Philosophy of Manners/Etiquette? (Bleg-sorta)
- Posted by Paul Gowder on January 7th, 2009 filed in philosophy
- 9 Comments »
Does anyone know if there’s sustained attention in the academic philosophy literature anywhere to how manners/etiquette work?
It seems like there would be a lot of interesting questions. I’m not talking sociologically, but rather questions like the following:
1. Are violations of etiquette also morally blameworthy? Does it depend on the violation of etiquette?
2. In what sense do rules of etiquette give you reasons to do something?
3. Are there different kinds within rules of etiquette? For example, we might import a distinction from law and ask whether there are malum in se manners violations (insulting people) and malum prohibitum manners violations (using the wrong fork).
[[We could ask lots of other philosophy of law type questions about etiquette too, like where do etiquette rules come from. There could be etiquette positivists!]]
4. Are manners and etiquette the same thing?
5. Various applied questions could be interesting, and could also illuminate the way we might answer questions about manners different from how we answer questions about law and morality.
Here’s an example that recently crossed my mind: suppose A and B have a close relationship. A (impolitely) offers a slightly unfair deal to B. It would be rude of B to insist on the little difference (say A offers a not-quite-equal barter), because of the close relationship between the people (imagine trying to chisel a relative, a lover, a close friend). Can B blame A later for the deal? In morality and law, we’d probably say some version of “no, B voluntarily agreed to the deal.” But in manners, I think we might want to say that A is in the wrong and B in the right to complain about the deal, because offering the deal was impolite in the first place, and B only agreed to it in order to avoid further impoliteness. But if that’s true, does that mean that manners and morality must diverge? Or does it mean that we can bootstrap moral claims on manners claims, i.e., that A did something morally blameworthy because he did something mannerly blameworthy?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
“2. In what sense do rules of etiquette give you reasons to do something?”
As an example: “The inconvenience display. To show the strength of our friendliness, we ‘put ourselves out’ to varying degrees. We demonstrate that we are taking trouble. For both host and guest, this may mean ‘dressing up’… the stronger the greeting, the greater the inconvenience.” – from ‘People Watching’ by Desmond Morris.
Unless you find this (along with DM’s other stuff) a bit ‘just-so’-ish, in this example I think the purpose of inconvenience in greetings in reasonable enough.
Although I think with displays of etiquette, they are probably not valuable *because* they are “etiquette”; they are probably etiquette because they are valuable. Maybe. Just a thought.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Well, in reference to your example, manners (or etiquette) might require B not to haggle the deal with A, but those manners should not require B to agree to a deal that is deficient.
I don’t think manners and etiquette are necessarily the same thing. Wiping your nose on your sleeve is bad manners, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS BAD ETIQUETTE.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:57 am
*looks at bookshelf of antique etiquette books*
*looks at other bookshelf of philosophy texts*
shit, paul. i should’ve gone to grad school after all.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Okay, but no, seriously, I do think (perhaps trivially) that etiquette is simply a codification of social norms. We get into my own slightly skewed feelings on morality and the codification thereof (law, religion), but I would say the major difference between the codification of etiquette and the codification of law is that the latter is (presumably) written and enforced by some sort of authority with powers of enforcement.
Etiquette identifies and categorizes similarly social transgressions as the law, but because there’s no absolute text — no matter how universally upheld the behavior, I would argue in fact that the defining element of etiquette is its lack of universality and codified enforcement. At the point where a rule stops being polite (“put your napkin on your lap”) and starts being required (whether it’s “citizens will put their napkins on their laps; violation is a $50 fine and 3 nights in jail” or it’s “club members will put their napkins on their laps, three strikes will result in revocation of membership”) it effectively functions as law.
So, again maybe trivially, it seems to me that etiquette is just law that doesn’t matter enough. De minimus, etc.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I don’t know of any literature on manners, as such. But I do recall that in Law’s Empire Dworkin runs off about manners at great length. Or, at least, the length seems great in retrospect. The idea, obviously enough, is that we can learn something useful about law from an analysis of manners.
Perhaps the manners positivists can debate the natural manners theorists?
January 8th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Any morality that refuses to condemn farting in an elevator is no morality of mine!
We have two kinds of manners. Maybe more. One is manners-as-not-offending. Two is manners-as-public-health.
Do we have a duty not to offend?
If I eat with the wrong fork, I might shock the society ladies. So fucking what? Manners are their hang-up, not mine. Manners were invented because they were too stupid to actually understand Plato. Thus, to signal their superiority, they made eating elaborate. As a matter of principle, they can fuck off.
Then again, what if I went around blasting the n-word or f-word. Could I use my, “That’s your hang-up, dude” argument to defend such conduct?
Are using ethic slurs immoral? If so, why? If it’s because of “hurt feelings,” can’t we say the same thing of eating with the wrong fork? Some people really do take that shit seriously. Hell, Wolfson almost had a stroke the last time someone “misused” the word, “Cognac.” So what do we do?
Is saying, “Fuck” around 3-year olds immoral? Around little old ladies?
There is actually a lot of material rich for discussion.
Putting aside manners-as-not-offending model…..
If I don’t wash my hands after using the bathroom, I could be spreading germs. The same would apply to toilet flushing. We’re talking manners-as-public health here. Spreading loathesome germs to others is immoral. If someone else wants to get Hep, let him get it from his own shit, ya know?
But if I fart in an elevator, I’m actually imposing on someone in a disgusting way. But I’m not making them ill. So farting in an elevator is a tough case, I think. I don’t do it. And I don’t think others should, either. But is it immoral?
Anyhow, good question. I hope the “usual suspects” chime in.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hmm. I need to dig up a copy of Law’s Empire. Surely I must have one, right?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Buss, Sarah. “Appearing Respectful: The Moral Significance of Manners.” Ethics 104, no. 4 (1999): 795-826.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Thanks, Bob! I’ll check it out.