<-- Intentions, Purposes, and Goals
--> Table of Attitudes
 

Article 68
December 4, 1990

Universal Etiquette

But by finding a system of ethics that is based in Man's deepest intentions -- those directed toward empowerment and communion -- it may be possible to construct a universal morality, based on the precept: "So act as to maximize empowerment and communion for all people." And by understanding what the purpose of manners is, it should be equally possible to assemble a transcultural "universal etiquette".

When I was an adolescent, manners seemed to be a form of phoniness, a way of acting that was meant to impress others with what a nice, sophisticated and aristocratic person you were. I resisted manners as being mere social rituals. I agreed with the saying "Clothes do not make the man," and I felt that manners, like fancy clothes, were a form of false advertising. I tended to distrust people who were overly well-mannered or well-dressed. It wasn't until relatively recently that I realized that manners are not for the benefit of the person who has them but for other people! In fact, the intent of manners is to help others to relax and feel more comfortable, to help them feel respected as independent beings. In short, far from being a mere set of social rituals intended to enforce status, manners are, in fact, a set of rules intended to create a safe space and thereby to promote communion.

Sometimes social rituals will help to promote a safe space by providing a degree of orientation and predictability, a function I will refer to later in this article. But sometimes a strict adherence to social rituals only causes awkwardness and discomfort and so, in fact, could be considered rude, rather than polite. When dealing with a stranger, it may help the other person to feel respected in you refer to him or her as "Sir" or "Ma'am". On the other hand, if you have become good friends and then you start (in all seriousness) using a formal style of address, you are actually being quite rude by creating a sense of coldness. Or, if you are dealing with someone who is not, himself, well-versed in your social conventions, adhering to them yourself can be an extreme form of rudeness. My mother, who was very well versed in the intricacies of Emily Post, used to illustrate this point by presenting the following case of truly good manners:

At a black tie dinner, a foreign dignitary, not being fully familiar with western customs, started drinking from his fingerbowl. Sensing the momentary hush of embarrassment that fell over the distinguished gathering, the host started drinking out of his fingerbowl, thus restoring a sense of normalcy to the proceedings.

The Rules of Universal Etiquette

Let us take a new look at these generalized Rules of Universal Etiquette and see how they operate in life to create a safe space and promote communion:

1. Do not interpret for people.


In viewing sessions, we regard the viewer as an authority on his own experience, so why shouldn't that also be true in life? It is extremely rude -- i.e., disruptive to a relationship -- to give people psychological interpretations about what they have done or said. Saying things like: "You're just saying that to hurt me," or "You're just being a carbon copy of your father," does not result in psychological insight, in or out of session. If the proffered interpretation is accepted, a type of dependency may result; if rejected, an upset is likely to ensue from the wrong indication. Such comments are not, in fact, usually made to help someone acquire psychological insight but rather to introvert and hurt. If you really want to help someone find a deeper meaning in his own actions or words, consult him (with his permission, of course). The person-centered viewpoint is a proper one to assume at all times, not just in session.
 

2. Do not evaluate for people.


This rule especially applies to comments made about the person you are talking to or his case. If a person tells you something about himself about which he feels guilty and you tell him that that was a terrible thing to do, he is unlikely to favor you with any further confidences -- or any more significant communication, for that matter. And even when your evaluation is positive, you can create bad effects. If someone tells me something they did that they think is really rotten, and I say, "I don't think that is so bad," the result for the other person might be a sense of relief, but ultimately he may resent your having rendered a judgment at all. Or he may, to a degree, become dependent on your reassurances. Or both. If you are truly a friend, you will not encourage such dependencies or invite such resentment. So stay with his viewpoint and accept his evaluations as true for him.

In certain instances, you might have to disagree with someone, but if so you will still fare better by labeling your judgment as your opinion (and thus as a statement about you rather than about "objective reality"). Putting it in that way doesn't lessen your opportunity to adduce evidence and reasoning to support your point of view. You can say, "In my opinion, a Volvo station wagon is a better family car than a 240Z." You can then give your reasons. That way, you are merely offering the other person another reality he might choose to accept, rather than jamming it down his throat. You are more likely to win with this approach because the other person is less likely to resist your point of view when he sees that you are not trying to force it on him.

When I disagree with someone, I also take the attitude that I may learn something that will alter my position. With this attitude, the discussion becomes more useful than if I take the attitude that I only have something to teach. The other person will be more likely to change his reality when he sees that I am willing to change mine. We have both "ante'd up", so to speak, so we are both equally committed to the game, and there's a sort of fairness in that, which the other person senses.

Under these circumstances, being wrong can be as much of a win as being right. If I am right, I have the glory and the pleasure of teaching my viewpoint to another. If I am wrong, I have the pleasure of learning something and thus having a stronger viewpoint in the future. It's almost as if I consume the other person's viewpoint, incorporate it, and am nourished by it.

A philosophical principle called the "Principle of Charity" enters into the picture, here. If someone says something to you that seems totally nonsensical or blatantly false, it is wise to adopt a "charitable" attitude about it. Assume that there is something you don't understand -- and you will be right! People rarely make utterances which to them are false or meaningless. Their utterances make sense to them. Before you wantonly invalidate the other person's statement, then, apply the Principle of Charity and assume that there is something you simply don't understand. Admit that to the person as a problem you have, and try to get a clarification. When you do so, either the other person will clarify something for himself in the course of trying to explain it to you, or your point of misunderstanding will come to light. In either case, the result will be a success for both of you.
 

3. Do not reveal or use anything people say to you in confidence for any purpose except for those agreed upon by them.


If you apply this rule and keep your agreements, you will be regarded as discreet and will gain people's confidence. If you don't, you will tend to be shunned.
 

4. Take full responsibility for situations involving other people.


Here, we are talking about multi-determinism. But that doesn't mean taking all responsibility away from others. Events do not just have one cause; they are multiply determined. Just because one person is fully responsible for a situation doesn't mean the other people involved in the situation are not also fully responsible. It isn't as though responsibility could or should be divided up "fifty-fifty". Each side should take 100% responsibility. The best strategy is to personally take full responsibility for any situation -- while at the same time allowing (but not forcing) others to take full responsibility as well. If they don't want to take any responsibility, you still take full responsibility yourself. That, of course, gives you much more control over the situation, so things are likely to go the way you want them to go.

The purpose of assigning responsibility (causativeness) to something or someone is to find a control point, a point from which a desirable change can be made. If you assign causation to yourself, then you locate a control point in yourself and thus you become a point from which the situation can be controlled. If you disenfranchise yourself by assigning away responsibility, you become a "victim of circumstances" and control lies elsewhere -- or nowhere.

Suppose your partner fails to show up for a dinner date. You were there on time, so it's his fault, right? If you take that viewpoint, the result is likely to be a deterioration in your relationship rather than a resolution of the situation. Instead, look at what you might have done (or neglected to do) to avoid this situation. Perhaps you should have been clearer or more emphatic in making the appointment. Perhaps you failed to notice that he was preoccupied. Or perhaps you should have reminded him and you didn't. One or all of these may be the case, and had you acted differently, a different outcome would have ensued. Once you have assumed full responsibility, you can discuss with him how you might have acted differently, not from a viewpoint of guilt or self-blame but just in an objective manner. In all likelihood, he will reciprocate by taking responsibility for his side of the situation, and then things will get solved in a smooth way.

The worst case (and, unfortunately, the most common one) is where each party assigns all responsibility to the other and none to self. Both thereby assign themselves the role of victim. The result is ill feeling, rather than a resolution. The same sort of situation is likely to recur repeatedly, forming a chain of traumatic incidents for both, because neither is willing to assume responsibility long enough to do something about it.
 

5. Make sure you comprehend what people are saying to you.


People know it when you get distracted and don't really follow them. A failure to comprehend is a basic violation of the Communion Triad and is a direct blow to any relationship. The Principle of Charity mentioned above is really a restatement of this point: don't dismiss the other person's point of view; comprehend it.
 

6. Be interested in other people; don't try to be interesting to them.


This principle works just as well in social situations as in viewing sessions. The interest itself creates a safe space, as well as putting you in a causative position.
 

7. Always include an intention to help in your dealings with others.


This is really a restatement of Kant's famous principle: always treat people as ends, not merely as means. If you consistently adopt the attitude of helping others achieve their ends, as well as trying to achieve your own, you are likely to be successful in your relationships with others. The fact is that what people are trying to achieve is, by definition, their own intentions. You must speak to those intentions if you want the kind of cooperative atmosphere that a good relationship requires.
 

8. In your dealings with people, take into account their physical and mental condition.


You don't want to try to get someone to handle something physically, emotionally, or mentally challenging when they are sleep-deprived, ill, or stressed out. That is why it is rude to call people late at night. They need their "down time" to themselves. Also, if you want to talk about something emotionally charged with your partner, it is best to wait for a time when he is feeling well-rested, rather than to indulge in late-night brickbat sessions. If need be, make an appointment to discuss the issue at a more suitable time.
 

9. Make sure that interactions you have with people occur in a suitable space and at a suitable time.


It is counter-productive -- and rude -- to fail to take into account possible distractions or temporal considerations that could impede the kind of interaction you want to have. It is rude, for instance, to buttonhole people when they are rushing off somewhere or to talk about embarrassing subjects in public. Also, if your place is messy or smelly, that is also unmannered, not because of its effect on your status but simply because, for many people, it requires effort to tolerate such an environment.
 

10. Act in a predictable way so as not to surprise people.


This means keep your promises and try to work out a set of policies that enable the other person, e.g., a child, to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It's rude to keep changing the rules on people. Much of Emily Post's compendium of social rules, in fact, is simply a way of producing a safe, controlled, predictable environment. But you will inevitably make up your own rules. The point is, once you have agreed-upon rules, keep to them.

Obviously there are exceptions, such as surprise parties and presents, but these are few.
 

11. Do not try to force people to do things against their will or over protest.


What applies to viewing also applies to life in general. You can't actually force someone to do something they don't intend to do anyway. All you can do is to persuade them or give them sufficient incentive to do things. And it is far better to give people positive incentives than negative ones. The best approach, when encountering protest, is to back off and make an effort to comprehend the viewpoint from which the other person is protesting. First, allow the other person to protest without penalizing him for doing so. Often, that is all you have to do. Having been freely expressed, the protest often vanishes if it is based on emotional charge. If it isn't based on charge, you can then proceed to a rational discussion of the real reasons behind the protest, deal with them effectively, and reach an agreement.
 

12. Stay focused on the activity in which you are engaged.


If that activity happens to be mere socializing, then so be it. Don't introduce business considerations into the middle of a social conversation. It is very rude to invite someone to a party and then to try to sell them a car -- or Tupperware. Likewise, it is tedious to work with someone who keeps distracting you with social chitchat when you are trying to get a job done.
 

13. Let people complete cycles they start with you.


That includes acknowledging them so that their communication cycles will be complete. It is also rude and counter-productive to interrupt someone when he is saying something, to abruptly change the subject, to monopolize a conversation, or to engage in "flooding" -- a monologue that drowns out all other communication. Flooding is rude because it leaves your companions with incomplete communication cycles of their own that have built up during your monologue -- questions, disagreements, topics of their own that they want to talk about, or even a desire to leave the conversation entirely. If you continue flooding long enough, the last will be the most likely incomplete cycle! Also, interrupting someone when he is about to complete a cycle of any kind is frustrating and rude. If you let the other person complete his cycles, the chances are that he will extend the same courtesy to you.

Communication Exercises

• Being present with other people (CE-1).
• Paying attention to other people (CE-2).
• Not reacting with negative emotion to others' communications or actions (CE-3).
• Communicating directly, clearly, and sincerely with others (CE-4).
• Encouraging others to communicate (CE-6).
• Patiently persisting, when necessary, in getting your cycles completed (CE-7).
• Skillfully handling others' concerns (CE-8).

Apply the Rules of Universal Etiquette and the CE's in relationships with all others. not just with your viewers, and you will rightly be regarded as a nice person to have around.

And if anyone accuses you of "playing shrink" with them, what do you do? Use CE-8, of course!

Frank A. Gerbode, M.D.
Director, IRM