When Respect Grew for Manners

Erasmus of Rotterdam ~ The Father of Children's Etiquette Instructors … The bronze statue of Erasmus, in Rotterdam. Created by Hendrick de Keyser in 1622, it replaced a stone statue from 1557.

New Respectability For Manners; Scholars Tackle a Topic Long Thought Too Trivial for All but Fussbudgets

The subject of manners once seemed worthy of serious attention. The authors of the Talmud took up such topics as burping, yawning and bad breath. Erasmus wrote the 16th-century equivalent of a best seller on civility and Edmund Burke considered manners more important than laws.

But somewhere between the Renaissance and the late 20th century, the topic got a bad name. Manners came to be viewed as trivial, hypocritical and superficial. Heavy thinkers abandoned manners to the authors of etiquette books, with their fussing about finger bowls and the evils of blowing on soup.

Now an interest in the subject, which once preoccupied the middle classes, is back in vogue, and not just among politicians like Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who earlier this week went so far as to invoke Plato in his continuing quest to make New York City a more orderly, civil and, well, mannerly place.

Judith Rodin, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, has convened a 48-member national commission, made up heavily of academics, that is in the midst of a three-to-five-year study of what some believe is an explosion of incivility degrading the quality of public life.

At Johns Hopkins University, P. M. Forni, a professor of Italian literature and culture, has organized a wide-ranging project that includes a course on civility, manners and politeness. It also includes research on civility in schools and in health care, and efforts to encourage scholarly work in the field.

Last fall, the university offered the course not only to its own undergraduates but also to inmates of a maximum-security prison in Jessup, Md. Having spent the semester studying texts like Erving Goffman's, “Interaction Ritual,” both groups came together at the end to discuss what they had learned.

And next month, Johns Hopkins plans to hold a three-day, international symposium titled “Reassessing Civility: Forms and Values at the End of the Century,” with speakers ranging from historians who have written on manners to Judith Martin, the author of the Miss Manners columns and books.

“Manners were expelled from respectable scholarly thinking: ‘Who would be interested in a stupid thing like that?’” Ms. Martin said in a recent interview. “Never mind that the answers are Burke, Mill, Emerson, Aristotle, Cicero, Castiglione, Erasmus, Locke.”

There is indeed a long tradition of serious writing on manners, not the least of which were three centuries of “courtesy books” originally written to instruct young princes but later directed to the sons of the upper classes.

One of the best known of the genre was Erasmus’, “De Civilitate Morum Puerilium” (“On Civility in Boys”), first published in 1526, which went into more than 130 editions and covered everything from dental hygiene and the importance of clean fingernails at the dinner table to when and how to spit.

A wide-eyed look suggests stupidity, Erasmus advised. If mucus falls on the ground while blowing one’s nose with two fingers, step on it, fast. When offered a communal tankard, wipe your mouth first. If food sticks to your teeth, remove it (with a quill or a toothpick, not a knife).

“The whole idea of manners was linked to civilization,” said Richard L. Bushman, a Columbia University historian and the author of “The Refinement of America” (Alfred A. Knopf, 1992). “It would be listed right along with the growth of art, science and law as a sign that we were civilized.”

But that view changed, at least among scholars. Michael Curtin, a historian in Oakland, Calif., has traced the shift to the late-18th and early-19th centuries, when he believes the long association between manners and morals was irrevocably broken.

In an article published in the Journal of Modern History in September 1985, Mr. Curtin in particular blamed Lord Chesterfield's courtesy book, “Letters to His Son,” published in 1774, which Mr. Curtin said “appeared to represent manners at their most cynical, expedient and immoral light.” In the book, manners seemed to be entirely in the service of self-interest and self-aggrandizement rather than of any broader civic good.

At the same time, Mr. Curtin suggested, Romanticism helped doom the courtesy book. Cosmopolitan standards of civility became suspect. As he put it, the Romantic quest for deep and authentic feeling, uninhibited by propriety and social convention, was destructive of manners.

Others, including Mr. Bushman, trace the decline of serious attention to the subject to the rejection of the formality and triviality of late-Victorian manners. “We had to reduce it in scholarly importance, so we just cast it aside,” he said. “They were seen as something curious and quaint.”

But in 1978, a history of manners that was then 40 years old, “The Civilizing Process” (Blackwell) by Norbert Elias, was published in English for the first time. Many scholars say has since inspired new interest in manners and helped transform the way they are seen.

First published in German in the late 1930's, the book followed the evolution of manners in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. Mr. Elias, a sociologist and social historian, tracked what he described as a rising level of shame about bodily functions and restraint in public, and traced it to the development of the modern state.

The emergence of the state, with its monopoly on violence and the growing interdependence of its members, necessitated greater degrees of individual self-control, Mr. Elias suggested. People began to modify their approach to everything from eating and scratching to spitting and sex.

Tracing the Fork And the Spittoon

Mr. Elias tracked such things as the arrival of the fork at the end of the Middle Ages, which put distance between diner and dined upon; the increasing restrictions on the way knives were used, the introduction of the nightdress, the handkerchief, the chamber pot, the spittoon.

Since the book’s appearance in English, a number of scholars, many of them influenced by Mr. Elias, have published books that have tended to view manners as a source of power or political authority and as a reflection of larger tensions in developing societies.

“Elias opened the door to a new kind of cultural history,” John F. Kasson, a historian at the University of North Carolina, has written. That kind of history, he said, is “keenly attuned to changing standards of emotional expression, bodily control and personal interaction, and seeking to correlate these with larger changes in social structure.”

In his own book, “Rudeness and Civility” (The Noonday Press, 1990), an examination of manners in 19th-century urban America, Mr. Kasson challenges the idea that so-called improvements in manners necessarily represented an unalloyed good.

“I wish to stress how established codes of behavior have often served in unacknowledged ways as checks against a fully democratic order,” Mr. Kasson wrote, “and in support of special interests, institutions of privilege, and structures of domination.”

As an example, he cites the case of the Astor Place Opera House, built in New York City in the 1840’s to embody the latest standards of etiquette and refinement. The house was “aristocratized,” with open seating eliminated and red damask seats sold only by subscription.

To exclude women of dubious respectability, Mr. Kasson writes, women were admitted only in the company of men. Men were expected to comply with a strict dress code that included evening dress, a fresh vest and kid gloves — a calculated slap, Mr. Kasson says, at working- and lower-class men.

“To look at manners in the 19th century is to realize that so-called good manners were often at the expense of a lot of deference to a broadly speaking privileged middle class,” Mr. Kasson said in an interview. “If class is the dirty secret in American life, manners is a way we launder it.”

Mr. Kasson is hardly the only current scholar of manners who acknowledges a debt to Mr. Elias. Another is Nancy Bentley, an assistant professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania, who in 1995 published “The Ethnography of Manners” (Cambridge), an analysis of the fiction of Henry James and Edith Wharton.

“People like Elias say there is a doubleness about manners,” Ms. Bentley said recently. “They are really about how you get along in a group. At the same time, these acts of gentility are also codes that do reinscribe power in some ways, even if they make for more peaceful coexistence.”

Table manners, for example, thus become arbitrary codes. “Insiders know these codes,” Ms. Bentley said. “If you don't, you won't be recognized as an insider. It becomes a way that you can have a kind of identity and recognition and joining of power that outsiders aren't able to claim.”

Ms. Bentley's sister, Amy Bentley, a cultural historian and assistant professor in the department of nutrition and food studies at New York University, has studied table manners in some detail. In a recent interview, she said she shared the view that manners are about power.

“They're necessary, but the ways they’re devised and developed can be about distancing people from one another,” she said. “Who is at the head of the table, who is carving, who waits until they are spoken to — all those kinds of rules about gender, age and other things.

“So I'm not anti-manners,” she said. “Because manners are good. But the ways that they've been used or developed can show interesting things about what people were anxious about in the society and who they were anxious about.”

A correction was made on

March 5, 1998: An article in the Arts and Ideas pages on Saturday about recent scholarly interest in manners referred incorrectly to the role of P. M. Forni in starting the civility project at Johns Hopkins University. He was one organizer; he shared that role with Giulia Sissa, a classics professor. –By Janny Scott, NYT, 1998

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

Health Benefits of Good Manners

The Other Side of Civility... In which the university's expert on all things civil (politely) argues that our good manners aren't just good for others — they're good for us, too. – By P.M. Forni, Illustration by David Plunkert

Tom, a supervisor from marketing, notifies Rob that he has been unhappy for a while with Rob's teamwork. Rob eventually complains to Tom's boss that he is being singled out unfairly by his incompetent supervisor. Things come to a head in the company's cafeteria when Tom accuses Rob of disloyalty and end-running. As anger-laced words fly back and forth, a cascade of catecholamines is released into Tom and Rob's brains and bloodstreams. Catecholamines are hormones and neurotransmitters that, together with the stress hormone cortisol, are main factors in the stress response. They mobilize the body's resources in the presence of perceived danger. As Tom and Rob raise their voices, they are totally under the influence of these endogenous chemicals. From dilation of the pupils to more of their blood being sent to their brains, hearts, and muscles, to glycogen being broken down to glucose in their bloodstreams for fuel, they are in full fight-or-flight alert.

This activation of their bodies' emergency systems, however, is not without a price. Neurochemicals such as epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol increase blood pressure, sometimes to dangerously high levels. They affect the metabolism of cholesterol and triglycerides, which contribute to atherosclerosis. Well known to weaken the immune system, they block the activity of the macrophages (the killers of tumor cells). Although one catecholamine-assisted altercation will not kill Tom or Rob, a repeated engagement of their stress response will add substantially to the wear and tear of their organs and blood vessels. If they find themselves often in the grip of hostility and anger, they may sooner or later face serious cardiovascular disease and other ailments. One of the wisest things Tom and Rob can do for themselves is choosing congeniality as their default mode of relating to the world. This time, however, they go their separate ways in a huff.

As children, most of us looked at good manners as something between boring and burdensome that we were expected to do, at our parents' prodding, for others' sake. Growing up, we vaguely perceived good manners as good but still saw them as benefiting others. This view has clear merit. Civility, politeness, and good manners (which I treat as one here) are indeed "something" we do for others. We are civil when we believe that other people's claim to comfort and happiness is as valid as our own, and we back up belief with action (such as letting someone merge into the flow of traffic).

Good manners, however, are also something we do for our own sake. They are good for us because as a basic code of relational skills they help us manage our relationships, which are crucial to our well-being and health. Although as adults we may have developed a more sophisticated understanding of manners, chances are that our early bias (that they are for others' sake) still looms large. This may lead us to the wrong conclusion that in the fast-paced, highly competitive and stress-laden environment in which we live, good manners are a luxury we can't afford. I suggest that we balance this view by looking instead at good manners as a precious life-improvement tool for the very people who have them. Maybe slowing down in the name of kindness would allow us to connect meaningfully with someone. Maybe this would help us in the pursuit of our goals — both professional and personal. This is as good a time as any to look at the other side of manners: the expedient side.

"Manner" comes from manus, the Latin word for "hand." Thus, manners are ways of handling. We exhibit good manners when we handle well our daily encounters with others — when we handle others, that is, with care and consideration. As relational skills based on empathy, good manners prove crucial when it comes to establishing and maintaining connection and rapport. Humans are hyper-social creatures. We inherited the genes of ancestors who banded together and shared their prey at the end of the day's hunt. Group identity inevitably shapes our personal identity. "Plays well with others" defines the well-adjusted child, and "team player" the employee every workplace wants. If life is a relational experience, then we'd better hone our abilities to relate. As hyper-social beings, our happiness or unhappiness depends, to a large extent, upon the quality of our relationships. As a general rule, better manners mean more harmonious relationships and thus an increased quality of life.

According to clinical psychologist Arthur Ciaramicoli, the co-author, with Katherine Ketcham, of The Power of Empathy, empathy benefits the very person who has this emotional ability: "Individuals who have high relational skills are more successful personally and professionally. People who have developed the capacity for empathy, in particular, have the ability to understand and respond to others based on the facts discerned rather than with generalities. When we know how to listen with compassion and grace we will always attract others in whatever walk of life we live. Corporate managers, educators, etc., all are more successful when they have the ability to read others accurately. Of course, in our personal lives, these abilities make us better friends, spouses, and parents," Ketcham says.

By being good citizens of our little world of family and friends, we build the foundation of our social support. Common sense and good physicians agree: Social connections are good for us. The meaningful presence of others in our lives helps us remain healthy — both physically and mentally. It is good to be a member of a family, a religious congregation, a charity initiative, or a support group. We all need loyal friends, empathetic co-workers, good neighbors, and thoughtful strangers around us. Isolation invites illness. To cope and thrive we need social support. To build and manage social support, however, we need social skills.

When we treat others with kindness and consideration, we show them that we value them as persons. This motivates them to remain in our lives, and as a result we continue to enjoy the rewards of connecting. Until three or four generations ago, a large amount of the support we needed came from our extended families. Today, as we often turn to friends, acquaintances, and even strangers for support and care, being likable can be a substantial advantage. An elementary but powerful truth to always keep in mind is that social skills strengthen social bonds. Social skills are thus an invaluable quality-of-life asset — in fact, they are nothing less than determinants of destiny.

The strengthening of social bonds gives us opportunities to confide. Confiding is good medicine. As we open ourselves up to a good listener, we get our sorrows off our chests, gain insights into our predicaments, and invite sanity into our lives. Disclosing is often the beginning of healing. Pioneers in mind-body medicine such as James Pennebaker, Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, and Ronald Glaser have paved the way to the scientific realization that confiding is also good for our immune system. There is a direct correlation between self-disclosure and resistance to disease. It is in part thanks to our relational skills that we manage to make and keep the friends among whom we can choose our confidants. The more trustworthy friends we have and the closer we are to them, the more likely it is that we find among them the right persons with whom to open up.

If you are considerate, people will like you and trust you; if they like you and trust you, they will let you help them; by helping them, you will help yourself. The ability to maintain good relationships makes us successful at helping and volunteering, which feels good and is good for us. Researcher Allan Luks has studied extensively the state of well-being he calls "helper's high." This state, similar to a "runner's high," occurs in people who volunteer for good causes. Luks believes that it is the release of endorphins in the volunteer's body that allows him or her to experience elation followed by calm. Although less intensely, helper's high also occurs in volunteers when they recall the experience of helping. Especially when it is not felt as an obligation, helping appears to release hormones and neurotransmitters that strengthen the immune system and are generally good for your health.

Feeling good about ourselves and our relationships makes us more inclined to laugh. From time immemorial, human beings have felt that laughing is good for them. Now we have the science to back up intuition. Laughter increases blood flow, reduces the effects of stress (by reducing the amount of cortisol, the stress hormone that can cause so much cardiovascular damage), and gives our immune system a boost. Laughter appears to be accompanied by the release of endorphins, the biochemical compounds that suppress pain and induce states of well-being. Happy people are less likely to suffer from high blood pressure and heart disease. The inclination to laugh seems to have a protective effect on our hearts. Although our individual propensity to laugh may be genetically programmed, the circumstances of life will also determine the amount of laughter we enjoy. Relational skills can make us happier and give us the gift of much-needed hearty, healthful laughs.

Common sense and good physicians agree: Social connections are good for us. The meaningful presence of others in our lives helps us remain healthy. Such positive emotions are not only good for our health, they are good for our thinking as well, according to psychiatrist and author Edward Hallowell: "Basically, emotion acts as the doorkeeper to advanced thinking. When a person is in a good mood, feeling content and in harmony with his surroundings, the door is wide open. He can do what his cerebral cortex is uniquely equipped to do: think flexibly; perceive irony and humor; perceive shades of gray, subtlety, complexity; bear with the frustration of not knowing the answer, and allowing conflicting points of view simultaneously to balance in his mind without either overpowering the other; wait, before bringing premature closure; ask for help; empathize with others; give to others; put the needs of others before his own; give help; inspire others."

Civility, according to Yale law professor Stephen Carter, "is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together." In our times of relentless self-indulgence, it is good to keep in mind that restraint and sacrifice are necessary for functioning well among others. Yes, sacrifice is part of civility. It is a sacrifice, however, that we make for our own sake as well as others'. (Also, we often reach a point where we do not perceive acting civilly as a sacrifice anymore, but rather as a necessary part of who we are.) Civility is powerfully linked to expediency — it is a very efficient and captivating way of pursuing self-interest.

Let us go back to Tom and Rob. In this second version of events, instead of firing an angry salvo, Tom calls Rob to his office and suggests that they try to resolve their differences rationally and fairly. Tom admits to criticizing Rob without giving him clear alternative directions. In turn, Rob acknowledges giving Tom's boss an unduly harsh assessment of Tom's abilities as a supervisor. They both apologize and pledge remedial action. As they reminisce about their long-standing employment in the company, their contested issues seem to be settling themselves, and the goodwill is almost palpable on both sides. Although there is no fight-or-flight reaction this time, it does not mean that their coming together in a civil and congenial way has no neuroendocrine basis.

Just being in the friendly presence of one another rewards Tom and Rob with lowering levels of stress and as a consequence a better functioning of their immune systems. Their stress reduction is aided by the release of the hormone oxytocin, of growth hormone, and of EOPs, the brain opioids. Their congenial mindset is connected to an increased level of the neurotransmitter serotonin in their brains. Together with keeping their hostility in check, serotonin has the effect of invigorating their sense of self-esteem, and thus makes them less defensive and more cooperative. The oxytocin that, in the meanwhile, is generously released, strengthens the social bond between the two co-workers. Under the sway of their feel-good hormones, Tom and Rob can think more clearly and in more sophisticated ways. As their conversation wanders, they exchange good, imaginative ideas on how to run their unit: a welcome, unexpected result of a meeting called to administer intensive care to a relationship between co-workers. – Johns Hopkins Magazine, 2003 

For the article, P.M. Forni, author of “Choosing Civility: The Twenty-five Rules of Considerate Conduct, consulted Johns Hopkins cardiologists Ilan Wittstein and James Weiss, psychiatrist and author Edward Hallowell, Harvard psychiatrist John Ratey, clinical psychologist and author Arthur Ciaramicoli, Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Rudolf Hoehn-Saric, University of Maryland neurologist Stephen Reich, and Johns Hopkins neurologist Guy McKhann. 

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