DISSEMINATION OF MANNERS WAS A CIVILIZING FACTOR

In 1939 Norbert Elias published a book called "On the Civilizing Process," with a strange and unlikely thesis: that the gradual introduction of courtly manners -- from eating with a knife and fork and using a handkerchief to not spitting or urinating in public -- had played a major part in transforming a violent medieval society into a more peaceful modern one.

Counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels, historians on the Continent and in England found that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

That the decrease in crime appears to have happened independently of industrialization or economic growth seemed to suggest that an internal, psychological shift had taken place in attitudes toward crime:

o With the expansion of the state in many parts of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, violent and unruly behavior came to be seen as an affront to the prince or king.

o Manuals and proverbs about proper behavior proliferated, and townsfolk and merchants did their best to imitate the courtesy of court life.

o Other scholars agree that the emphasis on self-control increased but think that it may have stemmed not only from the diffusion of courtly manners.

"Both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter- Reformation put a lot of emphasis on individual conscience," says Tom Cohen, a history professor at York University in Toronto.

"The conscience becomes the internal gyroscope. There is the growth of introspection -- the diary, the novel, the personal essay. Along with the kind of personal self-control that Norbert Elias describes."

Source: Alexander Stille, "Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?" New York Times, May 3, 2003.

that the gradual introduction of courtly manners -- from eating with a knife and fork and using a handkerchief to not spitting or urinating in public -- had played a major part in transforming a violent medieval society into a more peaceful modern one.

Counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels, historians on the Continent and in England found that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

That's a good one. WWI, WWII, the Nazi death camps, the Soviet death camps, the Chicom death camps, the Khmer Rouge death camps, the Vietnamese death camps, the North Korean death camps, Rwanda, etc.,etc., etc. Yep, the 20th century was certainly the most peaceful, noviolent century in history.

Germany was considered to be one of the most civilized countries in the world right up until the 1940's and the citizens of that civilized nation cheerfully participated in the butchery of millions of people. But you are missing the point of the article which is that once nation-states began to gain a monopoly on the use of violence, this naturally led to more peaceful societies. In the case of Germany, that is certainly a dubious proposition. It is also a diubious proposition in countries like France, where they exported thousands of Jews to their death. Likewise, well-mannered Belgians cheerfully massacred untold numbers of people in the Belgian Congo. One could also argue that the people who led China and certainly, Japan, were well-mannered. That did not stop leaders in either country from killing millions of people. Simply put, it is a dubious proposition at best that a well-mannered society is a peaceful society. Rather, I believe a well-armed society is a well-mannered society, and by well-mannered I mean a society where people are not butchered by the millions.

UP FROM TRIBALISM

"Both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter- Reformation put a lot of emphasis on individual conscience," says Tom Cohen, a history professor at York University in Toronto.

I think this was a crucial thing -- the, one could almost say, creation of conscience as an institution. Having many people who have internalized a code of conduct is one way to run a society. This naturally gives rise to individualism.

The alternatives to this are either a shame-based society (such as in Japan) or a fear-based society (Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R.). Much has been said about Japanese brutality during the war. A Japanese soldier or officer might be very civilized at home among his own people, where there are strict rules of behavior. The same people were, with few exceptions, very brutal towards foreigners with whom they did not share a shame-based code. I think, though I don't have proof, that most of the few Japanese who took risks to be humane were practicing Buddhists, Christians, or had received a Western education before the war. It would be interesting to speculate what changes might have occurred with the introduction of demorcacy and a Western-like system of law in Japan (universal values of justice vs. what is right for "my tribe").

Little needs to be said about the chief fear-based experiments in the 20th century--the Hitler and Stalin dictatorships. Hitler of course spurned most Western values as a hated Jewish invention to keep the "Ayrians" down. "Bourgeoise individualism" was not well-received in Stalinist Russia. It is interesting to note that Japan, Russia, and Germany all experienced a breakdown of traditional values (whether Eastern or Western) before dictatorships and war filled the vaccum.

Many on the left decry "bourgeoise" values, in favor of other-directed behavior -- either some form of unrestrained libertinism (where people mindlessy imitate each other) or else a strict observance of an external (albeit communist) code. Some Marxists are extremely puritanical, after all, and the politically-correct cultural Marxists are "sensitive" to virtually everything. And these modern puritans are not above using shame as a way to silence dissent (though some seem to prefer violence).

The left likes to pretend that inner-directed values are old-fashioned, when in truth the individualist ethic is relatively new in history. Western humanism is a blend of Jewish and Christian values with a healthy dose of Greek rationalism. The group-based values the left advocates are in fact quite ancient (shame-based), even primitive (tribalism).

Many nihilists have hijacked "progressivism" and turned it into a perverse mixture of hedonism and authoritarianism. They have revolted against any manifestation of individualism in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and now they reject rationalism as well. They promised that nihilism would introduce universal peace and love. Instead, it has brought war and hate. Witness how many self-styled "progressives" are apologists for terrorists and warlike dictatorships, and note how political-correctness relies on class-envy and encourages conflicts based on racial "identity." As post-modern nihilism reaches its terminal phase, its only "values" are war and hate.

I don't mean by the above that I think only Western, Christian societies can be free. I think Hong-Kong was a fascinating example of a society that mixed Western and Confucian values. Now that it is part of red China, I would like to think that Hong-Kong will be the capitalist leaven in the communist loaf. What we think of as the West is a result of a mixture of values that sometimes cooperate and sometimes conflict, and out of this dynamism freedom was born. Other societies could keep their uniqueness while adopting some stable form of the rule of law. It is a pity that the "multiculturists" want to inject Marxism rather than freedom into societies in the name of "liberating" them. They don't seem to think a culture is "authentic" unless it is put in a Marxist straight-jacket--is this a new imperialism?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.