The Decay of Manners

Millions still practice good manners. Other millions trample them underfoot.

AT THE turn of the century, etiquette got off on the wrong foot, according to The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “In the late 19th and early 20th centuries those in the upper strata of society regarded the observance of the most trivial demands of etiquette as at once a diversion and, for the women, an occupation. More and more elaborate rituals were designed to create a sense of exclusiveness for the initiates and to keep the unworthy, ignorant of them, at a distance.”

That is a far cry from what good manners should be. Amy Vanderbilt is a respected authority on the subject of manners, and she writes in her New Complete Book of Etiquette: “The finest rules for behavior are to be found in Chapter 13 of First Corinthians, the beautiful dissertation on charity by St. Paul. These rules have nothing to do with the fine points of dress nor with those of superficial manners. They have to do with feelings and attitudes, kindliness, and consideration of others.”

What Amy Vanderbilt referred to is the Biblical passage at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, which says: “Love is long-​suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

What a rarity it would be to see love like this practiced today! Everywhere, all manners would be impeccable! The starting point in teaching and learning such manners is the Christian home. A family is a delicate machine whose parts are in close contact with one another. Only expert lubrication can keep it in smooth running order. Knowing how to be helpful, courteous, pleasant, and polite will go a long way toward making a home happy. Learning how to voice the accepted everyday expressions of courtesy and consideration​—such as “Thank-​you,” “Please,” “Forgive me,” “I’m sorry”—​will do much to eliminate destructive friction in our associations. These are little words with big meanings. Everyone can say them properly. They cost us nothing, but with them we buy friends. If we daily practice good manners in our homes, they will not leave us when we go outside the family circle and mingle with the public.

Good manners involve showing consideration for the feelings of others, according them respect, treating them as we would like for them to treat us. Many have noted, however, that manners themselves have undergone a breakdown. One writer said: “We are wanting in courtesy because individualism has gained the upper hand.” Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote: “Selfishness is such a horrible thing that we invented politeness to conceal it.” Today many believe that “polite” means “weak” and that putting others first is wimpy. Was it not the Me decade of the ’70’s that launched us into the present me-​first mode of living? One big-​city newspaper said: “The problem has reached the point where common decency can no longer be described as common.”

London’s Daily Mail reports that children as young as five years of age are increasingly belligerent, disrespectful of other children’s property, lacking in respect for adults, and using obscene language. Most teachers surveyed feel that parents are spoiling their children and that this is the root cause of the increase in unsocial behavior. Of the teachers interviewed in one survey, 86 percent blame “lack of clear standards and expectations at home.” Eighty-​two percent point to the absence of parental example as the culprit. Broken homes, divorce, live-​in relationships, too much television, no discipline, no sanctions​—it all boils down to the destruction of the family.

One elementary school principal said: “I worry about the absence of respect among children today. They don’t seem to care if they humiliate peers or offend adults. . . . They show their disrespect in many ways​—offensive signals, obscenities, refusal to obey simple orders . . . , willingness to hog the ball . . . [On the other hand,] children from some homes tend to respect others. They don’t have to be teacher’s pet . . . , but they behave respectfully toward others. They wait their turn while others push ahead . . . Either it’s instilled [in the children] or not.”

Another elementary school principal, a veteran of many years, goes further: “We’re seeing more just plain meanness. On the playground kids don’t seem to play like they used to; they rove around in gangs. They’re quick to identify the weak ones, kids on the fringe, kids who don’t wear the right sneakers or jeans. They go after them, taunt them; there’s a vicious edge to it. We’ve tried to stop it, but we haven’t been very successful.”

“Many people are driving incredibly rudely,” says Professor Jonathan Freedman of Columbia University. “It’s almost a battleground on the highways.” The Monthly Letter of the Royal Bank of Canada speaks of “the relentless carnage on the roads” and concludes that “the core of the problem is uncivil behaviour. The courtesy, consideration, forbearance, tolerance and respect for human rights which go to make up civilization are disgracefully lacking.”

The New York Times characterizes the streets of New York City this way: “It’s Motorists vs. Ambulances.” More motorists in that city are refusing to yield to emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks​—increasing the danger that someone who is critically ill or injured will die because he can’t be reached or transported to a hospital quickly enough. Captain Ellen Scibelli of the Emergency Medical Services told of a man driving on Pelham Parkway in the Bronx who refused to clear the way for an ambulance responding to a cardiac-​arrest call. “He tried to be a tough guy and not move over, but when he arrived at his house, he realized just how stupid it was. His mother had a heart attack and the ambulance was trying to get to her.”

The New York Times International told about an English organization called the Polite Society that was formed because “people have become positively beastly to one another, and something must be done.” In a column in The Evening Standard, a broadcast journalist was moved to complain: “A nation once renowned for its civility is becoming a country of boors.” A Scottish insurance company “concluded that 47 percent of all road accidents can be traced back to an act of discourtesy.”

Television has contributed heavily to the erosion of manners, especially with children and teenagers. How people dress, how people talk, how people cope with human relationships, how people repeatedly solve problems with violence​—television is a teacher. If we and our children take in a diet of fictitious and shallow programs, eventually our manners will reflect the sassy, disrespectful, and sarcastic attitudes of the characters we view. Parents are often depicted as ninnies and children as the smart ones.

The world finds satisfaction in speaking with loud, authoritative bluster​—interrupting, proud of being domineering, boisterous, condescending, provocative, challenging. It used to be that rude behavior was frowned upon by the community at large, and the perpetrator was ostracized. In today’s society a rude act can be committed without stigma being attached to the offender. And if anyone objects, he may come under verbal or physical assault! Some youths traveling in noisy groups fill the air with foul language, obscene gestures, offending observers with their crude conduct, all deliberately designed to attract attention to their defiant rebelliousness and to shock adults by their blatant display of rudeness. However, as it has been said, “rudeness is a weak man’s imitation of strength.”

The laws men have compiled to manage the conduct of humanity would fill a library, yet they have not resulted in the guidance humanity needs. Do we need still more? Or maybe fewer? It has been said that the better a society is, the less law it needs. How about just one law? This one, for example: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.”​—Matthew 7:12.

Obedience to that law would sweep away most of the current problems, but still, to complete the needs of society, a more important law must be added: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.”​—Mark 12:30.

Today’s society dismisses both of these Biblical requirements as unnecessary, along with any other guidelines contained in the Bible. The Bible speaks of such ones at Jeremiah 8:9: “The wise ones have become ashamed. . . . They have rejected the very word of Jehovah, and what wisdom do they have?” They also see no need for a public consensus on the true values that have traditionally been recognized as essential for our guidance. Their new morality is a broad way that gives room for any alternative life-​styles that individuals may choose​—the broad way that Jesus identified as the road leading off into destruction—​and many are the ones going off into it.​—Matthew 7:13, 14.

The Perfect Example

Jesus Christ, the one “who is in the bosom position with the Father,” is an outstanding example worthy of imitation. (John 1:18) In dealing with people, he was tender and compassionate on the one hand, forceful and firm on the other; yet he was never rude or unkind to anyone. Commenting on “his extraordinary gift of being at ease with all sorts of persons,” the book The Man From Nazareth says of Jesus: “Alike in public and in private he associated with men and women on equal terms. He was at home with little children in their innocence and strangely enough at home too with conscience-​stricken grafters like Zacchaeus. Respectable home-​keeping women, such as Mary and Martha, could talk with him with natural frankness, but courtesans also sought him out as though assured that he would understand and befriend them . . . His strange unawareness of boundaries that hemmed ordinary people in is one of his most characteristic qualities.”

Jehovah God is always mannerly when dealing with those below him, often adding “please” to his requests. When granting his friend Abraham a blessing, he said: “Raise your eyes, please, and look from the place where you are.” And again: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars.” (Genesis 13:14; 15:5) When giving Moses a sign of His power, God said: “Stick your hand, please, into the upper fold of your garment.” (Exodus 4:6) Many years later, Jehovah, through his prophet Micah, said even to his wayward people: “Hear, please, you heads of Jacob and you commanders of the house of Israel. . . . Hear, please, this, you head ones.” (Micah 3:1, 9) In this respect, have we “become imitators of God” in saying please when dealing with others?​—Ephesians 5:1.

So, what guidelines or moral precepts do the worldly-​wise offer as replacements for the Biblical ones they reject as unacceptable? The following article considers this.

[Blurb on page 4]

Common decency can no longer be called common

[Blurb on page 5]

The ambulance was trying to reach his mother

[Blurb on page 6]

“Rudeness is a weak man’s imitation of strength”

[Picture Credit Line on page 3]

Left: Life; Right: Grandville

Manners Rejected by the “New Morality”?

‘Woe to those putting bad for good, dark for light, bitter for sweet.’​—Isaiah 5:20.

THE 20th century saw sweeping changes in manners and morals. In the decades that followed the two world wars, the old value systems gradually came to be viewed as outmoded. Changing conditions and new theories in the fields of human behavior and science convinced many that the old values were no longer valid. Manners once held in high regard were shed as excess baggage. Bible guidelines once respected were rejected as outmoded. They were much too restrictive for the freewheeling, liberated society of ultramodern individuals of the 20th century.

The year that saw this turning point in human history was 1914. The writings of historians concerning that year and World War I are replete with their observations declaring 1914 to be a year of momentous change, a real marker dividing epochs in human history. The Roaring Twenties charged in on the heels of the war and people tried to catch up on the fun missed during those war years. Old values and inconvenient moral restraints were brushed aside to clear the way for the fun splurge. A new morality, indulging fleshly pursuits, was informally installed​—basically an anything-​goes approach. The new moral code inevitably carried with it a change in manners.

Historian Frederick Lewis Allen comments on this: “Another result of the revolution was that manners became not merely different, but​—for a few years—​unmannerly. . . . During this decade hostesses . . . found that their guests couldn’t be bothered to speak to them on arrival or departure; that ‘gate-​crashing’ at dances became an accepted practice, people were ‘fashionably late’ for dinners, left burning cigarettes about, scattered ashes on rugs, without apology. The old bars were down, no new ones had been built, and meanwhile the pigs were in the pasture. Some day, perhaps, the ten years which followed the war may aptly be known as the decade of Bad Manners. . . . If the decade was ill-​mannered, it was also unhappy. With the old order of things had gone a set of values which had given richness and meaning to life, and substitute values were not easily found.”

Substitute values that restored richness and meaning to life were never found. They were not sought after. The exciting anything-​goes life-​style of the Roaring Twenties freed people of moral constraints, which suited them just fine. They were not casting morality aside; they were just revising it, loosening it up a bit. In time they called it the New Morality. In it each one does what’s right in his own eyes. He’s number one. He does his own thing. He blazes his own trail.

Or so he thinks. Actually, three thousand years ago, wise King Solomon said: “There is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) Even earlier, during the period of the Judges, Israelites had considerable latitude as to whether they would obey God’s Law or not: “In those days there was no king in Israel. What was right in his own eyes was what each one was accustomed to do.” (Judges 21:25) But the majority proved unwilling to heed the Law. By sowing this way, Israel reaped hundreds of years of national disasters. Similarly, nations today have reaped centuries of pain and suffering​—and the worst is yet to come.

There is another term that identifies the New Morality more specifically, namely, “relativism.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines it thus: “A view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.” In a nutshell the disciples of relativism contend that whatever is good for them is ethical for them. One writer enlarged upon relativism when he said: “Relativism, long lurking below the surface, emerged as the prevailing philosophy of the ‘me decade’ of the seventies; it reigns still in the yuppieism of the eighties. We may still give lip service to traditional values, but in practice, the right is whatever is good for me.”

And that includes manners​—‘If it suits me, I’ll do it; if it doesn’t, I won’t. It wouldn’t be right for me, even if it were more mannerly for you. It would ruin my radical individualism, make me look weak, turn me into a wimp.’ Apparently, for such people this applies not just to acts of rudeness but also to such easy, everyday niceties as ‘Please, I’m sorry, Excuse me, Thank you, Let me get the door for you, Take my seat, Let me carry that package for you.’ These and other phrases are like gentle lubricants that smooth out and make pleasant our human relationships. ‘But showing manners for others,’ the me-​firster would object, ‘would negatively affect my living up to and projecting my image of being number one.’

Sociologist James Q. Wilson attributes the increased friction and criminal conduct to the collapse of what today “is sneeringly referred to as ‘middle-​class values,’” and the report continues: “The demise of these values​—and the increase in moral relativism—​appears to correlate with a higher crime rate.” It certainly correlates with the modern trend to reject any restraint on self-​expression, regardless of how ill-​mannered or offensive it may be. This is as another sociologist, Jared Taylor, said: “Our society has moved steadily from self-​control to self-expression, and many people dismiss old-​fashioned values as repressive.”

Practicing relativism makes you the judge of your personal conduct, brushing aside anyone else’s judgment, including God’s. You are deciding for yourself what is right and what is wrong for you, just as the first human pair did in Eden when they rejected God’s edict and decided for themselves what was right and what was wrong. The Serpent deceived Eve into thinking that if she disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit, then it would turn out as he said to her: “Your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.” So Eve took some of the fruit and ate it and then gave some of it to Adam, and he ate it. (Genesis 3:5, 6) Adam and Eve’s decision to eat was a disastrous one for them and calamitous for their offspring.

After a lengthy summary of corruption found among politicians, businessmen, athletes, scientists, a Nobel prize winner, and a clergyman, one observer said in a speech before the Harvard Business School: “I believe we are experiencing in our country today what I choose to call a crisis of character, a loss of what traditionally through Western civilization had been considered those inner restraints and inner virtues that prevent us from pandering to our own darker instincts.” He spoke of “words that will almost sound quaint when uttered in these surroundings, words like valor, honor, duty, responsibility, compassion, civility​—words which have almost fallen into disuse.”

In the ’60’s on university campuses, certain issues exploded. Many claimed that ‘there is no God, God is dead, there is nothing, there is no transcendent value, life is utterly meaningless, you can overcome the nothingness of life only by heroic individualism.’ The flower children took their cue from this and went out to overcome the nothingness of life by ‘sniffing coke, smoking pot, making love, and seeking personal peace.’ Which they never found.

Then there were the protest movements of the ’60’s. More than just fads, they were embraced by the mainstream of American culture and led into the Me decade of the ’70’s. Thus we entered a decade that Tom Wolfe, the social critic, called “the decade of Me.” That graduated into the ’80’s, cynically called by some, “the golden age of greed.”

What does all of this have to do with manners? It is about putting yourself first, and if you put yourself first, you cannot easily give way before others, cannot put others first, cannot exercise good manners toward others. By putting yourself first, you may be, in fact, indulging in a form of self-​worship, a worship of Me. How does the Bible describe someone who does that? As a “greedy person​—which means being an idolater,” as showing “covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5) Whom do such people really serve? “Their god is their belly.” (Philippians 3:19) The sordid alternative life-​styles that many people have chosen as morally right for them and the calamitous, death-​dealing consequences of those life-​styles only prove the truthfulness of Jeremiah 10:23: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”

The Bible foresaw all of this and predicted it as a warning feature of “the last days,” as recorded at 2 Timothy 3:1-5, New English Bible: “You must face the fact: the final age of this world is to be a time of troubles. Men will love nothing but money and self; they will be arrogant, boastful, and abusive; with no respect for parents, no gratitude, no piety, no natural affection; they will be implacable in their hatreds, scandal-​mongers, intemperate and fierce, strangers to all goodness, traitors, adventurers, swollen with self-​importance. They will be men who put pleasure in the place of God, men who preserve the outward form of religion, but are a standing denial of its reality. Keep clear of men like these.”

We have drifted far from what we were created to be​—in the image and likeness of God. The potential attributes of love, wisdom, justice, and power are still within us but have become unbalanced and distorted. The first step on the way of return is revealed in the last sentence of the Bible text quoted above: “Keep clear of men like these.” Seek out a new environment, one that will change even your internal feelings. Instructive toward this end are the wise words written years ago in The Ladies’ Home Journal by Dorothy Thompson. Her quote opens with the declaration that to overcome juvenile delinquency, it is necessary to educate a youth’s emotions rather than his intellect:

“His actions and attitudes as a child largely determine his actions and attitudes as an adult. But these are not inspired by his brain, but by his feelings. He becomes what he is encouraged and trained to love, admire, worship, cherish, and sacrifice for. . . . In all this manners play an important role, for good manners are nothing more or less than the expression of consideration for others. . . . Internal feelings are reflected in external behavior, but external behavior also contributes to the cultivation of internal feelings. It is hard to feel aggressive while acting considerately. Good manners may be only skin deep to start with, but they seldom remain so.”

She also observed that, with rare exceptions, goodness and badness “are not conditioned by the brain but by the emotions” and that “criminals become so not from hardening of the arteries but from hardening of the heart.” She stressed that emotion governs our conduct more often than the mind and that the way we are trained, the way we act, even if forced at first, influences internal feelings and changes the heart.

However, it is the Bible that excels in giving the inspired formula for changing the inner person of the heart.

First, Ephesians 4:22-24: “You should put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive desires . . . You should be made new in the force actuating your mind, and should put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”

Second, Colossians 3:9, 10, 12-14: “Strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it. Accordingly, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-​suffering. Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave you, so do you also. But, besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union.”

Historian Will Durant said: “The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism, not Europe versus America, not even the East versus the West; it is whether men can live without God.”

To live a successful life, we must heed his counsel. “My son, my law do not forget, and my commandments may your heart observe, because length of days and years of life and peace will be added to you. May loving-​kindness and trueness themselves not leave you. Tie them about your throat. Write them upon the tablet of your heart, and so find favor and good insight in the eyes of God and of earthling man. Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding. In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.”​—Proverbs 3:1-6.

The kind and considerate good manners learned by centuries of living are not excess baggage after all, and the Bible’s guidelines for living are not outmoded at all but will prove to be for mankind’s eternal salvation. Without Jehovah, they cannot continue to live, for ‘with Jehovah is the source of life.’​—Psalm 36:9.

[Blurb on page 11]

The way we act, even if forced at first, influences internal feelings and changes the heart

[Box on page 10]

Impeccable Table Manners That People Might Well Copy

Cedar waxwings, beautiful, well-​mannered, very sociable, banqueting together in a large bush loaded with ripe berries. Lined up in a row along a branch, they feed on the fruit, but not at all hoggishly. From beak to beak, they pass a berry back and forth to one another, until finally one graciously eats it. They never forget their “children,” tirelessly bringing food, berry by berry, until all the empty mouths have had their fill.

[Credit Line]

H. Armstrong Roberts

[Picture on page 8]

Some say: ‘Trash the Bible and moral values’

[Picture on page 9]

“God is dead.”

“No meaning to life!”

“Smoke pot, sniff coke”

[Picture Credit Line on page 7]

Left: Life; Right: Grandville