Who Called Ms. Manners?

There are a good many rules, written and unwritten, that govern behavior on the New York City Subway. You can't spit. You can't assault the conductor. You can't ride in the interstice between cars. You can't use the straphangers' poles like vertical couches. These transgressions are actually against the law, and if an NYPD officer sees you engaged in such behavior, and is so inclined, he can issue you a citation. Complementing these official statues, then, are some of the unofficial rules. Place your backpack on the floor of a packed car. Let folks off the train before pushing your way on. Don't sing along with your iPod really, really loudly. Of course, in a transit system that provides more than 1.6 billion rides each year, there are bound to be daily -- even hourly -- transgressions, and anyone who expects to find the discipline of a parade ground on the subway is either incredibly naïve or incredibly optimistic. Rules aren't made to be broken, as violators are often quick to claim (They're made, it would logically seem, to be followed), but no regulation -- and no person -- is perfect, and navigating through a gauntlet of broken rules and accepting the folks who break them is part of living in society.

Why, then, the furor over America's latest batch of (admittedly prominent) acts of rudeness and incivility? On Tuesday, New York Times columnist David Brooks took Americans to task for what he perceives to be an epidemic of immodesty. The Washington Post's Kathleen Parker felt it necessary to remind us that, "If our will to self-govern is to prevail, then incivility will have to become [as] equally unfashionable [as dueling]." And on ESPN, Jeremy Schaap tsk-tsk'd Serena Williams and Roger Federer for their profane outbursts at the U.S. Open before broadening his reprimand to include a club-bashing Tiger Woods. Brooks's, Parker's, and Schaap's displeasure is surely reasonable; their puritanical stance, though, is puzzling. As Parker writes, "People in positions of power and privilege have a duty to perform at a higher level"; and Brooks notes that contemporary displays of modesty come as a "refreshing shock, a glimpse into another world." Yet if these precepts are indeed so, then assuming that it's necessary to lecture readers and viewers on a subject as fundamentally basic as manners would seem to be the height of immodesty. We don't, after all, need the second and third comings of Jonathan Edwards on our op-ed pages.

Now, the best part about being a columnist is that you get to write about whatever you want and assume that your words will be read by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Are Brooks's and Parker's readers, and Schaap's viewers, then, really that well served by commentaries that essentially boil down to, "Don't be rude; it's not really helpful to anyone?" It's probably a safe assumption that Jeremy Schaap's starchy commentary won't deter many people from threatening to stuff tennis balls down lineswomen's throats. As evidenced by yesterday's bench-clearing brawl at Yankee Stadium, anger tends to manifest itself with predictable ugliness whether we like it or not. Before throwing his first punch at Toronto Blue Jay Jesse Carlson, New York catcher Jorge Posada knew good and well that right hooks to an opposing pitcher's forehead are frowned upon in Major League Baseball. He did it anyway. If someone wants to splay his legs open and occupy two seats on the subway, he's going to do it irrespective of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on basic cable. To their credit, neither Brooks nor Parker nor Schaap claim to be shocked by such boorishness and capitulate that it's part of living in a free and liberal society. This qualifier, though, doesn't take away from the condescending, schoolmarmish tones of their respective commentaries.

For the most part, Brooks, Parker, and Schaap are fine journalists and astute commentators, adept at parsing complex issues and at revealing hidden aspects of well-trod political and social territory. Critiquing of bad manners, though, represents some pretty low-hanging fruit. Gary Larson, erstwhile creator of The Far Side cartoon, probably explained things best when he depicted God, hard at work in a kitchen, dusting the planet with a salt shaker labeled "JERKS," and thinking to himself, "And just to make it interesting...."

Comments

[inmyhumbleopinion]

I have to disagree. I've personally noticed a real lack of civility not just among the rich, spoiled, and famous, but everywhere. I've recently gone back to school after being away for 25 years and am shocked at how often people are talking amongst themselves while the instructor is lecturing, to the point of being distracting. One gentleman was even typing into his PDA and each keystroke made a beep. It's not just obnoxious behavior, it clearly makes it difficult to hear what's being said, because students routinely ask questions that have already been answered.

And its not just in class: drivers are more aggressive and rude than ever. People talk in movie theatres while the movie is playing. Invited guests who have RSVP'd in the positive are routine no-shows or latecomers. We have become a society of self-centered boors who really don't care how our behavior impacts others. I think we needed Serena, Kanye, and Joe Wilson as "caught on tape" examples of what not to do, with all the appropriate finger wagging that goes along with it.

[classicalgeek]

Politeness is the grease that allows the wheels of society to grind along without deafening us all. "Good manners cost nothing," my mother always told me, and it's served me well, and gained me many admirers when I was able to call up the socially correct thing to say in the most difficult of circumstances.

[JScott]

911 to Ms. Manners. Thank you Judith Martin.

[mredder4]

I'm not sure I exactly understand the purpose of this article. Those other writers are wrong for writing about behaving politely? Apter seems to be saying that the authors he mentions are either butting in on their readers lives by suggesting they act nicely or just wasting their time by touching on a subject that's difficult (but not nearly impossible) to change in society at large. Why then his own piece? Is Apter not simply turning about and doing to Brooks, Parker, and Schaap what he claims they are doing to their readers?

IMO, none of the events mentioned in the other publications are worth defending. There is no excuse to steal someone's acceptance speech at a televised event. There's no excuse for a professional athlete to confront a referee that way. And there is certainly no justification for interrupting the President during an address to Congress, and it's even worse to call the President a liar when the President's claim can be proven true and the interrupter's claim is the one proven false.

"Society is a rude place as it is" is a weak excuse and a lame premise.