Are Kind and Polite the Same?

‘A man may have a kind heart and atrocious manners; he may have fine manners and be cruelly selfish; he may have neither a good heart nor good manners, and he may have both. So The Call was not correct when it said Gladstone had good manners because he performed kindly acts. It was twisting the meaning of “good manners.”’ ??? — British Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone, 1892

Public domain image

Where Do Good Manners End?

A READER of The Call writes to question the editorial on Gladstone in last Saturday’s issue. The writer of that editorial said that the great English prime minister displayed good manners when he brought home a girl of the streets and gave her food and shelter. The reader questions that statement and says it wasn't good manners, but simple kindness, that Gladstone was displaying. The two things, he says, are distinctly different. A man may have a kind heart and atrocious manners; he may have fine manners and be cruelly selfish; he may have neither a good heart nor good manners, and he may have both. So The Call was not correct when it said Gladstone had good manners because he performed kindly acts. It was twisting the meaning of “good manners.” 

Before there is any argument on that question it may be wiser to see what the dictionary says on the subject. The dictionary defines manners “with reference to social life or morality” as “morals as shown in conduct, social conduct or rules of conduct as shown in the prevalent customs.” It defines manners “with reference to politeness or deportment” as “habitual conduct, behavior, good or polite deportment and appropriate acts of courtesy.” One can see from this that there are two apparent definitions of good manners. 

The most common conception of manners is the acts of courtesy—removing one’s hat in the presence of women, helping women across the street, being polite to one’s associates and observing all the rules of etiquette. The other definition is less common, but older. Manners, in its sense, include all the acts of man. It is the interpretation, for instance, of the Ten Commandments in the actual conduct of people who profess Christianity. 

It is being considerate of all people, it is being friendly and kind hearted and it is a much broader thing than the practice of the thousand rules of society etiquette. To say that Gladstone was good mannered is to broaden the ordinary meaning of the term; and the writer of the letter objects to any such broadening. He says that good manners mean one definite thing now and that kindness means something else. 

Of what possible advantage can it be, except to confuse, to merge these two and to make good manners apply both to goodness of heart and exactness of social training? But at just what point is the distinction to be made between good manners and kindness? It is good manners, let us say, to help a perfectly healthy woman across the street. If she slips and falls, is it good manners to help her to her feet—or is it kindness? What is the motive, after all, behind good manners? Is it always accidental custom, always an inheritance of superstition from savagery, or is it most often consideration of others? 

Emerson said: “Good manners are made up of petty sacrifices.” He meant polite manners. But kindness of heart also demands sacrifices—some petty and some great. And how is anyone to say at what point in human actions etiquette ceases and greatness of heart begins? It would change the ordinary meaning of the phrase to make good manners mean kindness. And some people would object to that. But it might also improve the actions of human beings. And who could object to that?— San Francisco Call, 1921

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia