Etiquette Advice

A FEW TOPICS TO AVOID IN SOCIAL CONVERSATION 

By UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE PUBLISHED: January 1, 1998 at 1:00 a.m. | UPDATED: August 11, 2021 at 4:21 a.m. 

Here is a list of topics that polite people do not bring into social conversation:

Sex, religion, politics, money, illness, the food before them at the moment, which foods they customarily eat or reject and why, anything else having to do with bodily functions, occupations, including their own and inquiries into anyone else’s; the looks of anyone present, especially to note any changes, even improvements, since these people were last seen; and the possessions of anyone present, including their hosts’ house and its contents and the clothing being worn by them and their guests, even favorably.

Well, don’t just sit there. Say something.

Never mind — Miss Manners knows what you are thinking. You are thinking that in its restless quest to stamp out fun, unchecked etiquette would drive the world to a state of blandness bordering on hysteria.

But wait, it gets worse. Those are only the traditionally banned topics. Miss Manners has been steadily adding to the list.

It is barely possible that the reasons for your divorce aren’t covered under sex or money — well, the whole topic is still socially banned. Perhaps neither religion nor politics adequately describes your feelings about how terribly people are treating animals, vegetables or minerals — also still banned.

So are descriptions of computer software and hardware and recitals of the plots of movies or books.

Do you begin to see why the world needs misbehaving royalty? Or, as everyone can be loudly heard to be thinking, fewer etiquette rules?

However, those who believe that all topics should be permitted would do well to remember when the airing of bigotry and sexism, whether in the form of jokes or observations, went unchallenged by social disapproval.

Or they might remember longingly the time when obscene language and vulgarity were muted by social disapproval.

Miss Manners recognizes that the relaxation of the old rules has permitted a few gratifying compliments — along with a lot of embarrassing personal remarks and intrusions. She understands that people’s work and interests may coincide to produce interesting conversation about their fields — and a great risk of boring shop talk and vulgar networking.

But she balks at the idea that we can all now be trusted to enliven our social lives by discussing important political, social and religious issues.

How enlightening or enjoyable is social conversation among an assortment of people who have strong feelings about, say, the morality of abortion, assisted suicide or capital punishment, the effects on society of the welfare system or affirmative action, or whether sex education or prayer should be permitted in public schools?

It isn’t as though etiquette is opposed to airing controversy. On the contrary (so to speak): It prides itself on its specialty of providing rules for the very situations where controversial matters are most strenuously contested, such as courtrooms, classrooms and meetings. Etiquette (usually supplied by the rules of order of Miss Manners’ colleagues Messrs. Robert or Riddick) is what keeps debate fair and to the point, rather than allowing one person to dominate or the whole thing to deteriorate into an exchange of insults.

So it is a terrible insult to etiquette to characterize it as running around seeking superficial agreement at the cost of meaningful debate.

But such rules cannot be invoked in social settings.

Lightly held views and topics of no tremendous weight to those present may be bandied about pleasantly. People who trust one another enough to be able to discuss one of the supercharged topics peacefully (possibly because they are superpolite in spite of their differences, but more likely because they are all on the same side) may also do so without interference from etiquette, which knows enough not to disturb people who are having a good time.

But confirmations of opinions already held and exercises in faking respect for people whose stupid or vicious opinions differ from one’s own should not be confused with meaningful exchanges.

So it isn’t Miss Manners who is banning the casual airing of important topics; it is human nature.

———-

Feeling incorrect? Address your etiquette questions to Miss Manners, in care of the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill., 60611.