MIND MOVES Marie MurrayThe rules of etiquette seem to have little to do with our world today. Regarded as the secret code of a bygone era, by design they distinguished between those who were "well derived" and people of so-called social inconsequence. Aristocratic status provided almost automatic admittance to select circles. For others, their speech, manner, dress and deportment identified them as unworthy of invitation to genteel society.
In former times it was essential that a lady conducted herself with propriety. Displays of emotion were unseemly. Modesty, manners, gentility, decorum and demureness were essential ladylike demeanours. Flaunting oneself was unbecoming. Suggestions of romantic interest were strictly the prerogative of men. Women who indicated any such inclinations, such lack of refinement or forwardness were consigned to the realm of wantonness. Fine lines were also drawn between being coquettish, flirtatious and coy.
Life was laced with behavioural terminology affirming, charm, affability, cordiality, delicacy and dignity. Alternatively, vanity, folly, insensibility and breeches of etiquette were decried and punished. Gentlemen were equally obliged to observe complex behavioural codes; being careful to address only those ladies to whom they had been introduced and never taking the vacant seat next to a woman not of their acquaintance. Ladies were not subjected to harsh, coarse or crude language and retired after dinner to allow men to enjoy their cigars, to pass the port (of course to the right) and to engage in discussion not necessarily fit for delicate ears. Besides, there were philosophical positions, political affairs and the concerns of state to be deliberated upon: the intellect of women being unable for such matters.
Does not Jane Austen in Northanger Abbey makes it abundantly clear, that "a woman, especially, if she have the misfortunate of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can"? Clearly, anything so gross as academic interest or evidence of intellect was not high on the list of feminine charms likely to engage male interest in times past. Of course, gentle readers, there are some so bold as to suggest that, in that particular, time has occasioned little change.
Yet over the years the rules of social interaction have changed significantly. What was once de rigeur would be ridiculed today. How many men and women commuting to and from work are in circumstances that require changes of attire between morning, afternoon and evening, unless it be the change for gym or swim before or after work?
As for dressing for dinner, the TV tray hardly requires black tie, the symmetry of silver settings or glasses for each beverage and John Betjeman might not require Norman to "phone for the fishknives" any more. Few formalities surround the after dinner cuppa which is now probably a mug, not necessitating an extended little finger while supping.
Social interactions have changed exponentially. Informality has replaced earlier forms of address: first-name exchange being almost immediate. Third person invitations and replies are confined to more formal events, dispensing with the need to reach for Debrettes daily for envelope etiquette when the "send" email icon can deliver immediately. Pomposity has become a source of comedy, a parody on protocol exemplified by the suburban absurdity of TV character Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced Bouquet of course) devoted to delusions of grandeur, of falsity and façade.
There are many who welcome this passing of what they believe was pageantry and pretension, who reject the formalities of what they associate with an oppressive colonial past that has no cultural relevance to the Ireland of this era. Egalitarian society cannot continue to countenance privilege based on such discriminatory ways. There is no place for U and non-U and the linguistic distinctions that divided them.
But there are also people who distinguish between the inane aspects of earlier etiquette and the modern merits of good manners: polite practices, decency, civility, understatement and respect for others. They lament the passing of simple politeness, the common courtesies, the written thank-you note on receipt of a gift, the bus seat vacated for older occupants, the door held open, the apology upon inadvertent offence, the offer of assistance when obviously required and just some restraint in what is spoken about and how it is said. They are concerned that there has been an over-correction whereby the crude, rude and crass have become commonplace as if politeness is politically incorrect.
For manners maketh the psychological milieu in which we live, they say, and perhaps, dear reader, they are right?
So, gentle reader, lest I appear too bold in my persuasions, too dogmatic of disposition, indecorous in the manner of my writing; rather than my doing so, I beg you to determine the merits of manners in our world.
Should you desire your deliberations to be documented in this praiseworthy publication, a carefully composed communication, suitably addressed to our Madam editor may allow your worthy words imprint upon the letters page reserved for dear readers such as you.
mmurray@irish-times.ie
Marie Murray is director of psychology at St Vincent's Hospital, Fairview, Dublin.