In a visit to California earlier this year, I was walking down the street with a group of friends and stopped at a pedestrian crossing. One of my companions made a fairly banal remark about the prices being unusually high in the stores we had just been touring, when out of the blue a man standing in front of us turned around and, with an ear-to-ear grin of self-satisfaction, announced: “It’s the white people’s fault. We’ve destroyed the country!” (The man himself was, of course, white.) We smiled and muttered awkwardly, having been put in an uncomfortable position, and waited for our paths to diverge.
During the same trip, my brother had a similar experience standing in an airport queue. Standing in the line ahead was a family from Canada, succeeded by a talkative American. The American man asked the family where they were coming from, and when he found out that they were foreigners, he expressed surprise that they were entering the country given “the current political state”. This was, of course, in reference to the re-election of President Donald Trump, as some other acid remarks made clear.
In both instances, the person involved seemed to be under the impression that what he was saying was an absolutely reasonable and universally accepted belief – that no one could possibly disagree with him. Concerning the US President in particular, the same kind of attitude can be seen here in Ireland as well: people seem perfectly happy to volunteer their unsolicited and always highly unfavourable views concerning President Trump, blithely assuming that everyone will be in agreement with them. While one might be inclined to brush off such seemingly trivial matters, this kind of behaviour is more destructive than it might seem at first.
One thing should be made clear: this is not an issue of free speech. Both men mentioned above were perfectly within their rights to say what they said. They have a right to their opinions, and to make them known. Nevertheless, their behaviour was not the kind that should be considered socially acceptable or normal, because it violated basic rules of civility.
In times past, there was a precept in polite society that one should never bring politics or religion into conversation with strangers or fresh acquaintances. Nevertheless, people today seem completely open to unabashedly promoting their personal views on everything from politics to gender. This kind of attitude was aptly satirised by the great Oscar Wilde in his short story “The Remarkable Rocket”, when the titular character said: “Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everybody in good society holds exactly the same opinions”. Seemingly, many people today believe the Rocket to be right.
What is the purpose of the traditional taboo on politics and religion in new company? It is an age-old maxim, so there must be some wisdom to it. Put simply, it was invented with the purpose of keeping polite society polite, people friendly, and conversation healthy and productive. Certainly, politics and other similarly important issues must be discussed – how else would society ever make any progress in any way? Nevertheless, these topics should be reserved for appropriate situations.
Bringing up politics where it may be unwelcome simply shows a lack of respect or consideration for those around. Not only does unnecessarily expressing a divisive opinion spark dislike in people, it also creates an air of discomfort, as anyone knows who has ever found themselves in the presence of an outspoken person with polar opposite views to one’s own.
One might of course say, “So what? Why should I care if people’s feelings get hurt, especially when I am telling the truth?” It is true that there are certain issues worth speaking up about, and for which one must risk the discomfort of others. Nevertheless, there is a place and time for speaking even about these issues. It is important for people to raise their voices concerning major injustices, but not everywhere they go, nor to everyone they meet. Regarding the concern of offending others, I would not suggest either that one should only say what people want to hear at all times. What I would say is that there are appropriate places and times for the appropriate people to hear things. Most people would agree that children should not be told about crimes like rape or murder. These are major issues, and people have the freedom to speak on them, but this does not change the fact that it would be totally inappropriate to lecture childish minds about them. Similarly, it is important to keep certain issues for certain company among adults, as many people will be unwilling to discuss some subjects, while others may be excited to strong emotions over them.
Unfortunately, people today seem not to understand the basic idea of politeness. This seems to be a result of one of two possibilities: that they don’t understand why they should be polite to others; or that they are under the delusion that everyone thinks the same way they do.
It is certainly worth considering why politeness is necessary. It becomes clear, however, that it is in fact crucial once you start to see the result of abandoning it. Simply look at the political situation in the US. Say what you want about the President’s policies, but he is far from a polite man, and his abrasiveness has probably been one of the main factors that has escalated the culture war (just take a look at how he addressed a female reporter earlier in the week). Similarly, the Democratic party has been alienating voters simply because of how nasty many of its representatives and speakers are. The truth is that politeness is the grease for the wheels of society, and without it, everything would creak, scrape, and jar until the machine can no longer work.
Of course, the other possibility may be true: that these aforementioned people believe everyone around to be like-minded, assuming they have common sense. This attitude of mental superiority is a cancer to polite society, and another form of polarising behaviour. When you act upon the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is not worth listening to or considering, you will immediately create a strong division in society, where each side believes the other to be unequivocally wrong, and eventually evil. This in turn leads to escalating political tensions which eventually must find some outlet. Sooner or later, this outlet may take the form of physical violence, as proven too many times in recent months in the US.
The rules of civility keep society polite, and people friendly. I do not suggest that in groups of friends, or other familiar and appropriate gatherings, the subjects of politics, religion, or anything else cannot or should not be touched on. What I argue is that people should develop some kind of restraint and keep themselves from blurting out their ideas to everyone else as if they were fact – and fact that everyone else wants to hear about.
It is no coincidence that along with the rise in this willingness to express controversial opinions in public, we have seen a rise in polarisation. When people can live in a society where they do not define themselves by their divisive opinions, believe it or not, society will be less divided.
________________________________
Patrick Vincent writes from Dublin