The Decay of Manners
Millions still practice good manners. Other millions trample them underfoot.
AT THE turn of the century, etiquette got off on the wrong foot, according to The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “In the late 19th and early 20th centuries those in the upper strata of society regarded the observance of the most trivial demands of etiquette as at once a diversion and, for the women, an occupation. More and more elaborate rituals were designed to create a sense of exclusiveness for the initiates and to keep the unworthy, ignorant of them, at a distance.”
That is a far cry from what good manners should be. Amy Vanderbilt is a respected authority on the subject of manners, and she writes in her New Complete Book of Etiquette: “The finest rules for behavior are to be found in Chapter 13 of First Corinthians, the beautiful dissertation on charity by St. Paul. These rules have nothing to do with the fine points of dress nor with those of superficial manners. They have to do with feelings and attitudes, kindliness, and consideration of others.”
What Amy Vanderbilt referred to is the Biblical passage at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, which says: “Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”
What a rarity it would be to see love like this practiced today! Everywhere, all manners would be impeccable! The starting point in teaching and learning such manners is the Christian home. A family is a delicate machine whose parts are in close contact with one another. Only expert lubrication can keep it in smooth running order. Knowing how to be helpful, courteous, pleasant, and polite will go a long way toward making a home happy. Learning how to voice the accepted everyday expressions of courtesy and consideration—such as “Thank-you,” “Please,” “Forgive me,” “I’m sorry”—will do much to eliminate destructive friction in our associations. These are little words with big meanings. Everyone can say them properly. They cost us nothing, but with them we buy friends. If we daily practice good manners in our homes, they will not leave us when we go outside the family circle and mingle with the public.
Good manners involve showing consideration for the feelings of others, according them respect, treating them as we would like for them to treat us. Many have noted, however, that manners themselves have undergone a breakdown. One writer said: “We are wanting in courtesy because individualism has gained the upper hand.” Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote: “Selfishness is such a horrible thing that we invented politeness to conceal it.” Today many believe that “polite” means “weak” and that putting others first is wimpy. Was it not the Me decade of the ’70’s that launched us into the present me-first mode of living? One big-city newspaper said: “The problem has reached the point where common decency can no longer be described as common.”
London’s Daily Mail reports that children as young as five years of age are increasingly belligerent, disrespectful of other children’s property, lacking in respect for adults, and using obscene language. Most teachers surveyed feel that parents are spoiling their children and that this is the root cause of the increase in unsocial behavior. Of the teachers interviewed in one survey, 86 percent blame “lack of clear standards and expectations at home.” Eighty-two percent point to the absence of parental example as the culprit. Broken homes, divorce, live-in relationships, too much television, no discipline, no sanctions—it all boils down to the destruction of the family.
One elementary school principal said: “I worry about the absence of respect among children today. They don’t seem to care if they humiliate peers or offend adults. . . . They show their disrespect in many ways—offensive signals, obscenities, refusal to obey simple orders . . . , willingness to hog the ball . . . [On the other hand,] children from some homes tend to respect others. They don’t have to be teacher’s pet . . . , but they behave respectfully toward others. They wait their turn while others push ahead . . . Either it’s instilled [in the children] or not.”
Another elementary school principal, a veteran of many years, goes further: “We’re seeing more just plain meanness. On the playground kids don’t seem to play like they used to; they rove around in gangs. They’re quick to identify the weak ones, kids on the fringe, kids who don’t wear the right sneakers or jeans. They go after them, taunt them; there’s a vicious edge to it. We’ve tried to stop it, but we haven’t been very successful.”
“Many people are driving incredibly rudely,” says Professor Jonathan Freedman of Columbia University. “It’s almost a battleground on the highways.” The Monthly Letter of the Royal Bank of Canada speaks of “the relentless carnage on the roads” and concludes that “the core of the problem is uncivil behaviour. The courtesy, consideration, forbearance, tolerance and respect for human rights which go to make up civilization are disgracefully lacking.”
The New York Times characterizes the streets of New York City this way: “It’s Motorists vs. Ambulances.” More motorists in that city are refusing to yield to emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks—increasing the danger that someone who is critically ill or injured will die because he can’t be reached or transported to a hospital quickly enough. Captain Ellen Scibelli of the Emergency Medical Services told of a man driving on Pelham Parkway in the Bronx who refused to clear the way for an ambulance responding to a cardiac-arrest call. “He tried to be a tough guy and not move over, but when he arrived at his house, he realized just how stupid it was. His mother had a heart attack and the ambulance was trying to get to her.”
The New York Times International told about an English organization called the Polite Society that was formed because “people have become positively beastly to one another, and something must be done.” In a column in The Evening Standard, a broadcast journalist was moved to complain: “A nation once renowned for its civility is becoming a country of boors.” A Scottish insurance company “concluded that 47 percent of all road accidents can be traced back to an act of discourtesy.”
Television has contributed heavily to the erosion of manners, especially with children and teenagers. How people dress, how people talk, how people cope with human relationships, how people repeatedly solve problems with violence—television is a teacher. If we and our children take in a diet of fictitious and shallow programs, eventually our manners will reflect the sassy, disrespectful, and sarcastic attitudes of the characters we view. Parents are often depicted as ninnies and children as the smart ones.
The world finds satisfaction in speaking with loud, authoritative bluster—interrupting, proud of being domineering, boisterous, condescending, provocative, challenging. It used to be that rude behavior was frowned upon by the community at large, and the perpetrator was ostracized. In today’s society a rude act can be committed without stigma being attached to the offender. And if anyone objects, he may come under verbal or physical assault! Some youths traveling in noisy groups fill the air with foul language, obscene gestures, offending observers with their crude conduct, all deliberately designed to attract attention to their defiant rebelliousness and to shock adults by their blatant display of rudeness. However, as it has been said, “rudeness is a weak man’s imitation of strength.”
The laws men have compiled to manage the conduct of humanity would fill a library, yet they have not resulted in the guidance humanity needs. Do we need still more? Or maybe fewer? It has been said that the better a society is, the less law it needs. How about just one law? This one, for example: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.”—Matthew 7:12.
Obedience to that law would sweep away most of the current problems, but still, to complete the needs of society, a more important law must be added: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.”—Mark 12:30.
Today’s society dismisses both of these Biblical requirements as unnecessary, along with any other guidelines contained in the Bible. The Bible speaks of such ones at Jeremiah 8:9: “The wise ones have become ashamed. . . . They have rejected the very word of Jehovah, and what wisdom do they have?” They also see no need for a public consensus on the true values that have traditionally been recognized as essential for our guidance. Their new morality is a broad way that gives room for any alternative life-styles that individuals may choose—the broad way that Jesus identified as the road leading off into destruction—and many are the ones going off into it.—Matthew 7:13, 14.
The Perfect Example
Jesus Christ, the one “who is in the bosom position with the Father,” is an outstanding example worthy of imitation. (John 1:18) In dealing with people, he was tender and compassionate on the one hand, forceful and firm on the other; yet he was never rude or unkind to anyone. Commenting on “his extraordinary gift of being at ease with all sorts of persons,” the book The Man From Nazareth says of Jesus: “Alike in public and in private he associated with men and women on equal terms. He was at home with little children in their innocence and strangely enough at home too with conscience-stricken grafters like Zacchaeus. Respectable home-keeping women, such as Mary and Martha, could talk with him with natural frankness, but courtesans also sought him out as though assured that he would understand and befriend them . . . His strange unawareness of boundaries that hemmed ordinary people in is one of his most characteristic qualities.”
Jehovah God is always mannerly when dealing with those below him, often adding “please” to his requests. When granting his friend Abraham a blessing, he said: “Raise your eyes, please, and look from the place where you are.” And again: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars.” (Genesis 13:14; 15:5) When giving Moses a sign of His power, God said: “Stick your hand, please, into the upper fold of your garment.” (Exodus 4:6) Many years later, Jehovah, through his prophet Micah, said even to his wayward people: “Hear, please, you heads of Jacob and you commanders of the house of Israel. . . . Hear, please, this, you head ones.” (Micah 3:1, 9) In this respect, have we “become imitators of God” in saying please when dealing with others?—Ephesians 5:1.
So, what guidelines or moral precepts do the worldly-wise offer as replacements for the Biblical ones they reject as unacceptable? The following article considers this.
[Blurb on page 4]
Common decency can no longer be called common
[Blurb on page 5]
The ambulance was trying to reach his mother
[Blurb on page 6]
“Rudeness is a weak man’s imitation of strength”
[Picture Credit Line on page 3]
Left: Life; Right: Grandville