Aristocratic societies which relied on propriety, manners, courtliness, and
good taste as means of civility, coherence, and predictability are easy
targets today. To liberal democrats such ‘values’ are little more than
expressions of power, status, and influence designed to further the distance
between those who rule and those who are ruled. The aristocratic, highly
mannered formal gardens, palaces, balls, and couture of French courts were
lavish displays with a purpose. No peasant or tradesman could – or should -
possibly imagine a life of such luxury, ease, and splendor.
The French Revolution changed all that. The ‘Let them eat cake’ courtiers of
Louis XVI were beheaded along with their monarchs, and Robespierre and the
Terror made sure that their kind would never again rise to power.
www.theroyaldigest.blogspot.co.uk
Of course this populist dream was short-lived. It wasn’t long before the
French aristocracy was restored and although there was no monarchy, there was no
doubt that those with a “‘de la’ devant et une grosse fortune
derriere” would return to prominence in France. They would not necessarily
rule the country politically – a separate aristocratic technocracy would see to
that – but they would certainly assert their privilege as arbiters of taste,
manners, and high-culture.
There might be no more of the dandyism of the 18th century court, but chateau
balls, masquerades, formal dinners, elegant soirees, and lawn parties were
common. The people had had their chance; and now were complicit in the return
of nobility to its proper place in French society.
In the American Civil War the North destroyed the culture of the Southern
Cavalier – one of gentility, manners, culture, and sophistication – and ensured
that the South would never rise again.
Of course it did, and soon Southern plantation owners regained their land,
their influence, and their political power. No Yankee retribution and punitive
enforcement through Reconstruction could dim the Cavalier spirit; and before
long plantation mansion were once again home to lively balls, masquerades,
formal dinners, and lawn parties.
www.biography.com
After the French Revolution, the princes of Europe were quick to institute
democratic reforms in order to forestall any similar populist uprisings, but
they too never ceded cultural authority and privilege.
Western society, however, is changing so radically that aristocratic
privilege and culture will soon be things of the past. Chateaux and country
manors will be on historical registries, maintained as part of national heritage
and patrimony, and toured by tourists and amateur historians; but they will be
lifeless, abandoned, and consigned to irrelevance as will the few remaining
aristocrats who claim currency.
There has been, of course, an American Northern aristocracy – the nobility of
Beacon Hill, Rittenhouse Square, Park Avenue, Georgetown, and smaller enclaves
throughout New England. Farmington, Stonington, and Cornwall are Connecticut towns that have always had a privileged
ancestry.
The 18th and 19th century New England industrialists have passed on their
wealth to successive generations who have moved out of ancestral towns and cities, but have
preserved some sense of patrimony in Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. However,
this American landed aristocracy like its European counterparts will soon be a
thing of the past.
While many democrats applaud the demise of American class privilege, such
demise is not without consequence. While democracy may be an ideal political
system and populism its most representative expression, it has many unattractive
by-products.
Aristocracies have always provided a strong cultural center to society.
They, because of wealth and influence have been patrons of the arts. There
would be no Louvre, no Sistine Chapel, no Winchester Cathedral, no Champs
Elysees, no Ghiberti doors, no Florence without European nobility. Through this
patronage they have created a universal culture.
Without this cultural center, culture itself becomes centripetal. Untethered
from the intellectual genius of aristocrats whose education, upbringing, and
breeding encouraged an innately sophisticated taste, valuation of art, music,
dance, and literature, modern Western culture can only be a grab bag of
sporadic, individualistic things – some brilliant but most ordinary and
self-supposed.
In America where populism is at its height, where ‘elites’ have no place and
should be marched to the guillotine with as little ceremony as in the days of
the Jacobins, it is no surprise that popular culture is an even more the norm
than ever before. A culture based on individual self-expression, image,
idolatry, and short attention spans (‘In the future everyone will be
world-famous for 15 minutes’); and one which prizes innovation and enterprise,
cannot help but be permanently disassembled. If there are tens of
millions versions of culture, then there is can be no culture.
At best America’s ‘culture’ is the process of enterprising capitalism. There
is no substance to our culture as there is in Europe – i.e. 1500 years of
cultural patrimony; nothing to point to, nothing of lasting value. The past is
irrelevant. Cultural centers are figments of imagination.
Aristocratic culture has always had an important by-product – social codes.
European courts have always had prescribed and precise codes of conduct.
Chivalry was a moral code of honor, courage, and perhaps above all respect for
and admiration of women. Duels were fought, maidens in distress rescued,
families strengthened and honored through marriage, respect shown for monarchs,
princes, prelates, and generals.
Such moral codes are not European inventions. Cato the Elder, a Roman
educator, wrote ‘diptychs’ on which he inscribed the basic principles of
governance – principles to be taught to young aristocrats and future leaders.
Honor, courage, discipline, respect, compassion were among the most important.
Aristotle and Plato decades before contemplated the nature of good and evil and
how morality was the foundation for any society.
A subset of these social code is manners – the treatment of others with
grace, gentility, and respect; and the conditioning of one’s behavior with this
in mind.
Manners are now in disrepute – a bourgeois trifle, a vestige of a discredited
elitist society, a superficial meme of privilege and social authority.
Yet manners are what hold a society together. If only individualism is
encouraged then cultural cohesion disappears. If personal behavior becomes
sacred – anything goes in the pursuit of self-expression – then many others will
necessarily be offended. There is a point to being moderate in dress,
appearance, and behavior. Moderation is the principle according to which
individual identity can be expressed within a social context.
Thomas Jefferson when penning the words ‘Pursuit of happiness’ never meant
them to encourage the quest of individual satisfaction at all costs. Individual
happiness, he went on to explain, is only valid when it is pursued with the
context of others. Manners are a less significant but still important measure
of this principle.
‘Good taste’ is perhaps the one attribute of a civilized society hardest to
define. De gustibus non disputandum est has never been more the
hallmark of modern America. Anything goes. There is no taste but taste. In a
pluralistic, multicultural society, there should never be one prescribed or
authorized taste.
Yes and no. It is not a question of one or multiple tastes, it is taste
itself which matters. Italians prize bella figura –looking,
sounding, and acting good. It is an ethos rather than a prescription.
According to bella figura there is no one fashion, way of speaking
required – only paying absolute attention to the way you look, behave, and
sound.
Americans need more bella figura. Lack of any sense of style in the
name of ‘informality’ is a neglect of manners which in turn is a neglect for a
sense of unifying culture. It does matter how you look. French women
are known for being svelte and well-dressed; and even women from modest
backgrounds adhere to this principle. It is not only part of French culture but
a French bella figura.
The aristocracy may be dead, but the best cultural spirit embodied in it
should never be.
There is no reason why cultural centrality need be either-or; the guillotine or Versailles.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Aristocratic Chivalry, Manners, And Good Taste–Where Are They When We Need Them Most?
Labels:
Politics and Culture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My family always adhered to noblesse oblige when dealing with the less fortunate - from forgiving debts to delivering babies in exchange for a bushel of beans. I asked my grandmother do we discriminate ? She said, yes, and you should too. Discriminate in tastes of good restaurants, manner of clothes to wear, the wine you drink, the countries you visit, etc; but never be predujuce against your fellow man. There are too many wonderful things to learn from people unlike you. But after seeing how certain groups of people behave during an election campaign she would have to wash my mouth out with soap which she did one time for saying a bad word. I guess Procter and Gamble would not carry enough soap for me today. By the way,j still carry two handkerchief , stand up when a lady comes to the table and don't sit down until she leaves the table even if insisted upon. Great article as always !!!
ReplyDeleteCap'n