior to them in years, remembering that it is they themselves who are responsible
for setting the precedent for proper behavior.
 Wilkens 41

Institute of Philosophy, explains very nicely the appropriate behaviors specific to every

stage of life:

Life is indubitably a journey from birth to death. It is also a journey with

different stages and landmarks. Different types of behaviour are appropriate and
natural at different stages of life: an enthusiastic enquiring volubility and
experimentation when young, a controlled strength and display and pride when
first in adulthood, an easy, masterful superiority when fully mature, developing,
when older, into a calm, dignified appropriation of wisdom and experience, and
finally a sense manifested in how one does what one does that this world is, as
indeed it is, transient. To the excesses and faults intrinsic to each of these stages,
civilized manners apply an acceptable surface. So the very young have to learn to
curb their impetuosity and, as pupils and students to defer to the knowledge and
experience of their elders. Adolescents and young adults have to confine their
desires and their strength through courtesy and the rituals of courtships. Those in
first middle age must soften their aggressiveness and sense of superiority through
a modest demeanour and acceptance of such social duties as politeness to
acquaintances, even if inferior, and the giving of hospitality and time, to those
who have a claim on one, even to bores. And the elderly have to avoid the
bitterness and cynicism which experience can bring through a cultivation of
gentleness in their behaviour and a renewed interest in the young, often via love
of grandchildren.40

This is just the wisdom that the elderly must impart to the youth, for how else will the

youth know them? If there is no one available who is willing to help him, the youth has

no choice but to stumble along by himself, learning from the pain of his own mistakes

rather than sparing himself that pain by learning from the experience of others.

While the apathetic aged leave gaping holes in the path of those who follow them,

the elderly man or woman who desperately clings to youth is even more actively

destructive to society. The unknown future always carries with it a certain element of

fear. Even the most confident and successful of youths carries with him a niggling

apprehension, that this is as good as it gets and that his life might be all downhill from

here. There is nothing more reassuring to the young than to witness a man or women

40
Anderson, 88-89
 Wilkens 42

who has grown old with dignity, who has made the ageing process venerable by graceful

acceptance, who sets before those younger than him the testimony that there will always

be something worthy to which to aspire and for which to strive. The adults who are

crazed with the desire to retain their youth, however, have just the opposite effect. Their

lives testify that the years of youth are, indeed, as good as it gets, that the future is to be

put off as long as possible, that youth can aspire to nothing higher than youth itself. Prof.

OHear calls this behavior symptomatic of a denial of the reality of death and a shocking

arrogance:

A lack of suitable manners in the aged is nothing less than a refusal to admit their
own mortality, and a society in which the fact of mortality is systematically occluded is
one that has forgotten its sense of proportion. . . . A lack of the manners appropriate to
ones age or status is above all a lack of humility. And in the case of the old a lack of
such humility is particularly painful because instead of the dignity we found in the elderly
of our youth, we find only the frenzy of those who do not want to admit their age.
Despite, or perhaps because of their comparatively greater wealth and all the state
benefits they are accorded, the middle-aged and old of today conspicuously lack the quiet
dignity and somber manners of those who were old in my youth.41

It is excellent that the elderly are seeking to maintain more active lifestyles, but if they go

jogging, let them jog in the pursuit of health; if they go to a loud concert, let them go as a

gift to their grandchildren not for the sake of appearing young. Youth has energy and

dreams to spare, and it is never happier than when it has some noble challenge into which

to pour this energy and these dreams. On the other hand, youth is never more miserable

than when it is told there is nothing more after which it is worthwhile to strive.

Therefore, for the elderly, to pursue youth, is for them selfishly to seek their own comfort

(if, indeed, it is a comfort ultimately) before the comfort that of the youth who follow

after them. This, then, is the place, and therefore the mannerly responsibility of old age:

41
Ibid., 93-94
 Wilkens 43

to give the next generation something worthy toward which to aspire and the wisdom to

help them attain it.

Manners and Youth

The poor manners of todays younger generation somewhat explains why the

older generation has largely abandoned their own good manners. Modern society lays

heavy emphasis on self-sufficiency, confidence, and individual thinking. While all of

these things are certainly good to a point and are even American ideals, they are being

promoted to the extreme. Self-sufficiency must be tempered with humility, confidence

with prudence, and individual thinking with teachability and wisdom. Youth, in general,

possesses the former traits in abundance, which is part of the beauty of youth! The

elderly, however, quite often excel in the latter traits, lending a lovely dignity to their

lives. Unfortunately, humility, prudence, and wisdom are concepts valued little today,

and they seem rarely, if ever, to cross the minds of todays youth. Youth finds itself over-

praised for its natural strengths without being encouraged toward the acquisition of the

characteristics which direct its enthusiasm. In this way, youths are taught, even if subtly,

that the attributes of old age are worthless and therefore not worth pursuing, and that they

themselves are the saviors of the world and the world therefore owes them respect

(especially the elderly). Sadly, this attitude, while doing great injustice to the elderly also

proves to be a serious disadvantage to the younger in almost every aspect of their lives

and is simply incompatible with the demands of manners.

It seems that many find the adage, Children should be seen and not heard quite

tyrannical, and indeed, there is no need to carry it to its extreme. The principle behind

the proverb, however, is valuable, and it is sadly indicative of todays culture that it has
 Wilkens 44

been rejected. This underlying principle is that children have far more to learn from

adults than adults do from children, and it is good, therefore, for the adult to do most of

the talking while the child listens, observes, and learns and eventually earns his own right

to talk. The modern striving for equality has placed the adult and child on equal

footing giving the adult the impression that his wisdom and experience are of little value,

and the child the impression that he does not need the adults guidance. This is harmful

to the development of society in the same way that it would be harmful to education if a

professor and his students were expected to have conversations only on an equal level

and every student was given the same amount of time to speak as the professor. There is

a reason why a professor stands in the front of the room and speaks for an hour while the

pupils are seen and not heard. This is not to say that a student may not make comments

or ask questions during class; indeed these things are important. They are, however,

properly done with the end of obtaining more knowledge from the teacher, and only

extremely rarely to impart knowledge to the teacher. In the same way, a younger person

of any age will benefit greatly by being quick to listen and slow to speak in the presence

of his elders. If it is the mannerly responsibility of age to make the effort to impart its

wisdom, experience and knowledge to those who come after, it is the mannerly

responsibility of the youth not only to tolerate this knowledge, but to heed it not only to

heed it, but to ask for it. In short, manners require youth to value the elderly and to treat

them with the deference due to their wisdom. This implies that the younger are obligated

not only to care for the physical needs of the older, but to look after their emotional needs

as well, that is, to respect the elderly by sincerely living in such as way as convinces them

that they have significance in the world. Unfortunately, youth are being told that they are
 Wilkens 45

at least equal to their elders and that they have as much to teach the elderly as the elderly

have to teach them. If youth were to seek out and value the acquired wisdom of the aged,

they would find their own lives more fulfilling and less painful, while the elderly would

rightly feel a sense of value and a sense of responsibility toward the wellfare of the

community.

The other great lie that culture tells youth is that, just for being youth, they

deserve due to their wisdom whatever it is they particularly want, for in youth lies the

expression of everything good. This, unfortunately, gives rise to the attitude in youth that

something is owed to them, that they are the great individuals they are because they have

somehow made themselves that way. It is, therefore, no wonder that the younger

generation feels that the older owes them respect and gratitude. After all, arent they the

ones that are really alive, really doing things for the world, making life better for

everyone? In this light, youth truly appears glorious and old age merely a cumbersome

load on society. Youth, however, seems apt to forget that they owe their very life to those

who preceded them. Even if mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers are

not productive members of society today (and almost all of the time they are

particularly if they are so encouraged), they should be honored, at least, for the fact that

they were once productive members. A childs food, education, clothing, culture,

advantages, and even life, he owes to the ones who came before him. Whatever the youth

has which makes him valuable in society was only made possible by those who are now

the elderly. Surely this demands a profound deference and respect. Surely it is the height

of arrogance to dismiss the elderly as if they could have been done without. If manners is
 Wilkens 46

knowing your place, surely manners demands that the elderly be treated with honor, and

that consideration for the elderly should precede consideration for self.

The Positive Effects of Manners on both the Individual and the Community

It is all very well to make assertions about gender roles and responsibilities

related to age and their effect on manners, but in reality, the order that manners place on

both men and women, children and elderly, is rather stiff. To ask anyone to put another

before himself is, in itself, a hard demand, but add to this the tremendous social pressure

which so avidly seeks to erase distinction, and it becomes a challenge indeed! The

implications of such reforms would be profound, however. As far as the community is

concerned, it would be hard to overestimate the value of the stability which would result

if the majority of men and women acted primarily for the good of one another, and

children took to heart what their elders in wisdom taught them. Without doubt, the

divorce rate would decrease, leading, in turn, to reduced crime rates, depression, numbers

of children brought up in single-parent homes and very low income situations, and abuse

cases. Less dramatically, but just as importantly, attention to manners provides

predictability. If a gentleman and a lady, a youth and a grandfather, and the expectations

attached to them could be relied upon, there would be a more stable environment within

which people could understand who they are and what is expected of them, and this

would make life run more smoothly in countless little ways. If men could be counted

upon to act like gentleman, there will be less fear within a community, for the public

could reasonably expect protection from men rather than irresponsible indifference, or

even abuse. If women could be counted on to act like ladies, men would not only have a

better reason to act like gentlemen, but society would have restored to it a more beautiful,
 Wilkens 47

soft, and harmonious character. If the elderly acted their age, the youth would have

something to aspire to, and if the youth would become aware of their inexperience, and

seek guidance, they would live lives far better for the direction they received from the

experienced. In short, if men would be men and women would be women, old would be

old, and young would be young, society would change for the better, not in a single

dramatic way, but in countless little ways, the net effect of which would indeed be

dramatic.

Nevertheless, perhaps it is unrealistic to think of reforming the manners systems

of entire nations. If this is so, there still remains the promise of great advantage even for

the individual himself in adopting the manners appropriate to his identity. In spite of the

opposition that he will inevitably face, his personal relationships will be much improved,

his business relationships will be more fruitful, and he will find it less stressful to

maneuver within society in general. While modern society does not foster good manners,

it still recognizes them, and who can help but be more attracted to someone with good

manners than bad? Moreover, good manners breed good manners, and if both of even

two people are truly seeking the others good first, this will ensure that both feel valued

and cared for and have no need to be defensive. Politeness has a positive effect on all

relationships whether personal, business, or academic, for it promotes trust and respect.

Furthermore, the mannerly person will gain social confidence for he has a standard

against which to measure his behavior, he knows his place in society, and he knows what

is (or at least what should be) expected of him. Perhaps most of all, the very essence of

manners requires that the mannerly person forget himself in the service of others, and this

practice is one of the most powerful antidotes against depression and discontentment
 Wilkens 48

known to man. Good manners exert an immeasurable positive force in an individuals

life, and nothing but selfishness and laziness bars him from them.

Works Cited

Allen, Irving Lewis. Earlier Uses of Politically (In)correct. American Speech. Spring
1995, Vol. 70, No. 1:110-112. Duke University Press

Anderson, Digby, ed. Gentility Recalled. Great Britain: Social Affairs Unit Publications,
1996

Bost, Brent W. Hurried Women Syndrome. Safety Reporter. Jan/Feb/March 2003,

Vol.49, Issue 3: 1-2. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Vantage
 Wilkens 49

Press, June 2001. 12 Aug. 2005 < http://www.ttuhsc.edu/Admin/safety/reporter

/Jan-Feb-March2003.pdf>

Decline of Civilization CNN Presents. CNN. 1994

Dobson, James C. Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives. Wasco, Texas: Word Books,
1980

Elliot, Elisabeth. The Mark of a Man. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1981

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Manners. Philadelphia, PA: Henry Altemus, 1896

Gogoi, Pallavi. Teaching Men the Right Stuff. BusinessWeek Online. 20 November
2000. 12 August 2005. <http://www.businessweek.com/archives/2000/b3708
145.arc.htm>.

Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago, Illinois: The University of
Chicago Press, 1961

Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. New York, New York: Harcourt, Inc., 1991

MacIntyre, Alasdair. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. Notre Dame, Indiana:

University of Notre Dame Press, 1988

Pernot, Camille. La politesse et sa philosophie. Paris, France : Presses Universitaires de

France, 1996

Post, Peter. Essential Manners for Men: What to Do, When to Do It, and Why. New York,
New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2003

Sharpe, Rochelle. As Leaders, Women Rule. BusinessWeek Online. 20 November

2000. 12 August 2005. <http://www.businessweek.com/archives/2000/b3708
145.arc.htm>.