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