      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Miss Manners: Why Manners Matter main page    Transcript for: Miss Manners: Why Manners MatterTHINK TANK WITH BEN WATTENBERG#1326 MISS MANNERS FEED DATE: September 22, 2005 JUDITH MARTIN Opening Billboard: Funding for Think Tank is provided by... (Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. WATTENBERG/OC: It’s said that Americans have lost their manners, that they are coarse and vulgar, and that such behavior ultimately corrodes our society. This happens whether such behavior occurs in politics, in business or in our personal lives. Today’s guest argues that manners still matter. Has America lost its manners? To find out, Think Tank is joined by Judith Martin. She is known to Americans as Miss Manners, and appears in a widely distributed newspaper column, in a variety of magazines, and the Internet. She is the author of the new book, 'Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.' The Topic before the House: Why Manners Matter. This week on Think Tank. WATTENBERG: Welcome to Think Tank, Miss Manners, also known as Judith Martin. Our viewers, I think, would be very interested in your background and I wondered if you could sketch in for us how a nice woman like you got into this kind of a business. MARTIN: As opposed to finding myself a respectable career – I know, I know. It’s an embarrassment. Here I am being polite. I know, it’s terrible. WATTENBERG: I was going to say - but I’m sufficiently tuned in to politically – political correctness – I was going to say, how did a nice girl like you get into a business like this, which is a traditional line, but I said woman. Anyway, give us the quick take. MARTIN: Well, I was immediately before a movie and drama critic and I decided to widen the stage. Why not critique the whole human drama, and that’s what I do. WATTENBERG: That was in the famous Style section of the Washington Post? MARTIN: It was the Weekend section of the Washington Post. WATTENBERG: Oh, the Weekend section. MARTIN: The Weekend section. WATTENBERG: And then later it changed to the Style section. MARTIN: No, the column ran in the Style section and the criticism I did was for the Weekend section. WATTENBERG: And I read somewhere in some – that you once ran 43 consecutive or 23 consecutive negative movie reviews. Is that right? MARTIN: Did you? I never kept track. Somebody kept track? WATTENBERG: Yes. MARTIN: Well, you know, the expectation that people should be able to turn out good movies consistently, I think it’s probably at a year if you have a few good movies. How many good paintings are painted in a year? How many good poems are written in a year? WATTENBERG: That’s a good point. Now, you have been called – I read through some of the – some of the material - you have been called a social philosopher. Would you accept that encomium? MARTIN: I would accept it graciously. It is not originally what I intended. I was dealing with people’s problems, but the deeper you get into them the more philosophical the bent. WATTENBERG: Did you have a specific idea to say I’m going to do an advice column that you brought to the syndicator or brought to whoever? MARTIN: I brought it to the Post. I... WATTENBERG: Oh, I see. MARTIN: I said I have an idea for a column, which everybody universally thought was a terrible idea. WATTENBERG: Oh, really? MARTIN: Etiquette. This was in the 1970s, the late ‘70s. Who cares about etiquette, you know? And I said it’s not going to be as bad as you think, and they were kind enough to say it wasn’t as bad as they thought. WATTENBERG: You write with a certain flair and intelligence and humor and I would really recommend to our viewers that you take a gander at this whether you’re interested in etiquette or not. Now, the question is – and then I’m going to read the actual letter – the question is have we Americans lost our manners and the letter that engenders that question is: “Dear Miss Manners; Sometimes I wish we were back in 18- something where everyone was mindful of their manners. People nowadays don’t think it’s necessary to be polite; they consider it ‘old-fashioned’.” You buy that? MARTIN: Yes. She doesn’t say “18-what”, I mean during the Civil War, during... when are we talking about? Fantasy land when everybody used to behave...? WATTENBERG: She’s talking about the good old days. MARTIN: The good old days when we were young and everybody behaved and don’t you wish you could go back? No, because first of all, I’ve read history and I know what was going on then, and second of all, there have been, in addition to some modern failings, there have been great strides in manners as well. WATTENBERG: Great strides? MARTIN: Strides. The spreading of dignity to people who were never treated with dignity before. WATTENBERG: And that would be blacks and Jews and Italians and Hungarians and... MARTIN: A lot of others, yes. WATTENBERG: ...most everybody. Irishman at one point, I mean... MARTIN: Indeed it would. Yes. WATTENBERG: So... MARTIN: So that’s an enormous stride, and we have our downfalls. Goodness knows, I’m the first person to go around saying “tsk, tsk” when I find this. But don’t tell me about the good old days. WATTENBERG: Okay. I won’t. Now, one of the things that’s changed is the increase in the number and rate of women in business and in the workplace, and the letter that I’m going to read you is about that. “Dear Miss Manners; A colleague in my office has a fondness for hot pants, tight tops with plunging necklines and bracelets that rattle together. I find them incredibly inappropriate for work. I don’t want to hurt her feelings, but what’s a good way of getting her to put on some more clothes?” MARTIN: And it’s not – you said it’s women in the workplace. The men with the plunging necklines and the chests open and even the dangling bracelets exist, too. WATTENBERG: Well, well... MARTIN: This is part of the casualization, the phoniness of the business world. We’re not really doing business here; we’re really at leisure, we’re all friends, we celebrate one another’s birthday... WATTENBERG: A lot of this came out of the... MARTIN: ... we dress for play. WATTENBERG: A lot of this came out of the high-tech thing where guys would come in with loafers and jeans and a t- shirt. MARTIN: Well, they were hiding behind their computers, yes. WATTENBERG: Yes. MARTIN: Nobody knows what you’re wearing if you’re home alone with a computer. But the idea that there’s something demeaning about professional behavior and professional dress is a very interesting question. I think it goes back to a kind of – the hierarchy of jobs; everybody feels they’re not quite as important as they should be, and so well, I’m not really working here; I’m at leisure. I just happen to be doing this. I can dress as I please; I can talk as I please and of course I can go around criticizing other people which is what this writer wants to do, which is not a good idea. But... WATTENBERG: But America, sort of from its inception was regarded as a place that could be casual, where every man could... MARTIN: Not casual; simple. Benjamin Franklin made that point in Paris by refusing to wear a wig. WATTENBERG: Right. MARTIN: And that sort of thing. He was a simple man... simple. That isn’t the same as casual. Casual means “oh, whatever; who cares.” The language of clothing is high symbolism and we all, in moments where we need to know this, realize it. If you’re on trial as a criminal with a criminal charge, you’re lawyer is going to tell you how to dress and it’s not going to be in a t-shirt that says “blank you” and torn jeans. WATTENBERG: I... MARTIN: It’s got to symbolize that you’re an upstanding citizen. Well, what is wrong with symbolizing that you are in a professional role? WATTENBERG: Here’s another one. “Dear Miss Manners; I am a woman and my assistant is a man. I enjoy taking him out to lunch sometimes to show my appreciation for him and he seems to enjoy it. Sometimes the waitress makes a rude comment such as ‘you’ – to the woman – ‘you should be buying her lunch’. And I know that must embarrass him. Is there something tactful that I could say to the waitress to save his embarrassment?” MARTIN: The thing is to embarrass the waitress, but you don’t do it rudely. You look at her blankly and you turn back to the gentleman and you say, “As we were saying” and you go on. The idea – that’s part of the chumminess of why not chime in and give everybody advice and be helpful and so on. Very bad idea. The waitress is supposed to put the food on the table and not guess at the relationship between the diners. WATTENBERG: Here’s one: “Dear Miss Manners; How does one respond to and stay cool in situations where people disagree and are very vocal? I have been in awkward situations where vegetarians have accused meat-eaters of being animal-killers and ‘carnivores’. Students” - on the streets, I assume – “have accused people of the exploitation of child labor. Is there a general strategy that one can use in such situations?” MARTIN: Public debate is a wonderful thing, but that is not debate; that is insult-exchanging and people often think that etiquette inhibits the exchange of ideas and of – of tough opinions and – and so on. On the contrary, etiquette is what enables it. You could have a discussion on both sides of any of these topics, but only if people are polite. When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating. You disengage yourself as quickly as possible from the situation. WATTENBERG: Do you approve, particularly in a one-company town like – or a one-occupation town like Washington which is politics, of people frontally asking somebody at a dinner party or a cocktail party “What kind of politics do you have? Are you a republican; are you a democrat; are you a liberal; are you a conservative?” Is that appropriate conversation? MARTIN: In a social occasion? No, it isn’t, really. You can bring out topics that will illuminate the person’s opinion if you do it in an open-minded, polite way. I mean, we were just talking about the examples you gave which are people who are stating a position and the fact that anybody who does not totally endorse that position is an enemy. And there’s no talking to such people. Can people have civilized, even social conversations when they differ in opinion? Yes, but you don’t confront someone with “what are your opinions?” WATTENBERG: Alright... MARTIN: You can – if you’re two polite people, you can debate anything. WATTENBERG: You have been called a traditionalist. You buy that? MARTIN: I am a traditionalist and I’m an innovator. Most of what I do is to weigh change and legislate to the best of my ability on what should change and what should not. Do I have a respect for tradition? Of course I do. Do I have a blind belief in it? No. WATTENBERG: You have been called, well, I’m going to call you... MARTIN: I was gonna say, who’s doing all this name- calling? WATTENBERG: I don’t know if I’m going to call you that or not. MARTIN: Okay. WATTENBERG: Give me an example of when you are a traditionalist and when you’re an innovator. MARTIN: Invitations. Do you still do – or letters. Do you still on formal occasions use pen and paper or engraving and so on? Yes. Do you use email? For a thousand things. Email is wonderful. But it’s an entirely different thing. Do you – should you use cell phones? Well, it depends on the occasion. Of course, we all do. But you can use them rudely and you can use them politely. Things change. WATTENBERG: I have a two-part answer myself. I’m one of those guys who – I mean, I love it when somebody sends me a personal handwritten note, but I always have the wrong stationery. I think a year can go by without me writing a letter, “Dear Judith”, so and so. On the other hand, because of the wonders of email, I find it very easy to say things that I wouldn’t say to a person’s face, like “You are a wonderful person and thank you so much for...” blah, blah, blah. So if you’re sort of a bumbler like myself who has never gotten into that habit, is there anything really wrong with that? MARTIN: Yes. The – first of all, the people who say they find it easier to say things when they don’t look at the person, they don’t always say “you’re wonderful”; they say some mighty awful things often because they’re not facing people... WATTENBERG: But you’re comparing it to a written response. MARTIN: Yes. Alright. Suppose somebody’s parent died. You’re going to send off an email saying, “Woops, I’m so sorry.” And then put a little smiley face under “Cheer up”? It’s a dignified occasion. It requires a dignified method, which is not to say that email isn’t wonderful for a thousand different purposes. It is. But we have one more tool at our command. It doesn’t mean that we have to drop everything. We have a richer choice. WATTENBERG: Looking at the modern era, you see people walking down the street or frequently in an elevator using a cell phone or listening to iPod, whatever that is. Do you find that objectionable? MARTIN: It depends. Are they making noise that annoys other people? With an iPod probably not, and with a cell phone if they talk in a normal voice on the elevator where they could talk to other people, no; I don’t. Would you find it annoying if I’m reading a book while I’m in an elevator? WATTENBERG: Would I find it annoying? No. MARTIN: Why not? I’m just as tuned out as the person with the iPod? WATTENBERG: Because – right. MARTIN: You just like books better, right? WATTENBERG: Because we believe in America, I mean, there’s a strong streak of individualism that people can do what they want provided they’re not doing something nasty... MARTIN: Well, exactly. So why would the iPod bother you? WATTENBERG: I’m just asking. I’m trying to get a... Now, you know, I want to become a better person. What about arguing and interrupting? I have gotten into a lot of trouble over the course of a couple marriages actually of continually interrupting. Not continually, but – but I get carried away – not carried away; I don’t want to... I get a feeling that I got something I could add and I really want to put it in. And I do it on television; we get some letters in from people saying, you know, “Why don’t you let your guest finish?” What do you think? MARTIN: Well, there’s interrupting and there’s interrupting. There’s enthusiastic, “let’s continue the conversation” interrupting, which is sort of overlapping talk which can be fine, not always depending on how much you do it. But the kind of interrupting which you just described is “look, I’ve got more to say about this than you, so why don’t you stop talking and I’ll talk”, which doesn’t hold onto wives, does it? WATTENBERG: No. Thanks. Let me ask you this. Are you, generally speaking, a feminist? And here is the question. “What should an enlightened male do to help a presumably also enlightened female into his or her car? My boyfriend feels that it is demeaning to the woman when a man opens her door and waits around until she gets all tucked in and then closes the door after her.” MARTIN: I am, to answer your question, a feminist and I’m also a lady and I see no contradiction between the two. There are certain traditional charming gestures that are very appropriate in social life, which is what these people are describing and – and very inappropriate in professional life. If you are on business and people are constantly treating you as if you are there socially as a lady, it would be detrimental to your profession. WATTENBERG: Do you think as a general matter, that what is called political correctness has gone overboard in America? MARTIN: Political correctness is only used in connection with examples that have gone overboard. And so, people who condemn all kinds of things that they call political correctness find themselves in the peculiar position of defending the open expression of bigotry and insult and things like that. If you say “what do you mean by political correctness?” they will always cite an example of something ridiculously outrageous where somebody has taken insult where insult was not intended. And yes, that’s silly. But the fact that we no longer tolerate the open expression of bigotry is wonderful. WATTENBERG: I agree with that. Let’s – let’s get down to some of the hot stuff here. A lot of the new morality or the new etiquette or whatever, has to do with sex and I wonder a couple things. Do you approve of men and women living together before marriage? MARTIN: I neither approve nor disapprove. I don’t consider it my business. I’m not legislating people’s sex lives. WATTENBERG: So you sort of opt out of that and yet, as we said in the beginning, you’re really – you call yourself Miss Manners but you might call yourself Miss Behave – not Miss Behavior but Madam Behavior or whatever. MARTIN: Well, I’m not Miss Morals in that sense. There is a moral underlining to manners but the sex life is not part of that. That’s strictly in the moral realm. The moral underlining has to do with how we get along in society and how we are able to have communities where we treat one another decently. WATTENBERG: Having a code of etiquette – this is a question; it’s not going to sound that way, but having a code of etiquette is a necessity for a civilization? MARTIN: Yes. WATTENBERG: Question mark. MARTIN: Yes. Absolutely. Because – and we are proving it in unfortunate ways right now by throwing over most of the strictures of etiquette, refusing to obey them. People have found that they are just as annoyed by other people and they try to legislate by law and the law is too clumsy and harsh to legislate everyday in little matters like that that ought to be left to etiquette. But etiquette is practiced voluntarily. I can’t throw people in jail if they disobey it. And so if we do not obey it, life becomes more and more unpleasant and the way people try to deal with it is either by law or by disobeying the law by violence. We see a lot of that around of people who are – turn etiquette questions into crime on the highways. Somebody cuts you off, you run them off the road. People hitting or even shooting one another. Those – in order to have a community, you have to have a certain amount of restraint so you don’t keep irritating everybody else, and they’re supposed to have a certain amount of restraint. If you don’t have that, the level of irritation rises to the point where people go nuts. WATTENBERG: What do you think about the idea that American manners, or American culture, because you really are thinking more about just specific etiquette, has sort of spread around the world. They say, 'Yankee go home,' that we are Americanizing but at the same time they’re wearing blue jeans and sneakers and listening to our music and getting into our politics. I mean... MARTIN: We are the major etiquette influence in the world today, it’s very true. And for better or for worse. I mean, for instance, it’s an American concept that labor is dignified and that people who don’t work are a little bit suspect... WATTENBERG: Right. MARTIN: ... who live off the fat of the land, we think less of. That was never a European idea and it was not an idea in many other cultures. You looked down on people who worked with their hands. Well, that’s changed, and America changed that so that’s one of the changes for the better and I’m sure you can name plenty of changes for the worse. WATTENBERG: Right. Okay. So, I mean, do you think that in general, that the export of the American culture and the American experience around the world through all the internet and the satellites and the television and the newspapers and whatever, is a salutary development? MARTIN: I think the good parts are good and the bad parts are bad. WATTENBERG: (Laughing) But you can’t separate them. I mean... MARTIN: Well, you could. You could. WATTENBERG: Well not unless you had government control over what goes out on the network... MARTIN: No, no. Which would already defeat it. Yes. WATTENBERG: do you ever feel that you might have given bad advice to somebody and have it on your shoulders that they went ahead and followed that bad advice? MARTIN: No. I give good advice. WATTENBERG: Right on. Okay. WATTENBERG: On that note, let me ask you a final question, which is if you had it within your power, if I made you Queen Judith for the next decade or so... MARTIN: Would you, please? Thank you. WATTENBERG: Please. You are, yes. What kind of world would you like to see? What would it look today? MARTIN: I would like to see people accept the basic contract of civilization which is you want to do the best you can for yourself but not at the serious expense of other people, and therefore you take other people’s – it’s the hardest lesson in the world – you take other people’s feelings into consideration and you don’t just act on your own. And then, everybody be polite and I can go lie out in the hammock and read my book. WATTENBERG: It’s the biblical injunction, do unto others – others as you would have them do unto you. MARTIN: Basically. But then you have to have the imagination to understand that other people have other ideas and circumstances, so it’s a little more complicated. WATTENBERG: Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners, an American institution, we thank you very much for joining us on Think Tank. MARTIN: It was a great pleasure. WATTENBERG: Great. And thank you. Please, remember to send us your comments via e-mail. We think it makes our show better. For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our show better. Please send your questions and comments to New River Media, 4455 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20008 or email us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBS online at pbs.org and please let us know where you watch Think Tank. Funding for Think Tank is provided by... (Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |