Alec Ward | Minding our manners

Talking Backward | The case for a new American etiquette

By Alec Ward 12/01/15 11:40pm

Recently, at the recommendation of a friend, I read author Rebecca Solnit’s essay collection “Men Explain Things to Me.” In the essay, Solnit tells a series of personal stories wherein various men condescendingly “correct” her about topics in which her expertise far exceeds their own. She concludes that beneath their bloviation lies a socially ingrained presumption that women are ignorant and can’t possibly outmatch male knowledge.

What struck me about the men in Solnit’s anecdotes was their rudeness. Had I been in Solnit’s shoes, I’d have been less inclined to think “sexism” and more inclined to think “jackassery.” This is, of course, precisely Solnit’s point: Unlike me, she’s a woman, and so perceives such slights to be lesser cases on a continuum of misogyny that, at its extreme, includes countries that forbid female court testimony.

As with complaints of race-based “microaggressions,” one could argue that this perception is unwarranted. Even if that’s right — and my mind isn’t made up on the subject — it still doesn’t address Solnit’s concern that repetitive condescension makes women hesitate to express their knowledge in public for fear of being dismissed. Enough women and racial minorities have testified to feeling that same hesitation that any egalitarian ought to be concerned.

Many of my free speech-focused compatriots are more convinced than I am that such slights represent nothing more than quotidian rudeness — the sort that white men also regularly experience. They argue that the best way to end these bad consequences is by refuting the claim that slights are harbingers of serious prejudice. If women and racial minorities don’t perceive slights as racialized and gendered, they argue, then rudeness is deprived of its power to frighten, and so to silence. Many intelligent social-justice progressives sincerely disagree.

It occurs to me, however, that if we agree broadly that discomforting remarks are bad in most cases, we don’t have to agree on whether or not they’re commonly prejudiced. Whether they’re mansplainers and microaggressors or just run-of-the-mill jerks, people who routinely say hurtful things probably don’t think they’re “being rude,” because there are so few broadly agreed-upon rules of rudeness. The prejudice question doesn’t have to be resolved to address this.

Modern America’s lack of extensive standard mores is rooted in recent history. Formal etiquette declined along with other rigid markers of social status which accompanied the sweeping cultural restructuring of the late 20th century.

But maybe something valuable was thrown out with traditionalism’s indubitably dirty bathwater. A broader set of non-legal, universal taboos might be a valuable tool in easing some of the discomfort which comes with living in our pluralist, multicultural society.

Take Solnit: Maybe it should be universally taboo to correct someone in casual conversation, even if they garble the facts. The stakes are low, and the risk of giving offense is high. Universal taboos against unsolicited questions and comments about physical appearance, wealth, employment and family might serve the same ends.

Crucially, these kinds of taboos are enforced by peers, against peers. The consequences for violating them are purely social. They are not backed up by the coercive power of institutions or governments and violations are generally not widely publicized. Small-scale embarrassment is unpleasant, not life-altering. Importantly, it does not make martyrs the way public shamings often do.

Etiquette doesn’t arise overnight and isn’t propagated by authorities. It is consensual, rather than mandatory. The formation of a new etiquette will require continued good-faith public discourse about rights and responsibilities, plus careful attention to both those who say they feel wronged as well as the defenders of the status quo. If we desire a society which is sensitive but unafraid, pluralist but harmonious, affirmative but not dogmatic, we need to know that where to draw the lines of taboo will never be obvious or uncontroversial. But that is no reason to abandon the exercise of line-drawing altogether. It seems we have done so at our peril.

Of course, manners can only obscure prejudiced attitudes, not eradicate them. But if, as Solnit says, perceived expressions of subtle bigotry have direct negative consequences of their own, then targeting this “symptom” could have positive effects. It doesn’t solve the whole problem, but if ongoing harms can be mitigated, why wouldn’t we try?

I should conclude by noting that I believe strong taboos remain inappropriate in academia. Unlike wider society, one enters by consent, signing away any expectation of emotional comfort at the gate. The rules are different here.

ALEC WARD is a College junior from Washington, D.C., studying history. His email address is alecward@sas.upenn.edu. Follow him on Twitter @TalkBackWard. “Talking Backward” usually appears every other Wednesday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.