Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Two newspaper articles about the decline of public etiquette in the age of Internet caught my eye – one about students behaving rudely with teachers and the other describing the increasingly frequent display of incivility by public figures. I have seen similar lamentations before, some recently and others from my own teachers and parents during the 1960 - 70s when drugs, rock and roll and student revolts began to shake the middle class world although there was no Internet to chip away at our niceness. My co-blogger Dean and I had a short but candid exchange about one of the articles, drawing from the memory of our own youthful experiences.

It's been decades since I faced a class room full of energetic teenage boys. I wonder how I would have handled the new student-teacher rules of etiquette. But although my students did not carry laptops or Blackberries to class, rude notes were passed behind my back and salacious novels were often on the knees under the desk while I labored to transmit the beauty and simplicity of the Periodic Table. I don't remember even the boldest of mischief makers among my pupils ever saying, "Hey Ruchira" to my face or in writing although I am sure a few probably said much worse things out of my ear shot. The overwhelming majority of students I had encountered during my teaching years were courteous and sweet in their interactions with me and other teachers. However, that is not quite the same as pretending that teachers in my era dealt strictly with a room full of Emily Posts during school hours.

Lee Shumow doesn't want to text her students, or be their friend on Facebook, but to their chagrin prefers an old-fashioned way to communicate: e-mail.

The educational psychology professor at Northern Illinois University appreciates when students take the time to reply. It's an extra treat when they don't begin their message with, "Hey, Lee."

She and many of her colleagues believe such informality has seeped into the college classroom environment, citing student behavior that's best described as rude or oblivious. As students begin a new semester this month, instructors bracing for yet another onslaught blame technology for creating a disengaged generation whose attention is constantly diverted by laptops, phones and iPods.

Others point to the unruly classroom as a reflection of an increasingly ill-mannered society. Nearly 70 percent of Americans polled in 2005 said they believe people are more rude than they were 20 to 30 years ago.

"I literally cannot imagine having addressed any teacher I had in my career as 'Hey' and then their first name,' " said Shumow, who has a doctoral degree and has taught 15 years at NIU. "I love them. I won an award for undergraduate teaching in 2005. But man, the world has really changed from when I was a student."

To their credit, most students are respectful and more inquisitive than ever, faculty members say.

About public figures behaving badly, the recent outbursts by tennis star Serena Williams, rapper Kanye West and of course, South Carolina congressman Joe "You Lie" Wilson illustrate the second article. I like Serena, do not know anything about Kanye West and I feel that Congressman Wilson's finger wagging condemnation of the president was inappropriate. I agree that all three behaved quite outrageously. But were they very much worse than some of their predecessors in history to warrant the kind of harrumphing that the media and the public are indulging in?  Or do we feel more unsettled because the explosion in the communications tools at our hands enables us to see and experience the ugliness instantaneously and endlessly? For example, was Serena any more out of control than John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase or Jimmy Connors in their heyday? Aren't most rockers and rappers wild and uncouth?  But are they especially naughty compared to the sexist, racist and self absorbed media stars of earlier eras?  Did Wilson do more harm to Obama than another congressman from South Carolina once did to a senate member of his day? Or is our sense of public propriety really going down the slithery tube?

Southern_Chivalry

Is this a nation of loudmouth brats?

It's difficult to imagine Theodore Roosevelt or James Madison coaxing along the country as President Obama did Sunday on 60 Minutes, sayingthe loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention. And so, one of the things I'm trying to figure out is, you know, how can we make sure that civility is interesting?”

Obama was, of course, referring to U.S. Rep Joe Wilson's highly uncivil “You lie!” outburst during a joint session of Congress last week (interesting, yes; civil, no). But who knew on the very weekend Obama cited loud, shrill voices of dissent that other uncivil voices, just as loud and shrill, were making themselves heard?

Incivility was working overtime Sunday night when hip-hop artist Kanye West interrupted 19-year-old country-pop singer Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards to insist Beyoncé made a better video, and Saturday night when Serena Williams broke into an expletive-laced tirade against a line judge at the U.S. Open semifinals.

Whether it's Levi Johnston's unflattering tell-all about his almost-mother-in-law Sarah Palin in the October issue of Vanity Fair or University of Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount's sucker punch of a Boise State defensive end on national television, it seems like high season for bad behavior.

The only good take-away from these well-publicized acts of incivility? That they're not generally tolerated, said Lizzie Post, a spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute of etiquette experts.

“The public's reaction to these things is an indicator to us that people want etiquette, appreciate etiquette and want to stand up for good behavior,” said the great-great-granddaughter of Emily Post. “It affirms for us that people don't appreciate Kanye jumping up on stage or Joe Wilson blatantly calling the president a liar. They don't appreciate those outbursts.”

Those outbursts may seem to be happening more often and in more ugly ways. Or perhaps we just get to watch.

“There are more ways for us to see it,” television and pop culture expert Robert Thompson of Syracuse University said of outbursts from West or Wilson, both of which easily broke through “the clutter of 300 channels of television and an infinity of Internet.”

It's not that we're more uncivil; it's just that there are more ways for us to witness it, Thompson said.

Posted in

15 responses to “Has the wired age made us more uncivil?”

  1. Elatia Harris

    Great post, Ruchira! I am trying to think of the last time I was uncivil. It wasn’t long ago. Two raging neurotics in the neighborhood were walking their two out-of-control dogs, at midnight, and I was walking my nice one. They yelled at me to keep back, loud enough to wake people inside their houses. “MUST you yell?,” I asked in a civil tone. Abuse followed, and despite the fact they were still yelling, I didn’t make out what they said. I turned away, saying “WHAT a foursome…” and headed in the other direction. Not wildly uncivil of me — but these are very unhappy people and I should have silently crossed the street rather than called them out on hostile behavior, when 1.) they weren’t going to learn anything, and 2.) I wasn’t going to feel better. I thought later that night I should ask myself, more often, Who benefits from what I might say? Too often the answer is no one. Interesting to hear how others stop themselves in time…

    Like

  2. Is it just me, or does Lee Shumow seem a bit thin-skinned? “Hey, Lee” really doesn’t strike me as being that bad. It’s impossible for me to imagine any college student beginning an email, “Dear Professor Shumow.” “Hey” is just a variant of “hi,” which just leaves addressing her by her first name. My perspective is skewed because, after just having gone through law school, I tend to think more law professors should encourage first-name exchanges. Admittedly there’s some difference between law students and college students, and it makes a difference if a teacher or professor asks to be addressed one way or the other… but especially in an out-of-class exchange, using a professor’s first name doesn’t strike me as that out of line.

    Like

  3. Also, I’ll even concede that “Hey, Lee” is inappropriate, although not wildly so, but — absent some context we’re not getting here — it’s not particularly disrespectful and it’s clearly not uncivil.

    Like

  4. Dean C. Rowan

    Much to say about this, no time. Here’s Maureen Dowd’s so-so remarks. Clearly there’s a generational thing going on. While I agree Shumow may be thin-skinned, I don’t at all regard the greeting as a “variant of ‘hi.’” It assumes a degree of familiarity that just isn’t the case. But I also think people have been turds to each other for eons. So why the fuck are we all bothered by it now?

    Like

  5. Anna

    I agree with all Dean’s points, except that I’m not certain that we are particularly more bothered by it now, as a group, than we have always been. No doubt there’s some quotation from Socrates lamenting the loss of civility among the Athenians and in particular the youth. To some degree it’s the result of shifting rules and cues in communication.
    Growing up, if I used the salutation, “Hey,” I seemed invariably to receive the punning reprimand, “Hey is for horses” from some adult or another, so it still jars me to see it in a professional context, in which I would include school (my longstanding, non-Summerhill approach to education is a subject for a far too long digression).
    I would consider some of my relationships with professors quite close, but the only professors whom I addressed by first names, in university or law school, were clinical faculty, with whom my relationship more nearly approximated a (very) junior colleague rather than a student. The nice thing about using last names is that it allows people to work quite closely together precisely because of the boundaries created by formality. People are complicated; it’s frankly kind of a relief to be able to think of someone only in their role as teacher.
    Most manners, at their best, essentially serve that function: they allow people to work well together without knowing each other well. Thus, most litigators will tell you that given the length of time that complex cases take to resolve and the high number of repeat players, bad manners from opposing counsel (while unfortunately not unusual) baffle us.
    That said, because of the cuing function of common practice, I do not necessarily consider it rude if an opposing counsel uses my first name, particularly after repeat interactions; use of last names or just “Counsel,” can actually come across as more rude under those circumstances.
    On the other hand, I once had a job applicant– an associate of roughly my experience recently laid off from a big firm– send me a post interview follow-up question addressed, “hey, anna” [sic], and that struck me as bizarre bordering on rude. It’s really about expectations as to form, and what not meeting them signals. My guess was that this guy would never write an email like that if I were an older man, or my agency were a private firm.
    By the way, Elatia, while there may have been a kinder approach (isn’t there always, if we think to hard about our reactions in hostile situations?), reminding people that they’re being unpleasant doesn’t strike me as terribly uncivil.

    Like

  6. Sammy

    the student who wrote ..”hey Lee…” – probably just didn’t know either the spelling of “hi” or what the difference is in connotation of the two. I guess, unlike in our younger days, there is no one to teach a high school kid, that there is a fine difference between “hi” and “hey”. I may be wrong in my perception, but i say from my interactions with my kid who will graduate from high school next year and her friends.

    Like

  7. An interesting discussion on the use and possible etymology of ‘hey’ as a greeting.
    Did you know that ‘Hej’ ( pronounced ‘Hey’), is ‘Hello’ in Swedish?

    Like

  8. narayan

    Welcome to the American-born world of routine informality.
    With occasional lapses, I always start letter with “Dear …”, and see no reason why this habit should not carry over to e-mails, even in the workplace. All languages have similar formal ways of addressing a respondent, and it is silly to avoid it for being a form of endearment – which it isn’t. What’s wrong with signing off with “Sincerely”, or “Truly”? What does the simple “Yours” denote, other than an elision of “sincerely” or “truly” for fear of showing emotion or anima?
    “Hey, Hi, Hello, Hallo, Hej, Hola, Oye, Oi (port)”, may have lately come to be accepted as forms of address or greeting, but it is easy to recognize that they started off as attention-getters on the order of “Listen” or “Look here”. While their use between intimates is innocuous, with the exception of the well entrenched “Hello/Hallo”, they are jarring, sometimes verging on the boorish.
    Instead of bemoaning the loss of civility, rationalizing informal speech, and invoking lawyerly excuses of context, why not set an example by reverting to habits of formal address, and expecting it in return? The loss of hipness is a small price to pay. Besides, you gets what you gives – familiarity breeds contempt.
    Lest you see this as being prissy, I do not hesitate to give as well as I get, going well over the boundaries of civility when confronted by stone-wallers who take me for a furriner. In such situations what invariably works for me is very loud and nasty language – managers are called, feathers unruffled, problems resolved, all in the interests of avoiding an escalation. Unfortunately, this happens so often that I have come to equate civility with civil rights.
    In a culture that so prizes privileged communications it is important to recognize that communication itself is a privilege that carries the obligation of some formality and respect.

    Like

  9. Dean C. Rowan

    Narayan, that is beautiful. “The loss of hipness is a small price to pay.” Indeed. I’d go further: we have nothing to lose but our hipness. But communication, alas, has been reduced to a measure of bandwidth, demanding no formality or respect. Fortunately, verbal interaction isn’t essentially about communication, anyway. The First Amendment is overrated, so Eighteenth Century. Words are feeble, pointless, dormant…and it’s a good thing, too. Interpersonal relationships do not require words, but they do require respect.

    Like

  10. I don’t agree with the formality = respect comparison. Maybe this is, as Dean noted, a generational thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll address people formally if necessary, but I prefer that it not be necessary — rather than familiarity breeding contempt, I feel like formality for the sake of formality is more likely to breed contempt. To my mind, formality is the assertion of and drawing attention to an unequal relationship, which signifies something very different than respect.

    Like

  11. Anna

    “To my mind, formality is the assertion of and drawing attention to an unequal relationship, which signifies something very different than respect.”
    It draws attention to a lack of intimacy, not of equality, in my opinion. A number of my favorite teachers and professors, when I was younger, also used students’ last names in the formal manner. I remember liking the usage, precisely because it treated us as adults and helped us rise to the occasion. My husband, who as his own employer has no dress code that he couldn’t change, says something similar about dressing for work.
    Context, however, is not a “lawyerly excuse.” Language is only as meaningful as what it communicates, and that shifts with context and time. A person who insisted otherwise would be more a bad poet than a bad lawyer (though he or she would be that, too). Referring to or calling my husband using his last name would have been ordinary in many places in the 19th century, pompous or old-fashioned in the 20th century, and deranged in 21st. The same has become true in most offices in the last 50 years (perhaps, unfortunately, because we spend too much time in these settings and thus have a false presumption of intimacy), but not among total strangers, where both usages occur, and thus there’s a choice. So long as I have a choice, I will err on the side of formality, and I feel in school settings that the choice is still there. But I’d feel officious or even rude wandering around my office as the sole person using others’ last names, after they’d offered and used my first.

    Like

  12. I agree with Anna. Propriety of language use is all about the context of place and time. Figuring out the right cues in a given situation is what makes us well or ill spoken, affable or boorish, easy or difficult to get along with. We can build and break barriers, diffuse or escalate a hostile situation, soothe or incite, show respect or disdain with the words we choose. And it is all about the context.
    Having said that, rudeness, swearing in particular, apparently has its uses – at least in alleviating pain. So claims an article in Scientific American. But don’t overdo it.

    But cursing is more than just aggression, explains Timothy Jay, a psychologist at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts who has studied our use of profanities for the past 35 years. “It allows us to vent or express anger, joy, surprise, happiness,” he remarks. “It’s like the horn on your car, you can do a lot of things with that, it’s built into you.”
    In extreme cases, the hotline to the brain’s emotional system can make swearing harmful, as when road rage escalates into physical violence. But when the hammer slips, some well-chosen swearwords might help dull the pain.
    There is a catch, though: The more we swear, the less emotionally potent the words become, Stephens cautions. And without emotion, all that is left of a swearword is the word itself, unlikely to soothe anyone’s pain.

    Like

  13. D

    Distinguish what disrespects people period from what disrespects them considering that we have adopted certain conventions. As instance of the first, there is no way of respecting a person that’s compatible with treating him as chattel. To have our debate at all, it seems we must ignore or at least hold constant this first (and more important/fundamental) sense of respect, for by no standard do we have less of it today than we did in the past.
    Distinguish too the notion that purveyors of learning and wisdom are to be esteemed from the desire that this respect be ritually manifested, for example in modes of address. The case that some degree of ritual in interaction is beneficial is qualitatively different from the case that teachers are to be valued.
    Observe that conventions of ritual manifestation themselves may be time dependent. To lament, as Sammy does, that children today don’t learn distinctions between hey and hi, is merely to restate the observation that children today don’t use words as we do. In itself this says nothing interesting about either them or us.
    Distinguish too etiquette from decency. That Levi Johnston / Joe Wilson / Kanye West behave in certain ways shows a lack of civility and decency. That I might address my American professors by first name instead of using their full titles is instead – at worst – a lack of (but see 2 and 3) Miss Manners training, of a piece with the fact that I need to constantly remind myself whether knives and forks are used outward in or inward out.
    The less hierarchical society is, the more diverse its inhabitants, and the greater the number of ways in which one may attain success, the fewer and less stringent are the ritual modes of respect-showing: in medieval serfdom everyone knew his place and how to communicate acquiescence in it.

    Like

  14. It is noteworthy that D said, “.. address my American professors by first name..” That is what context is all about. For I doubt he would do that with his Indian (or Chinese or Japanese) professors.
    There definitely is a clear distinction between decency and mere etiquette, in that the former is a sincere expression of respect and the other a “ritual mode” of showing respect, as D correctly points out. There is an over abundance of the latter in Asian societies while common decency, especially in highly hierarchical settings, is often lacking. The hang loose American system, in which some of my kids’ friends call me by my first name and interactions across the board with friends and strangers come with far fewer “formal” restrictive codes of conduct is more transparent and less confusing. But formal rituals have their uses, as Anna points out, in working intimately with others without necessarily becoming “intimate.”
    I am sure there is a golden middle path somewhere.

    Like

  15. narayan

    I don’t believe anything in this stream has suggested the equation that Joe disagrees with. ‘Formality’ has nothing at all to do with respect and should suggest neutrality instead. The first meaning of ‘formal’ is ‘of external form or structure rather than nature or content’. In light of this, ‘formality for the sake of formality’ is tautology at best, and adverse reaction to formal address pathological at worst. It is for good reason that the dictum ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ is well established English idiom (severally attributed to Aesop, St. Augustine, and Chaucer, among others) and not just something clever I cooked up to bolster my argument.
    What follows in Joe’s next sentence fits with my offhand suggestion that the routine rejection or suspicion of formality is a peculiarly American trait. When dealing with people in authority I tend to play safe by addressing them as “Sir” or “Ma’am” – pro forma. On one occasion, this so infuriated a customs official that he flew off the handle, threatening dire consequences. How exactly does one address a customs official (a contumelious breed) after a 20 hour journey if not with cautious formality? His absurd reaction, reflecting Joe’s conjecture of formality breeding contempt, exemplifies for me the exaggerated delusion of egalitarianism that Americans cling to.

    Like

Leave a reply to D Cancel reply