h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well?

Every purely social constuct* I have came across seems to bring nothing but misery. From the basic thank-yous (Which people say without thinking, everyone expects, nobody apprichiates, people get offended if they are absent, and they leave you with nothing appropriate to say when you are guenuinely thankfull) through monogomy (Which as far as I can tell serves only to reduce the number of options people have for no practicle gain) right up to unquestioning obedience of supposed social superiors (which time and time agian leads to mistakes which almost everyone saw coming, but nobody had the guts to tell the boss)
I have nothing against politness and good grace - I just wish the definition of thank-you was "I am thankfull for what you have just done" rather than "I say this because I have been programmed to since the age of six"

So can sombody *please* tell me what the point is?

* -> i.e. social with no practile benefit, laws for example are not purely social constructs because they have the practicle advantage of allowing me to be relitively sure that when I come back to my home all of my stuff will still be there etc.

I also think they are so stupid. Also saying sorry, it has no meaning. I remember when doing stuff as a kid, you would be told to apologize to someone, even if you weren't sorry. Then it just ends up being an empty phrase. A
nd also my mom always does a little ritual when having somebody over. For a few days before she will be running around cleaning up the house and yelling at the rest of us to do the same and in general getting pissed. Then when the person arrives they will go "Oh, you've been cleaning up. You shouldn't have done that for me." "Oh, that was nothing!" Then why were we ordered around like that and yelled at? When they both lie like that it seems so stupid, because they both know it. I want more honesty and less politeness in our society.

But when you don't say 'sorry' or 'thank you', it has meaning. You notice it then...

Yep, sort of like Valentines Day ,it is what you DO NOT do that gets noticed.

Exactly - it only gets noticed when it is not said i.e. when it has a negative impact - if the construct did not exist in the first place it would never cause any harm - it would never cause any good either, but since it doesn't anyway whats the diff?
This is all fairly low level stuff, what about bigger things such as monogomy or approachign people (Everyone says that they can approach an authority figure when they have a problem but the number of people who keep quiet and try to avoid drawing attention to themselves because challanging a bad descision is not the done thing - gah!) also privacy isn't really necassary I think the world would be a better place if everyone could get information on everyone else simply by wanting it.
More than one person has said that they could not live in my idea of a utopia - come on people justify yourselves!

Restrict your platitudes. For example I don't say sorry unless I actually mean it, I'll be polite and may say things that amount to the same thing. I also *never* say 'I promise' unless I mean it.

It may sound old fashioned for someone in his 20s but I choose to reserve my words. People know that when I use them that I mean them.

-------------

I was in the staffroom this morning when someone who had recently been to Japan was recounting the profuse apologies over the intercom toward the passengers when a train was 2- 5 minutes late.

Heh. I know what you mean - on both counts. Since I was old enough to understand what a promise meant I have managed to keep them all and am proud of the fact.

I know this music student, dead nice, fun to be around, but she apologises for *everything*. Right down to the weather or that I didn't get enough sleep that night. When I told her that she doesn't need to apologise for these things she apologises for apologising too much. I give up.

I know the kind of person. Over use will make anything meaningless.

The reason these constructs come in is to lubricate social interaction. by having stock behaviours which are relatively neutral, it helps to get past the initial meeting to the point where you can actually rub each other up the wrong way without it being a problem.

each culture does them differently, and what matters is not the exact rules, but the fact that there are some, and that you attempt to respect them.

most of the stuff in this thread is about obsolete social constructs, which are still around because these types of rules have a large amount of resistance to change built in to make sure that they last long enough to matter.

as an example, monogomy exists as a rule not because it is required now (except in certain restricted circumstances), but because it was considered bad form by the rest of the village for you to get your next door neighbour pregnent while married to someone else (or even worse, bring a venerial disease home to the wife).

neither of these situations are anywhere near as bad as they used to be, so the rules are generally regarded to be more of a personal choice for the people involved. the rest of society can be a little slow catching up.

Can you give me an example of a non-obselete one?

Society

I can give two examples from this thread, plus an extra one.

being polite (saying please and thankyou), and giving flowers to someone one valentines day, birthdays, etc. While these may just be excercises for some, they are genuinely meant by a lot of people.

the extra one has to be opening doors for people (especially women). this one is slightly more contentious, due to the multiple recipient audiences.

militant feminists will moan if you do, traditionalist women and men will moan if you don't. a lot of people still do, but have generalised it to open doors for everyone irrespective of gender. this appears to be an obsolete social construct, but is often genuine, but it's main problem is that it is having to evolve to reflect the changed society, so it is patch in it's applicability, and you often have to know detailed information about the people you are going to open the door for before you can actually know if it is the right thing to do.

I do not think please and thank you are out dated. They are not used enough. I suppose some could over use them but personallyhave not seen a lot of that.

The "I'm sorry" phrase used too much becomes senseless and irritating.
It is a phrase however that some cannot ever seem to say. Not good either!

Giving up a seat to an elder ,pregnant lady or infirmed ,anyone with lots to hold, including small children is good.

Everyone able bodied should open the door when they get to it and others should say thank you to whom ever does it.

comments on this earlier quote od acids i believe:
"privacy isn't really necassary I think the world would be a better place if everyone could get information on everyone else simply by wanting it."

It would be ok if the government, work place, medical,courts, an so on, places you depended on were also *open* info. The problem comes when the info available is not equal. Information is power so it has to be balanced or it corrupts. A utopia would require this but I cannot see it happening properly.

People love gossip too much. False information and speculation would still get in the way, it would still have it's own power. People would have to be willing to be completely honest, and have no interest in power over another. That in itself would be a utopia.

Since the Hippy times and probably before this debate has raged. Well the dirty hippies won, and many of the social constructs have been stripped away from American society, and what has it gotten us? The crime rate is through the roof, the generation coming up feels they deserve everything. And the social structure is splitting apart. Really, ask yourself what annoys people of other countries the most about Americans. Lack of manners.

You talk about these only being noticed in thier negative effects when missed, but isn't avoiding a negative effect a positive effect in itself. I know that I am one American that would like to see a return of the social graces.

Thank you,

MattP

Manners help make people comfortable,knowing what to expect and do.

(Acid sits in his chair eating a maccy d's on his 'Hi-Grade' brand computer in England and wonders if he counts as an American Hippy)

xyroth:

Ach I think I may have confused people a little. I don’t object to ‘thank-you’ and ‘please’ as phrases – quite the opposite. I object to the social constructs which state that we *have* to use them in certain situations. The point of these phrases are as expressions of emotion and if you guenuinely mean them then fine. The same goes for flowers on valantines…if a person expects them and you are expected to get them then they are no longer special, but that doesn’t mean I disagree with the concept. I have a friend (As I’m sure you’ve all guessed from my bitter and slightly twisted attitudes I’m single) who last valantines went half way across the country to surprise his girlfriend with flowers (Picked himself not bought from those damn commercial stands) and a card (Which he spent days making) and spend the day with her. (Of course as she didn’t know he was coming she was out and he got caught in the rain and it went wrong – but they met up eventually laughed about it and had a great day) Now I think that that’s one of the nicest things I’ve seen anyone do. It makes me feel good just thinking about it. But I can see the world getting to the point that this sort of thing becomes expected and people get angry if you don’t do it and people will need to go even further to express their emotions.

Abbie normal:

As for the other examples I draw a great big stonking black line between anything done because there is a social construct against it and anything that has an actual pragmatic benefit. ‘Giving up a seat to an elder, pregnant lady or infirmed, anyone with lots to hold, including small children is good.’ I agree, but I would see it done because the person giving up the seat sees the practicle benefit to the person of having a seat and is willing to help people, not because they feel that they have to.

”Everyone able bodied should open the door when they get to it and others should say thank you to whom ever does it.” Oh they *should*? They don’t have a choice in the matter the ability of the person to open a door for themselves, the type of person who is opening the door and the type of person who wants to go through it and the relationship between them is of no consequence – merely that it should be done because….becuase it should?

Personally I apply a simple rule to seeing whether I should perform a task for someone else. I have to be more able to do it than they are and I need to belive that they would help anyone less able than they were. That’s my opinion though – that’s not the way it should be done. That’s just they way it should be done by me.

On a tangent I think we need a new word for militant feminists. To my mind a feminist is someone who wants to see women brough up to the same level of men in all arenas of life (circa same pay for the same job same promotion prospects we’re not there yet but we’re getting there – and so far as I am concerned most gender and race distinctions fall into the category of social constructs I would be rid of) but I keep hearing of ‘femanists’ who act in such a fashion as to take offence at any action which they perceive as (a) helping them or (b) not helping them.

I agree. Privacy needs to be abloised all at once. Allowing some people superior control of information flow is just wrong. A removal of privacy would also need to be supported by the removal of the other constructs. A lot of things go on that we consider taboo behind closed doors – I wouldn’t like to see what would happen I everyones secrets were exposed while there are still people in the world harboring such narrow minded views. (At this point it should be noted im talking about ideals here – I can spell its never gonna happen as well as the next man)

This is a bit of a dodgy area for me – I usually practice what I preach but I’d be a liar if I said I didn’t keep secrets. I keep them for three reasons (1) In a game, so long as everyone knows it’s a game (And with me theres normally a board or some cards so it’s a safe bet they do) I’ll keep as many as I like (2) Friends secrets, anything told to me in confidence I will not pass on without explicit permission from the person who told me the secret (even if I think its to their detriment) (3) My secrets, when I came to uni I said no more secrets – I’ve seen first hand the amount of damage they can do at their worst and I tried to ensure everyone who wanted to knew anything they wanted to. I have to some extent succeeded. I only have one secret that I keep for myself and am still working up the courage to tell everyone.

Which brings us to Matt:

I don’t think they did win, it seems many of these constructs remain. I dunno what this is about Americans being rude. I’ve met a few and they all seem very polite (Some of them are amoung the most ignorant bigoted people I’ve ever met but at least they said please if they wanted me to pass the salt)
Erm are you trying to argue that there is a correlation between crime rate and lack of manners? Do you have any evidence? Or is it the same as the rock that keeps away dragons (Well do you see any dragons?)
No avoiding a negative isn’t the same as gaining a positive. Supposing I’ve got a few electrodes and some cookies lieing about the place. I bring in 2 groups, to group A I shock half of them and leave the other half alone. To group B I give half of them cookies and leave the other half alone. Should the people who were not shocked in A be as happy as the people who got cookies in B? One avoided a negative and the other recived a positive.
Which group would you rather be in? B? Really?
I want to make the world more like group B
I want to make the world a place with more cookies than electrodes

Okay got a bit caught up in the metaphor but you see my point

Oo monster post. Got a bit wound up. Usually do. Hope I didn't offend anyone (guenuinely not because I feel I have to type it)

"I can give two examples from this thread, plus an extra one.

being polite (saying please and thankyou), and giving flowers to someone one valentines day, birthdays, etc. While these may just be excercises for some, they are genuinely meant by a lot of people."

Exactly. Some do it because they feel they have to, others do it because they mean it. And how do you then distinguish? If it wasn't expected of you, then getting flowers from someone would mean you knew they really cared about you. If I get a birthday present from someone, does that mean they actually care for me, or did they just feel they should? It's like the Christmas card thing. You end up having to do a lot of stuff, just to keep up the status quo.

"the extra one has to be opening doors for people (especially women)."
As I've said before, if they want equality they should have it. Let them open their own bloody doors. I'll open a door for someone if they have their hands full, or if they are elderly.

Fascinating thread

And would that smiley right there be an example of a social construct? It's not necessary, that's for sure.

I was brought up to say please and thank you, and numerous other things which could be thought of as social constructs because (my parents taught me) doing so sends signals to the other person that I don't consider myself above them - I'm treating them as an equal, and I've lived by that ever since. I don't care for it when other people don't extend the same courtesy to me. That's one of the things I consider to be 'rude'.

Since moving from London to Texas I've noticed a marked difference in the way that people here behave toward shop employees. They *are* very often treated the way I imagine that servants were treated a hundred years ago. Many of the social constructs I'm used to, like handing your purchases and then your money to the person at the till are less common here - the money is usually put down on the counter (sometimes tossed down) and the cashier is expected to pick it up. Yet when the change is given, the same customer will hold out their hand and expect to have it handed to them. I think that's wrong because it treats the assistant as an underling, someone not worthy of good manners.

I believe that in oriental cultures, it's considered the done thing at meals to offer the biggest or juiciest looking piece of food in a dish to someone else - it sends them the message that 'I don't consider myself more worthy than you'. But it's always a case of drawing the line between doing it for the right reasons, and doing it because it's expected, or it's become a meaningless ritual.

I don't care for doing something just because it's expected. Both the greetings card and gift industries sponge millions, maybe billions off people who do that. Money that could be much better spent I think.

"And would that smiley right there be an example of a social construct? It's not necessary, that's for sure."

The smiely is a form of communication. There are psychological studies into smilies (I have read some) which point to their use to communicate emotion in an otherwise emotionless medium (text) This helps people to interprate what they are reading. Thus I see it as a method of communication rather than a social construct.

"doing so sends signals to the other person that I don't consider myself above them - I'm treating them as an equal"

But why do you need to send the message that you treat someone as an equal. Surely you could just...treat them as an equal to achive the same effect.

"Many of the social constructs I'm used to, like handing your purchases and then your money to the person at the till are less common here - the money is usually put down on the counter (sometimes tossed down) and the cashier is expected to pick it up. Yet when the change is given, the same customer will hold out their hand and expect to have it handed to them"

Thats a social construct in its own right. In this case designed to make it apparent who is subservient to who. In my world people would not consider the act of passing money to be a socially charged interaction - simply to be efficent, hand over the money and recive it the same way seems the quickest way to go about it. Then if one person thinks the other has done them a favor in some way then they can say thank you (and mean it)

"I believe that in oriental cultures, it's considered the done thing at meals to offer the biggest or juiciest looking piece of food in a dish to someone else - it sends them the message that 'I don't consider myself more worthy than you'. But it's always a case of drawing the line between doing it for the right reasons, and doing it because it's expected, or it's become a meaningless ritual."

lol. I belive that it is considered bad feung sui to accept the last thing that a host offers you.

"I don't care for doing something just because it's expected. Both the greetings card and gift industries sponge millions, maybe billions off people who do that. Money that could be much better spent I think."

Damn right. Thats why it was so special to see Ben labouring over making his own (see previous post) and asking the creative input of everyone and anyone around.

My personal attitude towards cards and presents is that I buy presents before the prices go up because exchanging gifts is a fun thing to do, but I don't want these industries to benefit any more than if I bought it normally. Then I buy presents whenever I see something particularly appropriate. (I saw this and though of you type vien)

As for cards I never buy them. Theres nothing you can say with a card that you can't say in person or (of not possible) over the phone.