Post -- and a Critique

Post -- and a critique of Mrs. Parker In her essay, "Mrs. Post Enlarges on Etiquette," originally published in the New Yorker, 31 Dec 1927, and later reprinted in Essays in Context, the satirist and author Dorothy Parker critiqued the commonly consulted manual of etiquette popular in her day by the noted hostess Mrs. Emily Post.

Although etiquette is often dismissed as mere manners, the idea of how one should comport one's self in society was of profound concern and relevance in the America of Parker and Post's day, where shifting social paradigms had upset notions of what it meant to be middle or upper class. Parker was not of Mrs. Post's milieu, but of the 'creative' or bohemian classes, and thus wrote a critique of the idea that good manners could be achieved by following a copybook or step-by-step process.

Parker's intent was not simply to satirize, but to question notions of etiquette altogether -- behave and say what you like, she stressed. Parker's main thesis was that to focus too much on good manners and how to behave correctly in society, according to Mrs. Post, eliminates most of the spontaneity that is inherent to human interaction.

Those who have mastered etiquette, who are entirely, impeccably right, all of the time in their speech and behavior would seem to arrive at what Parker refers to as a social and rhetorical valley of exquisite dullness. To behave with proper etiquette in the terms set by Mrs. Post, Dorothy Parker argues, is not to be human, but to be a robot, moving in line with what one is told to do, by Mrs. Post and others in the know.

To behave with civility and good manners is to eschew what it means to be wonderfully, delightfully human. To make her argument, Parker quotes several situations from Mrs. Post's handbook. She focuses on some of the most trivial details cited by the maven of social correctness, such as Mrs. Post's elevated dictates of how to eat difficult foods properly, and makes them seem absurd by dissecting these matters of behavior.

Parker makes particular, absurd fun of how to behave when another individual behaves incorrectly in one's presence, as Parker no doubt would have delighted in doing, had she been confronted with the actual visage of Mrs. Post. However, in doing so, Parker could be criticized of the fallacy of exaggeration -- Mrs. Post's missives are taken to an illogical, rather than logical extremes, beyond that was intended by the author. Parker is on more familiar turf, when she parodies the author's stress upon not offending individuals in conversation.

But although witty, it is important to remember that Parker's social circle was different than those of Post's likely readership. Different social situations and context call for different behavior, thus making Parker guilty of a false analogy -- if one suppresses one's opinion in one dinner party does not mean one cannot write an editorial about the subject to the press the next day, or behave in a more loose and informal fashion at the Algonquin Round Table.

After all, even today, one does not behave with the same good manners at a poker meeting between one's nearest and dearest reunited college roommates, and at a family reunion between distant relations whom one has not seen for many years. In a society such as our own virtually devoid of etiquette and any sense of how to behave with civility, Mrs. Post's as opposed to Mrs. Parker's perspective can be refreshing.

To acknowledge another person's presence correctly and kindly is not necessarily robotic, but refreshing in its concern for the other person's needs and desires, especially if that person.