I've been having an polite disagreement with an old acquantance, Mr. J.D. Carriere, over at his blog. I feel the matter is important, but it is also a good example of the difference between a conservative (Mr. Carriere) and a counterrevolutionary (myself).
The matter started with a post entitled, A Gentleman's Response, wherein Mr. Carriere states that:
The etiquette books of yesteryear, but for whimsy and interest, are of scarce use to the gentleman of today ... He has little use for a dinner suit, will never tie a bow tie, and if he rises when a lady does, she is likely to misunderstand and may try to race him to the toilet.
I then asked Mr. Carriere in his comments box why should we abandon such dress and decorum simply because the those around his have? His response was long-ish so I'll only reproduce it in part:
But some standards derive from truths, ... These are timeless and to be maintained ... Others ... are of no purpose now that they have fallen from usage.
... the only remaining uses for these conventions that I can think of is to make oneself feel big or to make others feel small.
This attacks the heart of etiquette which has as it's primary purpose the comfort of all parties in any situation.
Thus, should you find yourself at some event where the other guests are burping and farting loudly, with gusto and abandon, you do better to join in than to sit there aloof and disproving.
It is not good etiquette but rather quite rude to stick to standards with no practical accomplishment but to make others uncomfortable or confused.
Now, while agreeing with some of his premises (i.e. that we should endeavour to make those around us comfortable), I respectfully disagree with his conclusion. I do not accept the conservative position that we can only conserve that which the Revolutionaries have left us as of a few years ago. It is a position where there are no absolutes and the etiquette required of a gentleman is, therefore, a constantly moving target. If things like dinner suits and rising for a lady (or clergy) are "obsolete", it is because we continuously retreat. If we refuse to retreat, customs can be retained or revived. This refusal to retreat is the essence of counterrevolution. The practice advocated by Mr. Carriere, while laudable, is ultimately is to make constant retreats (in the name not to make anyone around us uncomfortable, which is also good but not the ultimate good). If we follow Mr. Carriere's course, twenty years from now we shall be as uncultured as the worst slob of today and will only feel that we are respecting others because we haven't yet dropped as low as our contemporaries.
But moreover, it is possible to dress and behave like a civilized human being without making others feel uncomfortable. Refraining from partaking in crass practices need not be done in an "aloof and disapproving way". It takes work, but I think we can hold ourselves to high standards and make those around us feel comfortable at the same time.
The British royals, for all that they may be accused of, are very good at this. I had the opportunity to meet Prince Charles once and spoke with him for about a minute. He definitely had a way about him to make everyone feel at ease yet he also displayed excellent decorum. Recent newspaper reports say the same about Prince Edward who recently visited Canada while unfashionably dressed in a suit when meeting Canadians.
On the other hand, if people feel uncomfortable or confused because another person is dressed nicely or behaving like a civilized human being rather than an animal, it's because they know at some level that they are underdressed (or in many cases today, especially in warm weather, mostly undressed) or behaving shamefully -- i.e. their conscience is being pricked. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not agree with Mr. Carriere that it is necessary to affirm the modern man in his vices in order to be a gentleman. In other words, we should make him feel at ease by our friendly demeanour rather than by abandoning worthy etiquette from bygone days.
Finally, all etiquette has a practical purpose, but is not always as obvious as opening doors for ladies. All of it helps a man train himself to self-discipline. Training in self-discipline helps one to combat sin in the spiritual life. Older forms of etiquette certainly help to combat sloth whereas modern norms (when there are any) promote it. Furthermore, modern customs are directed towards false principles such as egalitariansim. Fighting against such things is worthy. The Revolution did not happen over night and I would suggest that the attack on etiquette came before the more ostentatious attacks. Anything, I submit, at odds with the Revolution is, in and of itself, a good thing.
Posted on the Feast of St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr, a.D. MMVIII
|