Thanks for the F-bomb
In Thanks
for Reading, Ed
Cone writes today of the universal epidemic of rudeness:
The guy spewing
high volume F-bombs into his cell phone in an airport terminal, the
woman chomping her gum with bovine indifference in a doctor’s
waiting room – they seem oblivious to the world around them,
focused only on their own small spheres. If you ask them to stop, they
would probably say, "Why?"
And Doc's
pull quote from On
the continuing end of civilization as usual conveys Ed's
larger meaning:
The sense of what is appropriate
behavior — the sense that there is such a thing as
appropriate behavior — is diminishing across our culture.
Considering what other people will think has been replaced by a
reflexive recitation of one's rights to do as one pleases.
I'm Living in my Father's Nightmare
I frequently utter that lament. The only reason it's not my
nightmare is that I'm inured to it. The universality of today's obvious
rudeness is matched only by the universality of millenia of elders
wailing at the failures of the following generation to behave properly.
I'm in no position to judge whether the wheels are falling off the cart
of our social standards any faster than did my grandfather's.
So let's abstract the problem a little higher. The rudeness of
the proletariat is a failure of the arbiters
of taste and the people they might influence: social and business
leaders.
Manners are the outward and visible sign of an inward and
justifiable aspiration. We mimic those whom we admire in hopes of
achieving their station. Only in that sense does the trickle-down
theory actually work. There are only two explanations for the manners
meltdown:
- The well-mannered are not admirable.
- The well-mannered are not really in charge.
In either case, they will fail to inspire polite
behavior.
Case 1.
Well-mannered people are not admirable.
It is unacceptably rude behavior to enrich oneself at
the
expense of the hourly workers: to do so is beneath the dignity that
capitalists and upper management claim to possess.
It is boorish to torture enemies and to eavesdrop on fellow
citizens: it gives the lie to the nation's guiding standard of fair
play and fair dealing by powerful people. True strength would never
behave that way. Our most successful and best-dressed leaders have
trashed our economic commons by their cavalier treatment of capitalism:
on their watch, it has devolved into a sordid ponzi scheme whereby
ambitious but uninformed middle class homeowners are abused by
the slick hucksters employed by the financial industry.
Society's best and brightest purposely thrive at the expense
of the hoi polloi
that destiny has entrusted to their enlightened treatment. Is there any
behavior more contemptible?
Clearly, this is nothing new. What is new is that it's become
clear to everyone how poorly they're being treated. As John Galbraith
put it,
The modern conservative is
engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Case 2. Well-mannered people are not actually in charge.
Under this case, we let go of the simplistic, tempting
diatribes against the well-mannered. We get it that high-quality
families like Ed Cone's, who had cultural and economic sway over an
entire region and impressive industrial efforts are not out to fleece
us. Sure, they are as apt to defend their way of life as anybody, and
they're more skilled at it. But they did not set out to rob the poor,
nor did they set up systems to do so. They just couldn't help what has
happened to the middle class, because they weren't really in charge.
Since we only mimic the behavior of those in charge, we find other
prosperous people to admire and mimic, like rap stars and crack
dealers.
Perhaps there's a pendulum effect at work: good manners
trickle down only when the well-mannered are in charge and admirable.
Otherwise, boorishness bubbles up spontaneously.
11:58:28 PM 
|
