Miss Manners on American Obeisance

[Royal per­son­ages] do not have the right to receive phys­i­cal obei­sance from Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. Miss Man­ners has had to issue the decree many times now that Amer­i­can ladies should not curtsy [ed: nor should Amer­i­can gen­tle­men bow] to roy­alty, and there are still those who do so at every avail­able oppor­tu­nity. They are in error, not only in the mat­ter of world eti­quette, but of geog­ra­phy, physics and ancient and mod­ern history.

. . .

Bend­ing the knee is the tra­di­tional ges­ture of an infe­rior to a supe­rior. . . . The curtsy is but one form of the ges­ture of ador­ing a sovereign. . . .

Thus, those who believe that curt­sy­ing demon­strates their own high social rank or breed­ing are mis­taken. Their geog­ra­phy is faulty if they think that bend­ing down will ele­vate them; the notion that there is a law of physics stat­ing that what goes down must come up is erroneous.

As for his­tory, Miss Man­ners con­sid­ers that the mat­ter was set­tled by the philoso­pher Cal­lis­thenes, who dis­abused Alexan­der the Great of the notion that the Per­sian cus­tom of grov­el­ing to roy­alty could be estab­lished in Mace­do­nia and Greece. . . .

If you require more recent his­tory, there is that mat­ter of the war that we Amer­i­cans fought to free our­selves of sub­ju­ga­tion to the British Crown. . . .

How, then, do we Amer­i­cans prop­erly treat roy­alty? With the dig­nity and respect we nat­u­rally show to heads of state and other for­eign offi­cials. Our tra­di­tional form of greet­ing is to shake the hand. This ges­ture is not inter­change­able with that of the curtsy [ed: or bow, or gen­u­flec­tion], as the State Depart­ment once tried to sug­gest when obfus­cat­ing the mat­ter, claim­ing that the word “curtsy” being derived from “court­sey,” it sig­ni­fied no more. Your gov­ern­ment should not have to inform you that the word “cour­tesy” derives from behav­ior in the courts of roy­alty, which is no busi­ness of ours.

Judith A. Mar­tin, Miss Man­ners’ Guide to Excru­ci­at­ingly Cor­rect Behav­ior 692–94. (2d Ed. 2005).

~U.S. Pres­i­dent Barack Obama vis­its King Abdul­lah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud in Saudi Ara­bia in June, 2009

~U.S. Pres­i­dent Barack Obama vis­its Emperor Aki­hito and Empress Michiko in Japan in Novem­ber, 2009

Update, 24 Nov. 2009:

~U.S. Pres­i­dent Barack Obama vis­its Chi­nese Pre­mier Wen Jiabao in China in Novem­ber, 2009

  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (2)
    • Nicole Eliz­a­beth Gabriela Schwarcz Faby
    • December 13th, 2009 2:39am

    I am not knowl­edge­able enough about Saudi Ara­bian cus­toms to com­ment on whether or not bow­ing is cul­tur­ally appro­pri­ate, but in both China and Japan bow­ing is a cus­tom­ary greet­ing when meet­ing almost every­one, not merely ones “bet­ters”; more­over, while Prime Min­is­ter Wen Jiabao is not demo­c­ra­t­i­cally elected, he is not roy­alty, either.

    On the other hand, if Pres­i­dent Obama wishes to act in a cul­tur­ally appro­pri­ate man­ner when he makes vis­its abroad, he should learn the exact eti­quette (he is not bow­ing properly).

    • Qwertz
    • December 14th, 2009 12:04pm

    The point Miss Man­ners and I are mak­ing by relat­ing the back­ground behind such cus­toms is that it is never cul­tur­ally appro­pri­ate for an Amer­i­can to bow to some­one as a greet­ing. Amer­i­cans do not bow. Our cul­ture of indi­vid­u­al­ism and the fun­da­men­tal equal­ity of all per­sons for­bids it. Amer­i­can busi­ness­men need to learn this les­son as much as Pres­i­dent Obama does. The bow is, in all cul­tures where it is preva­lent as a greet­ing, either for roy­alty or merely for one’s “bet­ters” (both are con­cepts alien to Amer­i­can indi­vid­u­al­ism), is a dis­play of obse­quious obei­sance, not appro­pri­ate for a meet­ing of equals. If an Amer­i­can wishes to be gra­cious when meet­ing a new acquain­tance from a cul­ture where bow­ing is preva­lent, he should ask his new acquain­tance please not to bow, to stand upright, and to extend a hand in equal part­ner­ship and respect instead.

    On a broader note, cul­tural rel­a­tivism (the idea that no cul­ture is supe­rior to any other, and that all should be respected by out­siders) is garbage. Some cul­tures are bet­ter than oth­ers, and one can deter­mine which are bet­ter by look­ing at them and ask­ing “which is moral?” Or, “which cul­ture best pro­motes human life as a ratio­nal indi­vid­ual?” The answer is still Amer­i­can culture.

    ~Q

Comment are closed.