I have just come across some humourous (although very serious) sites on dining etiquette . One is a list of standards and conventions that allow one to make a ‘favorable impression’ when dining. The other is a list of table manners that vary slightly to significantly from country to country. For instance many customs require hands to be washed before, some before and after, and some not at all. In Russia it is considered polite to leave a little food on your plate to show the host that the food was ‘plentiful’ (although they oddly offer second helpings). In Filipino it is considered ‘unclean’ to eat food with the left hand, whilst in India most food is eaten with both hands. Personally I believe in individualism comes before culture, and if I feel like eating all the food on my plate with my left unwashed hand, it ’should’ be perfectly acceptable. But before you accept that read the next paragraph.

Note that in many of these sites and lists the word ’should’ appears an enormous amount of times. ‘Should’ is a normative word and denotes that what follows comes from some culturally agreed vantage point. This means that within that culture there is an explicit set of rights and wrongs that by definition exclude other culture’s rights and wrongs. However one must understand that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are humanly ascribed states of being that don’t really exist outside of the definition. In other words they are meaningless to those, myself included, who do not accept them. Now this does not mean that I do not follow codes, customs, and convention, because I am born into a society and culture that subconsciously accepts certain definitions. I can, if I so choose, consciously choose not to accept them, but for the most part I am comfortable to exist within my society and culture. However taking this argument to the extreme, one can say that if I do not accept that stealing is wrong then I should not be charged for the crime of stealing. Obviously an argument like that is wrong (again ‘wrong’ here is in our humanly constructed sense) because my crime is enacted within a society that calls it wrong. If I so choose not to accept stealing as wrong, then I must relocate to a society that calls it right.

As you can see, there is a conflict between individualism and culture. For the most part it is not a conflict because individuals find ways to exist within society, and those that can’t find other more acceptable societies. I vehemently disagree with the following custom (from Wikipedia), much to the irritation (and sometimes amusement of people I am with):

“When you’re finished, place your knife and fork together at four o’clock with your fork on the left and knife on the right, with the knife blade facing in. This signals that you are finished. “

Placing your knife and fork in such a manner ’signals’ nothing, it just signals that you’re bound to your culture’s customs. However, by choosing not to accept it I do not automatically lose membership of my culture, I just irritate people who choose to accept that definition and thus choose to be irritated.

posted by rowanp at 5:19 pm & filed under culture, ranting, philosophy |