THE CICAK.com

Courtesy of … courtesy

By RACHEL CHAN

“Courtesy.”

An ambiguous word, meaning something and nothing at the same time. When yours truly was commissioned to give a general opinion on the “rudeness” of Malaysian society as portrayed in the now infamous Reader’s Digest survey of the degree of politeness in 35 world cities, I was faced with an interesting question.

Simply put, one could have declined with a nonchalant turn of the head and aversion of the eyes when put on the spot with such a spontaneous question. But then calls for courtesy (as vague as the term may be) came to mind, and one simply couldn’t help but give it a try.

So, with camera flashing and microphone put literally to the test, your fresh investigative reporter attempted to generate a point of view regarding the intention behind the survey.

The moral of the story? Is the much hyped-about notion of courtesy (or the lack thereof) merely a moral judgement on the part of self-renowned experts?

Can a general definition of the concept of “rudeness” be agreed upon? And if so, then how may it be measured? One does not simply ignore the differences between local and foreign culture in determining “common courtesy.”

Surely, one does not need a Robert Langdon type to decipher this ambiguity. One can perhaps refer to this as a debate between the Western and Eastern conceptions of etiquette.

While the reporters at Reader’s Digest employed only three methods - dropping papers in a busy street to see if anyone would help, checking how often shop assistants said “thank you,” and counting how often someone held a door open, there is doubt as to whether these are universal determinants of manners.

Assuming this is an exercise done in jest, however, then one need not have so much ill-will over mere listings. A reshuffle of its variables will very likely render a different outcome. But the tone of the report, however, sounded preachy. In concluding the survey, the afterword mentioned that the cities ranking at the bottom half of the list could “use a top-up.” Rubbing salt into the wound, it is not surprising that some cities in particular took offence at the ratings.

Perhaps one might say, just “close one eye” and make like Jasin MP Mohd Said. Is “national pride” at stake?

Facts do not speak for themselves. Facts need to be interpreted and meanings attached to create a comprehensible view of a hypothesis.

The Western conception of etiquette is commonly believed to originate from bored French aristocrats who occupied themselves with creating elaborate systems of conduct. Much of these were concerned with issuing tickets listing the rules and regulations of the French court for all to observe and abide by. Also, one of the purposes of issuing such tickets (much like yellow cards in football) was to keep French courtiers’ feet off the royal grass.

Pioneered by a particularly nitpicky gardener who was a stickler for maintaining that his well-tended lawns remain untouched by human feet, the tickets were issued by the much-harassed king telling his courtiers where to walk. Keep within the “tickets” – hence “etiquette” (originally estiquet), the French equivalent of “ticket.”

Counter-theories echo Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in suggesting that etiquette emerged as a form of social contract between humans who resorted to codes of conduct to ensure peace would be maintained. One manifestation of this is the practice of shaking hands. Giving somebody his hand was a warrior’s way of indicating he was unarmed and came in peace.

Switching to Eastern conceptions of etiquette, we take on the Chinese experience of etiquette as a case for analysis. Etiquette, or decorum in Chinese civilisation was largely class-based, consisting of sets of behaviour deemed appropriate for each person’s station in the social hierarchy. As one’s position in the hierarchy escalated, so did the number of mannerisms deemed suitable. Perhaps in similar vein to that of the culture of memorising notes for exams, guidelines for “manners” came in hard, solid facts best served daily, so much so that adopting the proper etiquette became essentially part and parcel of one’s life.

The Chinese word for etiquette, li (social propriety), a Confucian term, originally meant “to sacrifice.” A thorough knowledge of hundreds of proper forms of behaviour was necessary to attain the ideal expression of the “superior being.” This ideal is illustrated by the Five Relationships: kindness in the father, filial piety in the son; gentility in the eldest brother, humility and respect in the younger; righteous behaviour in the husband, obedience in the wife; humane consideration in elders, deference in juniors; benevolence in rulers, loyalty in ministers and subjects.

Despite its contributions to the refinement of Chinese culture, one drawback to the practice of etiquette in ancient China was the dogmatism of their unique standard as the one absolute universal. The eventual view that came to being was that all other cultures that did not conform to their practice were “barbarians,” or uncivilised.

Consequently, one supposes that everyone but the ancient Chinese would have qualified as “barbarians,” what more with the emphasis on differing aspects of a “cultivated” individual in both Western and Chinese societies.

It is obvious from this comparison that etiquette is about as predictable as the local Higher Education Policy. It is but a microcosm of the wider set of practices, culture. Is it any wonder there are entire industries built upon the premise of tourist guidebooks to understanding “foreign” culture? One who is unable to visualise such diversity must either be absurdly dense or living under a shell (with HIS own set of ettiquette, no doubt).

So to bring the discussion back to our beloved tanahair (country)…

In fulfilling the “national” quota, one must not deign to exclude one’s very own tanahair from the discussion. After all, one must sing the national anthem, hoist a M-16 rifle, and yell “Boleh!” instead of “Merdeka!” at any major event. Let us not be clouded by some unreliable “global” survey and “perfume thy country’s name” (mengharumkan nama Negara) with our own standard of “etiquette”:

Five Simple Rules To Be Observed At Any Malaysia Social Gathering:
1. Always double-park.
2. Rush into doors/lifts before others can make their way out.
3. Spit regularly.
4. Reconstruct miniature reproductions of the “tallest building” on one’s buffet platter. Waste not, want not.
5. Have your ring tone set to the national anthem at “Horrid” mode.

As a conclusion, I am merely struggling to put one’s thoughts into cohesion. And I hope that by this, I have not offended any “paragons of virtue” in the process. This article was brought to you courtesy of, courtesy.
–
RACHEL CHAN is a contributing writer for theCICAK.

Rachel is a premature old nag. She blogs about issues close to heart - especially the inefficiency of bureaucrats. She thinks jail is the best place to study for an exam. She is still trying to get there hopefully. Visit her site.