THE POLITENESS OF THINGS
Ewa Lewis claims there is a fundamental
longing for a return to social rules and order
YOU WOULDN'T think that Debrett's New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Man- ners by John Morgan (Headline, £20) would be the kind of tome to raise the blood pressure, but it caused considerable controversy even before its official launch. Why, it has been questioned, do we need such a book? Surely even the title is a con- tradiction in terms. 'Modern' and 'man- ners' are not words which print up harmoniously together.
In the past, manners were much the same for everyone, regardless of age and station in life. That is not to say that every- one adhered to them, of course, but at least people knew what was expected. Recent shifts in values and ways of life, and a long period of democracy have encour- aged individualism and depleted our moral legacy. There is dysfunction between the social structure (occupation, economy, technology) and culture (expression). As well as being meritocratic and mobile, soci- ety at present also seems to lack Sittlichkeit, i.e., an agreed moral order, of which man- ners are a part.
Today's manners are often perfunctory, classed as common sense and designed to put everyone at their ease while often achieving the opposite. Etiquette is consid- ered non-PC. Why should it matter if you go to the toilet, the lavatory or the loo? Does it make you a better person either way? While manners could be seen as inclusive in a society, etiquette is surely meant to be exclusive. Is there therefore something tribal, primeval and sinister about the idea of having to spell it out? Traditional etiquette is seen at best as quaint and charming and at worst as ridiculous and snobbish. It implies that those ever so subtle signals of acceptability and training are as important now as they ever were. It suggests that unless you were born speaking a specific language you can- not ever speak it properly, certainly not just by listening; you need the grammar book as well. In a phrase, does it mean you can 'take the boy out of Bolton, but you can't take Bolton out of the boy'?
Probably. Is that the tip of the iceberg, though? Do the sinister connotations mean that it is designed to keep us, for all the classless clamour, where we are meant to be? Does it mean a continued prejudice against people who don't make the right signals? Like the man who was turned down for a job at a merchant bank because he wore brown shoes (he never knew that was the reason he lost the job, which was the disconcerting part). There is no doubt that the goalposts have moved, but many are confused as to how far and to which side. Does the colour of someone's shoes really matter? Obvi- ously it does. The bank applicant should have read this book. It's an easy read, not remotely starchy or dictatorial. It's funny. What happens when your husband 'comes out' and runs off with a Swedish lift engi- neer? And how do you then greet his new gay friends? Answer: 'How do you do?' Then there are the Blimps of Smelling Manor to help us along. My favourite piece of advice was, 'It remains in abso- lutely the worst taste to allow children particularly very small ones — to discover their parents in bed with anyone other than the official spouse.'
I laughed with the book rather than at it. No one is pretending that social inter- course, like sex, isn't ridiculous. Many people will use it as one might a cook- book, to dip into now and again for affir- mation. Yet so many of the middle class and rising middle class that I meet are very defensive about its existence. It's a joke, a sophisticated piece of social engi- neering the only justification for which is to reinforce small-time phobias and para- noias.
In fact, manners have nothing to do with class, though etiquette does. Manners are handed down in families. I know working- class people with beautiful manners and upper-class people who behave like yobs. And where etiquette is concerned I have watched people desperately anxious to do the wrong thing correctly — Hyacinth Bucket being my favourite example. If there are uncertainties and a clear ruling exists, what is wrong with looking it up to make life easier?
I think the threat lies in a book like this possibly implying that there is no hope, regardless of social mobility. If you get the napkins right there'll be something else to trip you up elsewhere. Look what hap- pened to Robert Maxwell. He got the plummy accent going but then reverted to 'Mist must be juvenile court.' form Pygmalion-style by stubbing out his cigar in his dinner companion's wine-glass. 'I fear to rise lest I should fall, so as a precaution I will remove the stumbling- blocks by treating them with disdain' is the attitude. And yet - and yet — I sense a kind of ambivalence among the upwardly mobile. While aspiring to the advantages of those they perceive to be of a higher eche- lon, they don't like the idea of paying even lip-service to the rules of conformity that are part of the position; but if they do not, then how will anyone know that they have arrived?
Etiquette need not be ridiculous. Even Jane Austen poked fun at the crooked-fin- ger brigade. So does Debrett's. There is also a reluctance to be seen to be starting at the very beginning. Expertise is a commodity we are expected to have immediately. It is nevertheless difficult to cross class bound- aries in a lifetime, but easier to do it if you know what the rules are and how to play the game. Equally, where is the time for all these niceties? Even 'Thank you' requires an intake of breath which could be used for something else. Emotional incontinence is almost encouraged today as being psycho- logically healthy. Let's face it, road rage is as emetic as Epsom salts.
But despite all the protestation, I believe from what I observe that there is in fact a fundamental longing for rules and order. Plato's Republic was based on the premise that you have to have chiefs and Indians otherwise society degenerates into chaos. And if you acknowledge that, then you also have to acknowledge that there have to be differences and different codes. Confucius was of the opinion that if there was a cor- rect mode of behaviour for every situation, the stress and grind of human interaction would be eased to everyone's benefit. Equally, knowledge is power. Behaving confidently with good manners and know- ing the correct etiquette is seen as powerful by those who are uninformed. Julia Roberts as Pretty Woman would have given her eye-teeth for this book. Manners, like elegance, impress the amateur. Machi- avelli's beautifully mannered Prince, even though backstabbing, was seen as fit to rule and like a smiling cobra played his game. Closer to home, the one-time diarist Ross Benson commented, 'Manners are there to get you ahead without anyone noticing what you are doing.' Like language and fashion, manners and etiquette adapt to social change, but it's helpful to know exactly what is changing. If we are prepared to read about hemlines and collar shapes, why not discover what the ruling is nowadays on, say, smoking or how to behave at a Quaker funeral?
Paradoxically, of course, it will be those who already have good manners who will buy this book. I can't see it becoming bed- time reading for Liam Gallagher or Paul Gascoigne.
Ewa Lewis is social editor of Tatler.
Previous page
