In this slim volume about contemporary American manners based on a series of lectures delivered at Harvard, Judith Martin claims to “solve the problem that baffled Mr. Jefferson.” The problem Jefferson (and other founding fathers) faced was the enunciation of a set of etiquette guidelines that properly reflected a country whose people were all created equal. What Jefferson proposed and had to shortly thereafter scrap was an etiquette that ignored social rank, status, title, etc. and which placed all individuals on the same plane, which apparently gave offense to nearly everyone.
The problem in America, Martin asserts, is that there is no longer a distinction between manners (the social premises of a people) and etiquette (rules of behavior derived from those social premises). Additionally there is the problem of confusing manners with morals, that from a Rousseauian premise: that good naturally arises out of individuals whose behavior is least tainted by civilization. In consequence, since manners and etiquette are nothing if not civilized, natural behavior—ie, no etiquette and no manners—is preferable. This dovetails with pop psychological assertions about the virtues of instant intimacy, that truth should flow immediately between individuals. Martin points out that intimacy, authenticity, and naturalness are in direct conflict with the purpose of etiquette, which is to define and retain common, well-observed boundaries of privacy that can be smoothly negotiated.
A chief difficulty in defining such boundaries is that class (of the sort that formerly, rigidly defined English culture) is taboo in the United States, so Americans make of money a way to distinguish one’s worth. The withering of family and civic activities (religious, philanthropic, cultural) compounds the problem, so that everything devolves to business relations. Martin notes that as social connections whither and people become more alone, the chief source of friendly intercourse is their bank (or some other commercial enterprise), which uses the trappings of friendliness to conduct its business. A social model for business also blurs the relationship of customer and business.
The question Martin poses is this: “How can the equality of all citizens be represented symbolically in the decidedly unequal world of business, where some people are bosses and others are their employees?” Her answer: “Only in the private realm, where each citizen can exercise autonomy and choice, is full equality possible.” Because the private realm has all but been swallowed up by the commercial world, there must be an effort made to re-establish the private realm, in which absolute standards such as job titles and money would be excluded and personal qualities, instead, would make some individuals obviously superior to others. This dual system of manners would generate two separate etiquettes.
Judith Martin was writing in 1985, but the permeability of the two spheres of one’s life—business and personal—are today no less intertwined, and Miss Manners in her daily column continues to help people sort out the etiquette involved when friends or colleagues use inappropriate manners, whether demanding at work personal information, or friends asking for money as gifts for hosting a dinner. Many, many droll examples of the inappropriate application of business etiquette to the personal realm and personal etiquette to commercial realm are cited, and they are so humorously evocative they inspire reflection on matters that can easily distract from her simple thesis. Suffice it to say, Miss Manners has imposed a moral lesson in a very entertaining fashion, wryly and wittily.