Are there any universal rules of propriety?
Or are all social behaviors and rules culturally dependent, ethnocentric, local?
No other subject has more preoccupied me in the past decade, since I finished my first book, Destination Earth. The reason is that I felt I had left something important out of the book, and now the time has come to address it. But let me start from the beginning.
In the capsule “No Thanks, but Thanks,” I first described how the Tarahumara Indians in northern Mexico did not express any thanks when I gave them ice cream. I then continued:
Accepting a gift without verbal thanks is just one of the many social conventions a world-traveler comes to recognize. Many of the normal rules of propriety are culturally specific, yet we assume that our rules are universal since they have been ingrained in our psyche from a young age. We consider it normal to say a hundred pleases every day, even between family members, as if this word constitutes some type of magic spell permitting any transaction. We would never dare eat a bowl of rice with our bare hands, yet this is what people do in most Muslim countries as well as in India, the South Pacific, and many other places. We would never dare slurp our soup in front of others or spit in a crowded street, yet this is what the Chinese do and for good reasons – slurping allows more flavors to enter the nose, thus making the soup tastier, while spitting in a very polluted metropolis covered in smog is the minimum one can do to remain healthy. [...] It is actually through observation, understanding, and the final (partial or whole) adoption of foreign norms that the traveler first comes to understand the relativity of normalcy in human behavior. He also comes to realize the contingent nature of almost all the rules of propriety. These rules depend on the history and character of a nation, as well as the infinite random events that formed its culture through the ages.
In the book I had emphasized the relativism of human norms and rules of propriety, while at the same time I had made the case for Cosmopolitanism against Nationalism, emphasizing the absoluteness of our common humanity. In the book’s last chapter, I showed how the two concepts of Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism are intertwined. Here’s a short excerpt that I think is most relevant today with the rise of global nationalism:
The moment the idea of a nation arises, inescapably it arises in dependence upon the existence of other nations. We may even say that national pride requires the existence of other nationalities in order to exist! If all human beings were French, the idea of “being French” would be meaningless. This is another example of the basic Buddhist axiom of interdependent origination – that everything arising in our world is dependent for its existence upon something other than itself and thus has no inherent separate self-existence. But there is still an even deeper idea: Just as nationalities are interdependent on one another in order to subsist, a world composed of nationalities is dependent upon the idea of a world without nationalities. […] The moment one speaks of one’s nationality with respect to other nationalities, he indirectly presupposes a common quality upon which he makes comparisons. This quality is none other than the basic concept of a human being – the common humanity we all share. It is as human beings that we are different. So, while we affirm the concept of nationalities and differentiation, we simultaneously affirm an underlying oneness. Our common humanity is neither a rationalization nor a deduction. It is as much a given as our nationality.
I now realize that just as there is an interdependent relationship between Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism (which is based on our common humanity), there is a similar one between Culturally Specific rules of propriety and Universal rules of propriety.
But, you see, at the time I was so overwhelmed by my newly discovered relativism of so many rules of propriety that I emphasized how becoming aware of them is one of the very first things that defines a world-traveler. Yet, I failed to explore its dependently arising nature: depending, that is, on the simultaneous existence of universal rules of propriety. For the analysis to have been complete, I ought to have similarly explained that the relativism of customs has its basis on behaviors that are culturally independent and therefore universal (just as in the dichotomy between Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism). Behind the relative and ethnocentric (and also time-bound) societal rules of propriety, there are absolute universal rules of propriety.
Well, we know that most important laws governing social conduct are universal: killing, stealing, raping, etc. are universally prohibited and harshly punished. The punishment may be different in different countries, but the laws are universal and have been enforced in all societies throughout history. Even in the Kwaio tribe of the Solomon Islands, where pig-thieves are apparently celebrated for their valor, cunningness, and skill, still, if a thief is caught in the act of stealing, he is punished. (This is similar to the ancient Spartan male youth, who, for reasons of military training, were kept hungry so they would learn how to steal, but would be punished only for being caught, rather than for the theft itself.) The abused rights of the victim have always been placed on a higher pedestal than the skills of the perpetrator.
We also know that a number of social attitudes are also universal: In all cultures, people respect the elderly, defend the weak and helpless, appreciate honesty, value loyalty, give alms. And of course, they run to help a neighbor whose house catches fire, call an ambulance when they witness a fatal accident in the street, jump in the lake to save an unknown child from drowning. The list of such universal behaviors is as endless as the range of human activities.
Yet most studies in social anthropology do exactly what I did in my book: They become obsessed with studying the cultural differences between societies, particularly the quirkiness and weirdness of nonindustrial societies. It is not, therefore, surprising that there are few anthropological/ethnological studies that have explored the existence of such universals. One famous study was completed in 2019, but even this one did not really study social attitudes, behaviors, or rules of propriety, but rather moral rules. In what is considered the largest and most comprehensive cross-cultural survey of morals conducted to date, a team from Oxford’s Institute of Cognitive & Evolutionary Anthropology analyzed ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies. The study identified seven universal moral rules: help your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property.
Moral rules such as these are general, and it is only when they are put to action in everyday life that they become rules of propriety – at which point they can easily become culturally diverse and therefore non-universal. Still, they do point to some proof that because the morals and ethics are the same, the behavior resulting therefrom cannot differ much between cultures. However, such studies, to be honest, seem a bit self-evident, and one may easily question the need for such “research”! Helping your family and your group, or returning favors, can be easily observed among all advanced animals, from mammals to birds. These are actually biological traits and may not even touch the realm of “ethics” at all. Would it be appropriate to say that a cow protecting her calf is applying a universal “moral rule”?! I rather feel that sociologists and social anthropologists expend a bit too much energy and resources to establish the universality of the self-evident. I am similarly unimpressed by anthropologist Donald Brown’s list of Human Universals, as he listed them in his book by the same name, published in 1991: Among the list, one finds such self-evident things as “classification of sex,” “gestures,” “memory,” “envy,” and more. Seriously?! Every insect in the world can identify sex (otherwise it wouldn’t mate!) or make various “gestures/signs,” and of course every animal more advanced than a jellyfish has … memory. And anybody who has had a pet parrot knows that envy is not only to be found in humans, but that its presence extends way beyond our species. It’s such a pity that “research” in this field has never gone beyond the obvious, and that zero research has been done in the narrower field of “rules of propriety” – the study of which would most definitely further intercultural understanding and communication, help diplomacy, and, more practically, enlighten every traveler.
But there is no need to resort to the specialized scientific research of anthropologists. A world-traveler is already a type of anthropologist! If he only carefully observes the behavior of other societies, he will have no difficulty discovering an incredible number of universals. He will discover, again as I myself discovered and presented in my aforementioned book, that “the overwhelming majority of people in the world are kind, helpful, open-hearted, polite.” And coming to the rules of propriety stemming from these universal human traits, he will also discover that in all cultures, visitors are treated kindly and offered help when they request it. And that, even though not all cultures easily invite a complete stranger into their house (some familiarity is usually a prerequisite), once that foreigner does garner such an invitation, all cultures will treat him with warm-heartedness and often like a VIP.
A world-traveler will soon realize that, although interrupting someone when he speaks is considered inappropriate behavior in Finland, it is considered completely normal in Italy. Yet, despite the different norms, the right to allow the other person to speak (… even while interrupted) is respected in both countries – because it is universal!
Discovering the universal behind the cultural differences can become a challenge, or even a playful puzzle, that will enrich our understanding of human cultures. Here’s a classic example: Greeks are almost always late for their appointments. Being fifteen minutes or even half an hour late is actually considered normal in Athens. A Berliner will apologize multiple times if he turns up ten minutes late, while a New Yorker will call ten or fifteen minutes before the appointment to pre-apologize even if he is going to be a mere five minutes late. That said, all of them would find it completely unacceptable if you don’t turn up at all for the appointment. The Greeks, the least conscientious of them all, would actually turn out to be the most offended in this case, and would hold a grudge for quite some time! Dealing with “lateness” is culture-specific, but not turning up at all is breaking a universal rule of propriety. There is no culture in the world where standing somebody up is acceptable – unless, that is, there’s a last-minute emergency.
When it comes to communication, styles vary widely between nations. Greeks, Italians, Argentineans, Chinese and others are very animated, loud, and quite expressive with hand gestures. Their style seems intense to those from more reserved cultures like the Finns or the Japanese. A Finn may even think the shouting Chinese may be angry or reprimanding her, trying to figure out what she did wrong! But all these people can adapt quickly to each nation’s manner, managing in the end to communicate by using more universal signs such as a smile, a tap on the shoulder, or a nod of understanding. Unlike in Italy, it may be inappropriate to speak loud in Finland, but using polite gestures and being kind and understanding – which is a form of universal language – allows the Finn to break this barrier with the Italian. Such simple universal acts transcend outward mannerisms and connect people on a deeper level. The Italian traveling in Finland will soon learn to speak more softly, and sure enough, upon returning back home, will have many stories and insights to share.
The way people view friendship and behave towards friends also varies across cultures. In most Northern European societies, friendships often emphasize individual choice, frankness, and openness. In collectivist societies, like many in Asia, friendships focus more on group harmony and long-term bonds. In the Mediterranean cultures, friendships involve extended social circles with an emphasis on having fun and “doing things together.” Yet, despite the differences, friendships everywhere involve trust, mutual support, and helping one another during challenging times. And in all cultures, bar none, friendships create a sense of belonging. That is why betraying a friend, or abruptly cutting off communication with him for no apparent reason, is breaking a universal rule of propriety.
The fact that there are universal rules of propriety means that not “anything goes.” Although we live in a most colorful world of different manners, customs, and rules, which we ought to learn, understand and respect, we should never lose sight of the simple truth that human society stands on the pillars of fundamental universals that we must similarly always seek to discover and subsequently respect.