Much has been written and more said about American manners, or rather
the American lack of manners. Americans have frequently been
criticized for their bad breeding, and many sarcastic references to
American deportment have been made in my presence. I have even been
told, I do not know how true it is, that European diplomats dislike
being stationed in America, because of their aversion to the American
way of doing things.
Much too has been written and said about Chinese manners, not only by
foreigners but also by Chinese. One of the classics, which our youth
have to know by heart, is practically devoted entirely to manners.
There has also been much adverse criticism of our manners or our excess
of manners, though I have never heard that any diplomats have, on this
account, objected to being sent to China. We Chinese are therefore in
the same boat as the Americans. In regard to manners neither of us
find much favor with foreigners, though for diametrically opposite
reasons: the Americans are accused of observing too few formalities,
and we of being too formal.
The Americans are direct and straight-forward. They will tell you to
your face that they like you, and occasionally they also have very
little hesitation in telling you that they do not like you. They say
frankly just what they think. It is immaterial to them that their
remarks are personal, complimentary or otherwise. I have had members
of my own family complimented on their good looks as if they were
children. In this respect Americans differ greatly from the English.
The English adhere with meticulous care to the rule of avoiding
everything personal. They are very much afraid of rudeness on the one
hand, and of insincerity or flattery on the other. Even in the matter
of such a harmless affair as a compliment to a foreigner on his
knowledge of English, they will precede it with a request for pardon,
and speak in a half-apologetic manner, as if complimenting were
something personal. The English and the Americans are closely related,
they have much in common, but they also differ widely, and in nothing
is the difference more conspicuous than in their conduct. I have
noticed curiously enough that English Colonials, especially in such
particulars as speech and manners, follow their quondam sister colony,
rather than the mother country. And this, not only in Canada, where
the phenomenon might be explained by climatic, geographic, and historic
reasons, but also in such antipodean places as Australia and South
Africa, which are so far away as to apparently have very little in
common either with America or with each other. Nevertheless, whatever
the reason, the transplanted Englishman, whether in the arctics or the
tropics, whether in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere, seems to
develop a type quite different from the original stock, yet always
resembling his fellow emigrants.
The directness of Americans is seen not only in what they say but in
the way they say it. They come directly to the point, without much
preface or introduction, much less is there any circumlocution or
"beating about the bush". When they come to see you they say their say
and then take their departure, moreover they say it in the most terse,
concise and unambiguous manner. In this respect what a contrast they
are to us! We always approach each other with preliminary greetings.
Then we talk of the weather, of politics or friends, of anything, in
fact, which is as far as possible from the object of the visit. Only
after this introduction do we broach the subject uppermost in our
minds, and throughout the conversation polite courtesies are exchanged
whenever the opportunity arises. These elaborate preludes and
interludes may, to the strenuous ever-in-a-hurry American, seem useless
and superfluous, but they serve a good purpose. Like the common
courtesies and civilities of life they pave the way for the speakers,
especially if they are strangers; they improve their tempers, and place
them generally on terms of mutual understanding. It is said that some
years ago a Foreign Consul in China, having a serious complaint to make
on behalf of his national, called on the Taotai, the highest local
authority in the port. He found the Chinese official so genial and
polite that after half an hour's conversation, he advised the
complainant to settle the matter amicably without troubling the Chinese
officials about the matter. A good deal may be said in behalf of both
systems. The American practice has at least the merit of saving time,
an all important object with the American people. When we recall that
this remarkable nation will spend millions of dollars to build a tunnel
under a river, or to shorten a curve in a railroad, merely that they
may save two or three minutes, we are not surprised at the abruptness
of their speech. I, as a matter of fact, when thinking of their
time-saving and abrupt manner of address, have been somewhat puzzled to
account for that peculiar drawl of theirs. Very slowly and
deliberately they enunciate each word and syllable with long-drawn
emphasis, punctuating their sentences with pauses, some short and some
long. It is almost an effort to follow a story of any length--the
beginning often becomes cold before the end is reached. It seems to me
that if Americans would speed up their speech after the fashion of
their English cousins, who speak two or three times as quickly, they
would save many minutes every day, and would find the habit not only
more efficacious, but much more economical than many of their
time-saving machines and tunnels. I offer this suggestion to the great
American nation for what it is worth, and I know they will receive it
in the spirit in which it is made, for they have the saving sense of
humor.
Some people are ridiculously sensitive. Some years ago, at a certain
place, a big dinner was given in honor of a notable who was passing
through the district. A Chinese, prominent in local affairs, who had
received an invitation, discovered that though he would sit among the
honored guests he would be placed below one or two whom he thought he
ought to be above, and who, he therefore considered, would be usurping
his rightful position. In disgust he refused to attend the dinner,
which, excepting for what he imagined was a breach of manners, he would
have been very pleased to have attended. Americans are much more
sensible. They are not a bit sensitive, especially in small matters.
Either they are broad-minded enough to rise above unworthy trifles, or
else their good Americanism prevents their squabbling over questions of
precedence, at the dinner table or elsewhere.
Americans act up to their Declaration of Independence, especially the
principle it enunciates concerning the equality of man. They lay so
much importance on this that they do not confine its application to
legal rights, but extend it even to social intercourse. In fact, I
think this doctrine is the basis of the so-called American manners.
All men are deemed socially equal, whether as friend and friend, as
President and citizen, as employer and employee, as master and servant,
or as parent and child. Their relationship may be such that one is
entitled to demand, and the other to render, certain acts of obedience,
and a certain amount of respect, but outside that they are on the same
level. This is doubtless a rebellion against all the social ideas and
prejudices of the old world, but it is perhaps only what might be
looked for in a new country, full of robust and ambitious manhood,
disdainful of all traditions which in the least savor of monarchy or
hierarchy, and eager to blaze as new a path for itself in the social as
it has succeeded in accomplishing in the political world. Combined
with this is the American characteristic of saving time. Time is
precious to all of us, but to Americans it is particularly so. We all
wish to save time, but the Americans care much more about it than the
rest of us. Then there are different notions about this question of
saving time, different notions of what wastes time and what does not,
and much which the old world regards as politeness and good manners
Americans consider as sheer waste of time. Time is, they think, far
too precious to be occupied with ceremonies which appear empty and
meaningless. It can, they say, be much more profitably filled with
other and more useful occupations. In any discussion of American
manners it would be unfair to leave out of consideration their
indifference to ceremony and their highly developed sense of the value
of time, but in saying this I do not forget that many Americans are
devout ritualists, and that these find both comfort and pleasure in
ceremony, which suggests that after all there is something to be said
for the Chinese who have raised correct deportment almost to the rank
of a religion.
The youth of America have not unnaturally caught the spirit of their
elders, so that even children consider themselves as almost on a par
with their parents, as almost on the same plane of equality; but the
parents, on the other hand, also treat them as if they were equals, and
allow them the utmost freedom. While a Chinese child renders
unquestioning obedience to his parents' orders, such obedience as a
soldier yields to his superior officer, the American child must have
the whys and the wherefores duly explained to him, and the reason for
his obedience made clear. It is not his parent that he obeys, but
expediency and the dictates of reason. Here we see the clear-headed,
sound, common-sense business man in the making. The early training of
the boy has laid the foundation for the future man. The child too has
no compunction in correcting a parent even before strangers, and what
is stranger still the parent accepts the correction in good part, and
sometimes even with thanks. A parent is often interrupted in the
course of a narrative, or discussion, by a small piping voice, setting
right, or what it believes to be right, some date, place, or fact, and
the parent, after a word of encouragement or thanks, proceeds. How
different is our rule that a child is not to speak until spoken to! In
Chinese official life under the old regime it was not etiquette for one
official to contradict another, especially when they were unequal in
rank. When a high official expressed views which his subordinates did
not endorse, they could not candidly give their opinion, but had to
remain silent. I remember that some years ago some of my colleagues
and I had an audience with a very high official, and when I expressed
my dissent from some of the views of that high functionary, he rebuked
me severely. Afterward he called me to him privately, and spoke to me
somewhat as follows: "What you said just now was quite correct. I was
wrong, and I will adopt your views, but you must not contradict me in
the presence of other people. Do not do it again." There is of course
much to be said for and against each system, and perhaps a blend of the
two would give good results. Anyhow, we can trace in American customs
that spirit of equality which pervades the whole of American society,
and observe the germs of self-reliance and independence so
characteristic of Americans, whether men, women, or children.
Even the domestic servant does not lose this precious American heritage
of equality. I have nothing to say against that worthy individual, the
American servant (if one can be found); on the contrary, none is more
faithful or more efficient. But in some respects he is unique among
the servants of the world. He does not see that there is any
inequality between him and his master. His master, or should I say,
his employer, pays him certain wages to do certain work, and he does
it, but outside the bounds of this contract, they are still man and
man, citizen and citizen. It is all beautifully, delightfully legal.
The washerwoman is the "wash-lady", and is just as much a lady as her
mistress. The word "servant" is not applied to domestics, "help" is
used instead, very much in the same way that Canada and Australia are
no longer English "colonies", but "self-governing dominions".
We of the old world are accustomed to regard domestic service as a
profession in which the members work for advancement, without much
thought of ever changing their position. A few clever persons may
ultimately adopt another profession, and, according to our antiquated
conservative ways of thinking, rise higher in the social scale, but,
for the large majority, the dignity of a butler, or a housekeeper is
the height of ambition, the crowning point in their career. Not so the
American servant. Strictly speaking there are no servants in America.
The man, or the woman as the case may be, who happens for the moment to
be your servant, is only servant for the time being. He has no
intention of making domestic service his profession, of being a servant
for the whole of his life. To have to be subject to the will of
others, even to the small extent to which American servants are
subordinate, is offensive to an American's pride of citizenship, it is
contrary to his conception of American equality. He is a servant only
for the time, and until he finds something better to do. He accepts a
menial position only as a stepping stone to some more independent
employment. Is it to be wondered at that American servants have
different manners from their brethren in other countries? When
foreigners find that American servants are not like servants in their
own country, they should not resent their behavior: it does not denote
disrespect, it is only the outcrop of their natural independence and
aspirations.
All titles of nobility are by the Constitution expressly forbidden.
Even titles of honor or courtesy are but rarely used. "Honorable" is
used to designate members of Congress; and for a few Americans, such as
the President and the Ambassadors, the title "Excellency" is permitted.
Yet, whether it is because the persons entitled to be so addressed do
not think that even these mild titles are consistent with American
democracy, or because the American public feels awkward in employing
such stilted terms of address, they are not often used. I remember
that on one occasion a much respected Chief Executive, on my proposing,
in accordance with diplomatic usage and precedent, to address him as
"Your Excellency", begged me to substitute instead "Mr. President".
The plain democratic "Mr." suits the democratic American taste much
better than any other title, and is applied equally to the President of
the Republic and to his coachman. Indeed the plain name John Smith,
without even "Mr.", not only gives no offense, where some higher title
might be employed, but fits just as well, and is in fact often used.
Even prominent and distinguished men do not resent nicknames; for
example, the celebrated person whose name is so intimately connected
with that delight of American children and grown-ups--the "Teddy Bear".
This characteristic, like so many other American characteristics, is
due not only to the love of equality and independence, but also to the
dislike of any waste of time.
In countries where there are elaborate rules of etiquette concerning
titles and forms of address, none but a Master of Ceremonies can hope
to be thoroughly familiar with them, or to be able to address the
distinguished people without withholding from them their due share of
high-sounding titles and epithets; and, be it whispered, these same
distinguished people, however broad-minded and magnanimous they may be
in other respects, are sometimes extremely sensitive in this respect.
And even after one has mastered all the rules and forms, and can
appreciate and distinguish the various nice shades which exist between
"His Serene Highness", "His Highness", "His Royal Highness", and "His
Imperial Highness", or between "Rt. Rev." and "Most Rev.", one has yet
to learn what titles a particular person has, and with what particular
form of address he should be approached, an impossible task even for a
Master of Ceremonies, unless he always has in his pocket a Burke's
Peerage to tell him who's who. What a waste of time, what an
inconvenience, and what an unnecessary amount of irritation and
annoyance all this causes. How much better to be able to address any
person you meet simply as Mr. So-and-So, without unwittingly treading
on somebody's sensitive corns! Americans have shown their common sense
in doing away with titles altogether, an example which the sister
Republic of China is following. An illustrious name loses nothing for
having to stand by itself without prefixes and suffixes, handles and
tails. Mr. Gladstone was no less himself for not prefixing his name
with Earl, and the other titles to which it would have entitled him, as
he could have done had he not declined the so-called honor. Indeed,
like the "Great Commoner", he, if that were possible, endeared himself
the more to his countrymen because of his refusal. A name, which is
great without resorting to the borrowed light of titles and honors, is
greater than any possible suffix or affix which could be appended to it.
In conclusion, American manners are but an instance or result of the
two predominant American characteristics to which I have already
referred, and which reappear in so many other things American. A love
of independence and of equality, early inculcated, and a keen
abhorrence of waste of time, engendered by the conditions and
circumstances of a new country, serve to explain practically all the
manners and mannerisms of Americans. Even the familiar spectacle of
men walking with their hands deep in their trousers' pockets, or
sitting with their legs crossed needs no other explanation, and to
suggest that, because Americans have some habits which are peculiarly
their own, they are either inferior or unmanly, would be to do them a
grave injustice.
Few people are more warm-hearted, genial, and sociable than the
Americans. I do not dwell on this, because it is quite unnecessary.
The fact is perfectly familiar to all who have the slightest knowledge
of them. Their kindness and warmth to strangers are particularly
pleasant, and are much appreciated by their visitors. In some other
countries, the people, though not unsociable, surround themselves with
so much reserve that strangers are at first chilled and repulsed,
although there are no pleasanter or more hospitable persons anywhere to
be found when once you have broken the ice, and learned to know them;
but it is the stranger who must make the first advances, for they
themselves will make no effort to become acquainted, and their manner
is such as to discourage any efforts on the part of the visitor. You
may travel with them for hours in the same car, sit opposite to them,
and all the while they will shelter themselves behind a newspaper, the
broad sheets of which effectively prohibit any attempts at closer
acquaintance. The following instance, culled from a personal
experience, is an illustration. I was a law student at Lincoln's Inn,
London, where there is a splendid law library for the use of the
students and members of the Inn. I used to go there almost every day
to pursue my legal studies, and generally sat in the same quiet corner.
The seat on the opposite side of the table was usually occupied by
another law student. For months we sat opposite each other without
exchanging a word. I thought I was too formal and reserved, so I
endeavored to improve matters by occasionally looking up at him as if
about to address him, but every time I did so he looked down as though
he did not wish to see me. Finally I gave up the attempt. This is the
general habit with English gentlemen. They will not speak to a
stranger without a proper introduction; but in the case I have
mentioned surely the rule would have been more honored by a breach than
by the observance. Seeing that we were fellow students, it might have
been presumed that we were gentlemen and on an equal footing. How
different are the manners of the American! You can hardly take a walk,
or go for any distance in a train, without being addressed by a
stranger, and not infrequently making a friend. In some countries the
fact that you are a foreigner only thickens the ice, in America it
thaws it. This delightful trait in the American character is also
traceable to the same cause as that which has helped us to explain the
other peculiarities which have been mentioned. To good Americans, not
only are the citizens of America born equal, but the citizens of the
world are also born equal.