PEACEFUL PONDERING
In a Manner of Speaking
by Michelle Easson, educator, activist, and social anthropologist
T
he philosopher Arthur
Schopenhauer tells how on
one very cold day, several
porcupines huddled close
together for warmth. Because their
spines made proximity a prickly
matter, they distanced themselves,
but became cold. After much repositioning and trial and error, they
finally settled on the ideal distance at
which they could both warm themselves and avoid getting pricked. This
discovery they made was thereafter
called good manners.
Good manners not only benefit
those to whom they are extended, but
also those who practice them. Civility and decency are humble virtues
foundational to the philosophy of living life with dignity. The aphorism “a
rising tide lifts all boats” refers to the
same principle: when we interact with
others in a dignified manner, they too
are elevated. While most of us believe
this to be true in principle, something
seems to get lost in translation between theory and practice. We do not
have to look far to find examples of a
general decline in courtesy and decorum in social interactions, though we
may wonder what truly accounts for
this uptick in discord and disrespect.
daughter, Polly Post, has come out
with a new, completely revised
and updated edition. She addresses
hundreds of key etiquette concerns:
dealing with rudeness, etiquette, noxious neighbors, and road rage, among
others. There is even a timely section
on argument and disagreement, as
they may arise in debates. She states
that spirited arguments over political
issues can help open-minded people
refine their positions, and goes on to
suggest holding congenial debriefings and encourages participants to
practice emotional regulation. Her
well-mannered heart seems to go out
to us in sympathy, even though she
may consider we poorly mannered a
curious and self-destructive lot. The
topic of sympathy appears in several
sections and she offers many tips:
what to say, how to best express it,
what not to say, and when to leave
well enough alone.
One topic missing from this
handbook on manners is empathy.
Apparently, empathy, unlike sympathy, is not to be subjected to rules of
etiquette, leaving us to wonder if we
are meant to be left to explore this
subject on our own.
Further evidence of empathy dif-
We seem increasingly to be a nation
unable to mind its manners.
Emily Post’s Etiquette has long
been the definitive guide to manners, ever since the first edition was
published in 1922. Emily’s grand-
fering from sympathy in a fundamental way, is its categorical exclusion
from the greeting card section of any
stationer’s shop or local grocery store.
This omission suggests that, while
sympathy can be stated on a card and
expressed in words, empathy requires
something more of us. What true
empathetic response requires is skill.
Skill and greater consciousness, and
perhaps resilience. We must be able to
imagine another’s unique emotional
state, to feel her feelings, and be able
to understand her situation from her
perspective. While sympathy is relatively time-limited, as expressed in response to a loss or other unfortunate
situation, empathy is an emotional engagement that can run riot and burn
us out emotionally. While sympathy
is feeling (sorry) for another, empathy
is feeling with them. It is an emotional
abiding with, requiring us to feel what
the other is feeling and see the situation as the other sees it, through their
eyes, rather than through our own. So
what does it mean to be empathetic in
the social realm, and how does empathy function in a social context?
If you have ever listened to an
interview with an actor—whose very
job is empathy—you may have heard
a similar comment on the craft and
skill required, that portraying a character in such a way as to do justice to
his dignity requires a submergence
into the world of that character, his
emotional reality, the thoughts and
feelings and history of experiences
that make him who he is.
When we empathize with another, we begin a process of transformation in which we set ourselves
aside, along with our ego and ideologies, judgments and agendas. What
we know is that we are more empathetic towards others who look like
us, with whom we share identifiable
traits and attitudes and who we can
imagine being part of our tribe or
community. It is this tendency to
which actors refer when they say
IMAGINE l SPRING 2016 25