Guest Post: Response to Courtesy

Tonight we have a guest entry, from a friend of mine and perhaps sole reader of this blog. He responds to my last entry, regarding the subject of common courtesy. Enjoy.

Dear Anonymity,

I would like to begin by commending you for writing on such a thought provoking subject- and more importantly seeking the opinions of others. What follows is my version of courtesy. I am always seeking to broaden my horizons and will have no difficulty in reading other peoples’ thought on this matter.

As you point out, I agree that ‘courtesy’ as a common definition has no defined boundaries. The definition of courtesy as provided by the Merriam Webster Dictionary is:

2 a : general allowance despite facts : indulgence b : consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing something (as a gift or privilege); also : agency, means —used chiefly in the phrases through the courtesy of or by courtesy of or sometimes simply courtesy of

I can see why this in itself gives you pause and inspires you to question the true meaning of a word that has been uttered in many situations. The definition cannot truly encompass the range of emotions associated with the word ‘courtesy’.

You point out that courtesy seems to hold a different meaning to different people. In a way this is true. Different actions elicit different emotions from different people. However, if you look past the complex nature of emotions; is happiness not the same to everyone? Is sorrow not the same for everyone? Is guilt not the same for everyone?

What I am trying to point out in an awkward fashion, is that it might take different actions to get an emotional response out of people. However, once those emotions are drawn out, they are the same for everyone.

I bring up the topic of emotions in relation to courtesy as I feel they are intertwined. It may not be a matter of emotion for you if you are the one providing courtesy, but I strongly feel that it is a matter of emotion when you receive courtesy. The definition- ‘general allowance despite facts’ makes it clear that courtesy is a way of acknowledging something or someone without it or them “deserving” your acknowledgement. The mere fact that you so choose to acknowledge them (in the case of those capable of feeling emotions) will ‘make their day’ so to speak because of my lack of a better way to put it.

Although I am not a religious being I present a quote from the bible- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Otherwise known as the Golden Rule, it is not limited to the bible. It is another phrase that you must have heard many times over. It is my belief that courtesy is a product of this teaching. Courtesy embodies ‘what you would want done unto you’.

I am getting near my point and hope that it has not been quite a heavy task to follow my rambling.

Courtesy in my mind has quite a lot to do with knowing the people you interact with. In other words if you know the person you are interacting with does not take offense with you “putting your shoe on the table” then it is OK to put your shoe on the table. However, if the opposite is true, then it becomes a matter of courtesy to NOT put your shoe on the table.

Courtesy is not something that you are “supposed to recognize and adhere to as a moral code”. I believe that courtesy is a choice of the person who gives it and not something that can be expected. If it is expected then courtesy holds no value in my mind. When people say that they expect courtesy, it is a way of saying that your previous action did not go too well with them and if in the future you are to change your action to suit them you WILL receive an emotion of some sort (hopefully one that pleases you).

Again, courtesy is not something that you are compelled to give. It is yours and yours alone to give and if it is taken from you then it loses all meaning. You must be the judge of when to give someone courtesy. I base it on how I would feel if I were to receive courtesy from them. I base it by placing myself in their shoes and thinking about how they must feel when I offer them courtesy. When meeting new people I tend to err on the safe side and not look to provoke any negative feelings towards me. It is when I have been truly acquainted with people that I can take a more relaxed approach to courtesy. There are exceptions however, and some people may expect courtesy in return from the person who received that courtesy; otherwise it may seem like a waste of their energy and good intentions. When you present a gift to someone, do you not expect some form of gratitude in return?

I hope that this has not come across in any way was admonishing or disapproving. If, so I humbly apologize. As a final note, I would like to point out that I added “and more importantly seeking the opinions of others” at the beginning of my long winded discussion because; that my friend is an act of courtesy.

-Your Friend

Uncommon Courtesy

Note: The term "courtesy" is used many times in this article, as I could not formulate many synonyms for its use. Also, keep in mind this post does not encourage one to disregard others' views of courteous conduct; obviously, some things are right and wrong to do. As always, use your head.

"Courtesy". This is a term I hear so commonly nowadays, that naturally I begin to ponder on its meaning. To some, a certain action may seem unseemly or rude, while to others the same action may be completely inconsequential or even polite. Why the startling variation? So I ask you, I ask myself, and I ask humanity as a whole: "What is this common courtesy, that people are supposed to recognize and adhere to as a moral code?"

Now don't get me wrong, I am not questioning the value of manners, chivalry, or politeness; these sort of fundamental ideas I believe are important when analyzing how people should treat one another. It's the lack of congruency in the general idea of courtesy that has bothered me so much in recent times. From what I have seen, most individuals have their own personalized sense of what is "courteous" and what is "rude", and use these tailored perspectives to look at (and judge) the actions of their fellow man or woman. This in itself shatters the concept of a "common courtesy"; courtesy is broken up into many different viewpoints based on a person's religion, race, culture, gender, and upbringing. A close friend of mine for example, who originates from Asia, frequently presents his view of courtesy in a much more rigid and defined method than I ever could agree with. Is he wrong? Of course not, as he is merely representative of his culture; what he thinks is courteous certainly may differ from what is considered courteous here, in the United States. This uniformity of belief and customs is arguably more common in foreign nations than in America, simply because of America's status as the world's melting pot. The overwhelming number of different cultures, religions, and beliefs that have poured into our country from its beginnings in the 18th century have rendered the nation a true mosaic, composed of millions of smaller pictures, which each tell their own story.

What's interesting is, when speaking to members of earlier generations, views of courtesy appear to adhere to much more parallel tangent. So is this fragmentation of the concept of "courtesy" merely a side-effect of the cultural shifting that occurs as time passes? There is no doubt that this argument makes sense in some instances; culture back in say, my parents day, was much more uniform, in the sense that conformity was actually encouraged (standing out could equate to simple isolation). The thinking pattern of a half-century old population stands out boldly when compared to today's world; there was a defined way to act and behave, and deviating from this norm earned you the label of "troublemaker" or "weirdo".

Today's society bears little resemblance to this old pattern of societal norms. Now, individualism is encouraged, even expected; every American child is considered different and special, and is expected to be treated as their own individual personality. While I do not necessarily disagree with this point, it is hard to miss how this can fragment a "common" style of thinking into many smaller sets of individual expectations and beliefs.

The issue here, is that many people still expect others to follow their own personalized codes of courteous conduct, and scold them when they deviate from their own beliefs. When looking at how disassembled a sense of common courtesy has become, it seems hypocritical for anyone in America to expect others to follow a code of conduct that may not necessarily be followed by all. So really, if you put your feet up on a table (for example), are you being rude to that table's owner, or simply only violating that person's code of conduct and courtesy? If others disagree with the notion that an action such as that is rude, does that make that action neutral? Must everyone agree on an action or response's position on the moral scale to make it so?

Take technology for example. The acceptance of public cell phone and gadget usage have become a topic of hot debate in some media outlets.

For argument's sake, look at this article from the NYTimes: New York Times Article on Technology Usage

Reading this, you can see the etiquette of using a device during conversation, or a dinner can solicit a strong reaction in many people. On one side, many argue it is rude to divide your eye contact and attention to a device in your hand, while someone talks to you or otherwise interacts with you. On the other side, many argue that it is necessary for their jobs or hobbies to keep a constant link between themselves and the vast expanse of the internet, be it to check e-mails or whatnot. So for the issue of technology, is their a common courtesy concerning the usage of phones/gadgets instead of interaction? Not really. When different groups pull on different parts of the issue, and pull different interpretations of an action put in front of them, the possibility for a common-ground is essentially lost. Common courtesy concerning this issue is therefore, impossible.

Does this sort of argument apply to other actions, such as borrowing money, physical contact, and eye contact during conversation? This is up to debate, as certain things move closer to and farther away from a "common courtesy" level (e.g. it is generally considered courteous to shake hands when introducing yourself in America).

In this society of individuals, one cannot hope to find this defined set of moral codes and rules of conduct concerning everyday life. It simply does not exist. In the meantime, perhaps it is within our power to realize that many of our ideas of courtesy are personalized to ourselves, and not use them to judge the actions of others.

Just an idea.

My apologies for the jumbled organization of this post, it's been awhile.

Stay frosty,

Me

Religious Youth

Frankly, I find it unsettling when today's youth actively follow a religious practice, especially when said following disrupts their social activities and lives. It is not wrong (of course) to do so, but it seems out of place in today's fast-paced, technological and ever-evolving world to be devout in one's religious beliefs. I believe the argument has been made before, but how do ancient religious ideals actually relate to today's society? It seems almost foolish to devote significant portions of one's time to practicing rigid and structural ceremonies, created centuries or even millennia ago.
With older generations, practicing religion seems much more understandable; they have had to deal with the experience of the hardships of total war, threat of nuclear attack, economic collapse, and similar bleak periods. From such darkness, a people must find hope, which religion has long since provided. However, over time, tradition changes, even dies out. What keeps today's teenagers and children practicing a religious belief? Understandably, many younger children are forced by their parents to do so, but I find it surprising that more teenagers do not dispose of these habits when they leave for either college or the work force. For what reasons do today's youth have to pray?
I do not dispute some of the purer points of religious belief, such as the concentration on one's ethics and moral behaviors; I find myself more concerned with rituals and practices such as fasting, studying of religious text, and going to religious institutions such as churches. What keeps the youth motivated to continue doing such things? How does it relate to their fast, "go-go" lifestyles? Brainwashing? I digress.

Shalom,
Me

Stagnant Media

What has our news media become? I submit this question to anyone who dare answer it. I myself, an advocate of any viewpoint that takes both sides into account, and picks some middle ground (I call it moderate, but others beg to differ), find myself increasingly repelled by most of our nation's major news networks, if not all of them. Obviously, I won't bother dwelling on the most obvious examples of "bad" news, such as the ever infamous Fox News network. Other supposed more "moderate" news giants, such as CNN, HLN (basically CNN), and MSNBC, seem to be falling deeper into the stupid hole, past the point where they can claw their way out and reclaim their legitimacy.

However, my beef is mostly with CNN, which has reached a level of idiocy that soon will rival that of the almighty Foxian Republican machine. Every morning now, I find myself turning CNN's useless dribble of a morning news program off, fearing their broadcast to forcibly implant stupid in my brain. Over the course of (maybe) the last year or so, CNN has attempted to integrate modern social networking aspects and an overall more "hip" edge to their programming, with pretty abysmal results. At times, they take user comments off of their website, and feature them on the show, if said user said something particularly intelligent or relevant to the issue at hand; this method of integrating technology I think is a positive change. It is a step in the right direction to take the ideas and statements of viewers, and feature them on the show, answering questions and discussing proposed theories and ideas. Sorry, let me correct myself: this would be the correct step if they were not frequently taking user comments of CNN's own personal Facebook page. While I find they primarily use these tidbits in the morning segment of their HLN network, which tries to be much more "hip" and "less dry" than its sister network, it is still an inexcusable method of collecting user input for discussion. These sort of examples only serve to show how social networking sites are truly taking over every aspect of the media, from the news to the internet itself. Next, news networks will start citing from and utilizing other valid web-based sources and sites, such as the faultless Wikipedia and Facebook's ancestor program, Myspace.

Besides specific instances such as these, a general downtrend can be seen in what is actually reported on by the network. It was impossible to ignore the weeks upon weeks of Michael Jackson related news, following the famous performer's death in June of 2009. The real issue at hand is this: news networks are focusing more on attracting viewers and appealing to the general populace, rather than delivering important and pertinent information. I understand this. Obviously, news networks are trying to connect with their viewers, hook them, and keep them coming back for more. These stations need revenue to stay afloat, don't they? Of course they do. Therein lies the problem, the average (American) audience member is pardon me, a f***ing idiot. I'm really not here to insult the average stupidity of our nation's people (although it is undeniably a problem), but this inherent stupidity is forcing our news networks to act stupid, in order to appeal to them. So what kind of news do these people actually want to read? Well, let me bring up an example here. CNN's own website http://www.CNN.com, posts a column on the right side of the page where they list what news stories are the most popular for the day. Let's look at today's, shall we? Oh, *ahem* the title of the article says it all: "Police: Gang rape lasted over two hours". That's all people want nowadays: murders, rape, explosions, and any form of violence you can fathom. An old news saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." You better believe that's true.

I only hope news networks, especially CNN, will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that news is by definition, the presentation of relevant facts and events that occur around our world everyday, and keeping us, a population that cannot be as cogniscient as these news elite, informed of exactly what's going on. Focus needs to be taken off of random violence and atrocities, taken off of "modernizing", and pulled back to actually finding real stories, and reporting on them in an unbiased, interesting, and useful manner. An example of a story that shows how far our news networks have fallen? The very-recent Balloon Boy story, a supposed hoax that was still actively reported on, long after it was theorized, then proven it was a hoax. Don't even get me started on that. Think it out.

I could say more, but that's enough for now.

Keep on your toes,

Me

Academics

What does our modern American college system really teach our nation's youth? I have found myself pondering this question for a while now. Does our supposed academic process even support true academics anymore? This worries me.

When I look at modern schooling nowadays, I notice it merely encompasses the absorption of a staggering amount of facts, theories, formulas, and literature (of course depending on what subject material you are criticizing); the true analysis of ideas, discussion of pertinent information, and the overall process of real learning seems to have fallen by the wayside. I myself, a member of this system, am appalled by how robotic learning environments have become. I hear people criticize Eastern Powers overseas of exhibiting the same faults, but are we really any different? Where is this rich and colorful American "creativity" and ingenuity that I hear so much about nowadays? Was it ever there? It's not here now, at least.

One needs to look at the style of learning that plagues most classrooms nowadays: lecturing and supposed "discussion". Discussion, at least in my book, usually entails a somewhat equal sharing of ideas and information between two or more sources, in an ideally unbiased and intellectual setting. What I see in classrooms, is NOT discussion. Professors tend to merely spew forth torrents of information at these students, taking little feedback that contrasts with their academic viewpoints; is this a real way to learn? I don't know about others, but the mere presentation of facts and ideas does not constitute learning. You can throw as many buckets of water at a brick wall as you want, but none of that water is going to sustain the dying flower on the other side of that wall. If serious discussion could be actually had, with speech and thought actively encouraged, I'm sure we could turn that wall into a sponge, and that poor flower could soak in some of that sweet, life-giving water.

More on this later. For now, I must depart.

Keep your minds open,
Me

A Beginning

Hello all,

After years of watching and living in this so-called world of ours, I've finally decided to post some of my thoughts up on the internet, for any and all to read. I'll just be posting things that come to my mind, as I go through my daily life. Feel free to discuss.

Stay frosty,
Me