For so long I viewed having manners as needed nightmares that were performed for other people. Stiff and awkward people. Or Holiday people.
I don't mean basic courtesies like not grotesquely belching at the dinner table. I mean dinner napkins on the lap, husbands pulling out the chair for their wives, "please pass the...", setting the silverware properly, etc...
Manners are meant to be a form of love. Of hospitality. There is a basic framework set for everyone to find the rhythm within. There are so many aspects of thinking about someone other than yourself (oneself?)within manners.
I'm not truly a fan of formality, but I love making people feel at ease. I'm definitely not the queen of details, but sometimes love is in those details.
What do you think?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- Larky Park
- Colorful, textural clothing & accessories made from vintage, salvaged and modern materials. Wholesale Retail Online Ordering
17 comments:
I have to admit that I am a fan of teaching children how to greet an adult (look them in the eye, say "How do you do?", and shake their hand). I know we didn't require you kids to do this but in retrospect it is a GOOD thing for children to realize other people are important and it teaches you at an early age to be other-focused rather than self-focused. It also gives them a step ahead in confidence that they can relate to adults...it doesn't hurt either when it comes around to that first job interview and you have learned how to present yourself in a confident manner (okay, I know it's a long way from todderhood to the first job but ya gotta have the Long View...
I think there's a difference between social skills and manners. Social skills are necessary in the day-to-day, to be a citizen in the world; manners are necessary so the world so that world doesn't think you're too loud/close/rude/smelly. Not sure if I like any of that or if it's just superficial; if there's a way to balance it all (ie have a beautiful table but still let famiy feel comfy and not intimidated) then I'm all for it! I love fine things, but not at the expense of making people feel welcome and at home. (I've blogged before about dining rooms that can't be dined in, living rooms that can't be lived in. I hate that).
A fine (buuuuuurp!) distinction. One of the reasons I ... (ffferrt-fft) ... (frap) ... feel so comfortable around here is that everyone is so ... (rrrraaaaalph) ... genteel.
And, apparently, mummers' mummer had a degree more success with her than with me.
I love good manners. It's a rare thing.
I guess everyone has a different take on what manners are or what the word exactly means, but to me manners have a way of showing respect; saying "Thank You" to recognize the efforts of some else, what they've done or made etc.
To me, good manners means having an overview of a situation and behaving in a way that makes others feel included, recognized, or at ease, regardless of the exact means of doing so. In that sense, it means being flexible, not stiff and formal. When in Rome...
The more they are practiced the less effort they take. Manners, that is. But the fact that they are a conscious effort (though seemingly natural and effortless to some) does confer a sense of respect for others in the moment. I think that those who make it look effortless may, possibly, have a more ingrained respect for others at the root of their being. I fall short in this respect so much that it is a constant source of regret. I always have just the right gesture, or thing to say, between 5 minutes and two days too late.
53 and still plenty to work on. Like ending sentences oafishly. Oh, and the manners thing. Yeah, that, too.
There's always a balance too, I think, between politeness and "realness." I have a 7 year old daughter, for example, who is (yay!) incredibly polite. She not only has her please and thank yous perfected but also her "Excuse me's" if she has to interrupt, her patience in waiting for her turn to speak, etc. But this goes naturally with her personality: she has an amazing amount of empathy for people for her age, and does these things not because she's fake (like adults often do!) but out of respect for people and their feelings. Out of the mouths of babes!
I. LOVE. MANNERS.
In fact, I actually have the gigantic Emily Post's exhaustive guide to etiquette. You're right, manners (and etiquette, contrary to popular belief) are meant to be loving and respectful, and true etiquette should never be excluding, but should make everyone feel MORE comfortable.
i always got smacked in the head if i didn't use my manners. thats how we roll in the south. they beat the manners into you.
Levi, you can always tell the southern boys - the first ones to open the door, take the suitcase, just NOTICE what's happening in a social situation and make themselves available. It's a good thing in my book.
Jenny, I totally hear you on the false motives and masks and everything, but I also see so many people using "being real" as a very thinly veiled cover-up for self-indulgence. Just because I have a feeling or thought or desire does not make it valid nor appropriate to express. Self-denial is not a highly valued thing in our society. It's all about being true to yourself! But, the irony is that unless we deny ourselves, we can't ever realize the fullness of who we were really intended and created to be.
There's a balance, like you said, Jenny. Growing up in the Midwest and in a very traditional background, you were always expected to "have it all together," so even if you were completely dying inside, you suck it up and put on a happy face and offer to do 12 more things to serve the church. I know that's pretty twisted, but out here, I sometimes get really sick of the level of self-absorption! Both are unhealthy; one's just more familiar to me! :)
Anyway, I am pretty uncomfortable around formality (though my husband's family puts their napkins neatly in their laps even when they are sitting on the floor eating pizza and watching a ballgame!). But I think, like Matthew said, being able to see an overview of the situation beyond just myself is important.
Like many things, "manners" is an evolving term. The comments so far demonstrate that clearly. It means different things to different people and at different times in history, both recent and longer. It is not that people had manners in the 50's and don't now, it's just that the meaning and emphasis has changed.
I believe manners are "form" but let's not put it above "function". What does that look like? Knowing how to act in ANY situation, no matter how formal or casual, set's you at easy. If you meet the President, you should not be aware of yourself and how you should act; it should be automatic because it's been train into you. Likewise, if you're out with the guys, belch away! It was for freedom that Christ set us free. Structure gives us that freedom as long as it doesn't bind us.
KT
And "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" - Janice Joplin. I actually think structure is a compromise of freedom, i.e. you give up some ability to choose to be able to function in safety. So if that's what you are saying, KT, then I agree with that statement. For example, you act politely and controlled (structure) so that you can socially function in the least offensive and most productive way. In that way, you are able to accomplish a larger goal of relationship building by avoiding commonly offensive missteps.
And the importance of manners, it appears, depends largely on how one views one's fellow man or woman. If one views people as generally accepting of others or as immaterial to their lives (think of the narcissicist), then one places a lower emphasis on manners. If one views people as generally suspicious of others or as more important to their lives, then one places a higher emphasis on manners.
I can tell you this, if I want to get something done in my business, politeness and firmness go a long way.
I'll be frank. I love when a 10 yr old boy notices my full arms at the library and holds the door for me.
I appreciate people passing the food around a table as opposed to having to ask for every little thing because folks want to eat before everyone is served.
I love a perfect stranger helping me in the snowy parking lot of a grocery store when my bag of canned goods has ripped open and dropped groceries under my car.
I appreciate Levi teaching the kiddos to say "Yes Maam" to help them learn to respect adults, especially mama. (Mama feels like a wet rag full of cement by 5:30 pm)
Maybe it is manners mixed with compassion - but it is wonderful to receive and fun to give!
Did I just kill the thought-train? ;)
Anyhow, somethings exists in my soul that insists that freedom is impossible without some type of structure. (Ie... you can't paint like a whirling dervish w/o something to paint on, you can't scribble down the sonata of dreams without physical notes...) SO mentally streaming here - do you think we need structure to build freedom or do we just need structure for others to understand freedom. Does that make sense?
Obviously there is mental freedom, physical freedom, creative freedom etc - But they are connected, if you can flow with me.
I'm only 1/2 way through my coffee...
I think complete, true freedom is impossible. In fact, I'm not sure what we think of as freedom is true freedom. Before I get all Neitzche and what not, though, let me explain. True freedom is the absence of laws - nothing left to lose. However, in order to survive, we are bound by physical and man-made laws which govern our interactions with people and the environment. True freedom would mean that you would, for example, be able to walk through walls because you would not be subject to the laws of physics. That would be cool, though. Were you free to do what you want socially, i.e. not be subject to man-made laws, you would impinge on the freedom of others and vice-versa.
In short, to have some sense of control, some sense of safety, some sense of peace (all of which are some form of freedom), we need rules and predictability. For example, say you weren't governed by the laws of physics. How secure and free would you feel if your body was subject to disintegrating at any time (because that's what it would do without the benefit of physics)? Say none of us were confined by man-made social laws - how secure would you feel knowing the person next to you would have no disincentive to kill you or rob you or harm you in any way?
But this is actually giving me a great idea for another book....
Yeah, it's hard to think of freedom as an absolute.
Or in absolute freedom.
Post a Comment