The etiquette of being served first

[cabrales]

to address fatus's points:

3) Would you want people to wait for you, were you away from the table when they were served in a restaurant. ...

4) How do you rule on a hypothetical situation where all eight people at a table are seated but only seven are served and the eighth says, "Please go ahead and eat. Your food is hot." At that point should the seven eat? ...

To answer the same inquiries:

3) No, I would strongly prefer that people not wait for me. I would not ask of dining companions that which I would not give, had our positions been reversed.

If dining companions had waited for me and the food had gotten cold, I would have found that of their own doing (with all respect) and unnecessary.

4) If all seven had been served, it would be rude of the eigth not to insist on the others beginning to eat. If the eigth did not volunteer to do so, I would ask nicely. "X, I hope you won't mind too much if we were to begin on our dishes, given their temperature." At that point, the eighth should of course assent.

[tommy]

it seems to me that etiquette, as valuable as it is to us today, what with most of it being set in stone 300 years ago, is something that changes with society. one could argue that societal standards eventually effect etiquette. i'm not sure how to tie that into this discussion, but maybe someone else can as i'm off to the pub where i'm sure i know how to act appropriately.

[cabrales]

Stepping back a bit, I don't think there is disagreement that it would be polite to wait. The question is whether not waiting, under certain circumstances, may also be acceptable with respect to being polite. Looking at the question of etiquette only(and not sampling of cuisine), of course it would be preferable to wait (I believe nobody is disputing that).

The key question, though, is whether it would be considered impolite to begin eating.

[g.johnson]

As I posted on the other thread, I think that there is some small rationale for starting to eat together: you will then finish together and avoid embarrassing the accidental laggard. (I don't find this a compelling reason.)

I suspect, however, that the real reason for this practice is that eating together is a significant social act. To start separately is to weaken the ritual aspects of that act.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:41-42

[stefanyb]

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:41-42

Don't know why, exactly, but when reading this post the inner voice I heard saying the words was Linus from Charlie Brown's Christmas.

[macrosan]

Steven, all your conclusions are perfect, but they don't address the subject of the thread. In fact, what you propose is that people break with etiquette in order to achieve a sensible result. Different discussion, that.

[Fat Guy]

Hey, I'm the only person here citing any sources that can in any way be said to speak in an expert or official manner on the subject of etiquette, and those sources agree with me not the rest of you ill-mannered yokels. Are you all really saying you know better than Letitia Baldridge? Granted the quotes are not exactly directed at the scenario we're discussing, but surely they weigh in favor of my conclusions. I see no principled basis, for example, for saying they weigh in favor of the opposite conclusions. So far nobody has given any reasons why my sources aren't applicable here -- all I've heard is that the specific facts differ. But I don't see how they differ in such a way as to change the basic premise. So to put the cart before the horse and frame this as me advocating a departure from etiquette just doesn't work for me, the cart, the horse, Macrosan, or the guy in the bathroom.

[cabrales]

macrosan -- No, that there is a preferable (from a purely etiquette standpoint) practice of waiting does not mean that not waiting is breaking the etiquette. In other words, that waiting comports with etiquette does not demonstrate that not waiting breaks etiquette.

If A results in B, then (not A) does not necessarily mean (not B).

Edited December 10, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[Fat Guy]

Still waiting for a single person to say he or she would want the others to wait.

[g.johnson]

Hey, I'm the only person here citing any sources that can in any way be said to speak in an expert or official manner on the subject of etiquette, and those sources agree with me not the rest of you ill-mannered yokels. Are you all really saying you know better than Letitia Baldridge? Granted the quotes are not exactly directed at the scenario we're discussing, but surely they weigh in favor of my conclusions. I see no principled basis, for example, for saying they weigh in favor of the opposite conclusions. So far nobody has given any reasons why my sources aren't applicable here -- all I've heard is that the specific facts differ. But I don't see how they differ in such a way as to change the basic premise. So to put the cart before the horse and frame this as me advocating a departure from etiquette just doesn't work for me, the cart, the horse, Macrosan, or the guy in the bathroom.

Etiquette is a matter of convention, so there is no certain way to extrapolate from a banquet to a small private dinner. I believe the reason different standards apply is that the latter is a personal affair. It’s intimate to share food with friends – more intimate, I think, than any other social event*. Sharing food, rather than fighting over it, is a socially important activity for humans. And, if I may be evolutionary biological for a moment, innate knowledge of that fact may be encoded in our genes. An echo of that knowledge is found in the convention** of waiting for the party to be complete before eating.

* Excluding orgies, I suppose.

** A convention that, like it or not, does exist, at least for some.

[g.johnson]

In other words, that waiting comports with etiquette does not demonstrate that not waiting breaks etiquette.  

If A results in B, then (not A) does not necessarily mean (not B).

(not A) does not imply (not B), as you say. But (not B) does imply (not A).

Hence if polite (A) implies waiting (B), not waiting (not B) does indeed imply not polite (not A).

Smug Boolean Bastard.

[g.johnson]

Still waiting for a single person to say he or she would want the others to wait.

Voice of my mother from beyond the grave

Oh. I see you didn't wait. Harrumph.

[Fat Guy]

there is no certain way to extrapolate from a banquet to a small private dinner.

This isn't extrapolation. This is English. You're just saying it's extrapolation in order to create the appearance of some sort of artificiality in applying the plain language of those quotes to the situation at hand.

Let's recap: The people who think waiting is proper etiquette have no supporting sources, no supporting reasons, and no supporting anything other than a gut feeling (one nonetheless held with absolute certitude) and a general sense of what the unwashed masses think is proper. Everybody agrees that they wouldn't want others to wait for them. Everybody agrees that if the odd person out is sitting at the table and says "go ahead and eat" then everybody else should eat. Everybody most likely agrees that it would be rude for the odd person out not to demand that of the others. So what's left? A two-minute exception for bathroom visits? Is that what this is all about? Fine.

[tommy]

Let's recap: The people who think waiting is proper etiquette have no supporting sources, no supporting reasons, and no supporting anything other than a gut feeling (one nonetheless held with absolute certitude) and a general sense of what the unwashed masses think is proper. Everybody agrees that they wouldn't want others to wait for them. Everybody agrees that if the odd person out is sitting at the table and says "go ahead and eat" then everybody else should eat. Everybody most likely agrees that it would be rude for the odd person out not to demand that of the others. So what's left? A two-minute exception for bathroom visits? Is that what this is all about? Fine.

you're right.

now, if egullet was read by every person that i know, then we'd all be more comfortable, as everyone would eat their hot food whilst i'm relieving myself or on the phone.

but as it turns out, it's not likely that will happen any time soon.

so, given the fact that most people tend to wait, what are we to do?

i know that i generally announce to the table "hey, if the food comes, start eating, as i'm dropping the kids off at the pool, and this might take a while."

anything short of that, the most uncomfortable person in the situation where one is in the restroom while others are at the table with food is the person in the restroom wondering if their constipation causing everyone else discomfort.

i don't see where books or quotes come into play here. it's simply the way it happens.

hey, when a man is walking with a woman towards a revolving door, does the man let the lady go first? what do the books say about that? i'll give you the correct answer, as far as i'm concerned. and i'm not sure that anyone, at this point in my life, will convince me that my approach is wrong. this, to paraphrase fatus, is just another firmly held belief, and a belief that pages of discussion will most likely not sway...cause my grandma told me what to do, and that's what it is.

Edited December 11, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Suvir Saran]

Still waiting for a single person to say he or she would want the others to wait.

Me!

[Suvir Saran]

I was not sure if I should join this thread that really does not seem to stay On Topic much.

But after reading it, I find Tommy to have left the most lasting impression. He has redeemed himself completely.

And by the way, who is Letitia Baldridge? ? ?

[Suvir Saran]

I only refer to Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt when worrying about correct etiquette and protocol.

[Fat Guy]

Still waiting for a single person to say he or she would want the others to wait.

Me!

Traitor!

[Fat Guy]

anything short of that, the most uncomfortable person in the situation where one is in the restroom while others are at the table with food is the person in the restroom wondering if their constipation causing everyone else discomfort.

Indeed, and when that uncomfortable person returns to the table one of two things will happen: Either everybody else will have started eating or they will be sitting there waiting. Regardless of any need to reference eGullet or a real etiquette source, which situation viewed alone from the standpoint of common sense is likely to make the returning absentee feel the most comfortable? I believe the overwhelming majority of people in society would vastly prefer to discover, upon returning to the table, that everybody else had gone ahead and eaten.

How many times have you seen this situation: You're in some restaurant that's a mile long and the food runner brings three people's plates but not the fourth and says, "I'll be right back with the other one!" The person who wasn't served says, "Go ahead and eat, you have hot food." And everybody else just sits there. I've seen it plenty of times, so I'm not disagreeing that it's a societal norm. But I'm sorry, I think the societal norm is just plain rude. There's no way I can think of to view it as polite. The person has specifically asked for the group not to display whatever solidarity is implicit in self-imposed collective suffering, and I think the person nearly 100% of the time really means it. So what possible justification could there be for going against the request? Yet it happens all the time. That's why societal norms are not the true test of right or wrong when it comes to etiquette decisions.

Now if I may extrapolate, as it were, I really don't in the end see a difference in the decisionmaking process whether the non-eating person is present or absent. When that person is present, it's true, you have an explicit request to hang your hat on. But when the person is absent you're supposed to sit there and think about the golden rule: What would you want to happen were you in the other person's shoes; what would most people want? And if the answer is a no-brainer, which in this case I think it is, you make your decision and you don't look back.

When you're confronted with a choice between two evils, you're supposed to choose the lesser evil. I believe that people choose to wait because they delude themselves into thinking that by not eating they're not actually making a choice. It's the basic false dichotomy between action and inaction that so many people can't seem to wrap their minds around. But once you realize that the choice is eating or not eating, and that both eating and not eating are actual proactive choices, it all becomes quite clear. To me at least. Mind you, in drawing this conclusion I place no value whatsoever on my own desire to eat hot food. Yes I like hot food. But I'd happily let my food get cold if I could be convinced that such conduct would constitute the right choice. I think politeness is a lot more important than eating hot food. It just so happens that in this case there's a fortunate coincidence between politeness and getting to eat hot food.

Selflessness is the cornerstone of etiquette. But sometimes selfishness and selflessness are tough to sort out. In this instance, there may be a perception that it would be selfish to go ahead and eat. But in reality I think the people who choose not to eat do so because they feel uncomfortable eating when somebody is missing from the table. And that's not the test. The test is what will make the missing person comfortable. So here you have a situation where the action that to many people seems selfless at first blush turns out upon reflection to be anything but.

Now, given that we live in a society where few people bother to think this stuff through and even fewer people bother to refer to actual compilations of etiquette written by the people who plan parties at embassies and such (because that's really the standard; this is all supposed to be trickle-down from the aristocracy or whatever group pinch-hits for the aristocracy these days), I think we need to resist the temptation to conform to norms that don't make sense from an etiquette standpoint, even if the path of least resistance is to conform. So those who care about etiquette and right conduct need to do more than just act appropriately: In many cases a seemingly off-the-cuff remark will go a long way towards greasing the wheels.

For example, all the written sources and all the experts will tell you that when you're getting into a taxi on a busy street the man should get in first and slide across the back seat so that the woman (who is more likely to be wearing a skirt or dress or restrictive clothing) doesn't have to (if there's no traffic then the man should seat the woman and walk around to the other side, of course). Yet many men feel uncomfortable doing this because they're afraid they'll appear uncouth on account of the real rule counterintuitively (at first) going against the "ladies first" rule that represents the baseline understanding. And I'm sure there are women out there who don't know better who would indeed perceive those men as rude. So what do you do if you're about to get into a taxi on Madison Avenue during rush hour with a woman and that woman isn't likely to have attended finishing school or been otherwise educated about this stuff? I think the best move is to say, "You know what? I'm going to get in first so you don't have to slide across, okay?" And then don't wait for an answer. I should add, if you're a woman and you know the rules, you should in this day and age do what you can to telegraph that to the man. For example, in the aforementioned taxi situation, you can take a step back in order to make clear that you expect the man to get in first. If he doesn't get it, fine, but at least you did your part.

So I think what we should be talking about here isn't whether or not to start eating when someone is missing from the table. I think we should be devising a really strong repertoire of "off-the-cuff" comments to make everybody feel better about doing the right thing.

Hey, you know we really should have a dining-etiquette expert on eGullet for a Q&A. I'm going to see if I can make that happen.

[macrosan]

...societal norms are not the true test of right or wrong when it comes to etiquette decisions.

But etiquette is nothing more nor less than a codification of societal norms.

[macrosan]

Hey, you know we really should have a dining-etiquette expert on eGullet for a Q&A. I'm going to see if I can make that happen.

Well you've been looking for a key role for LML for a while now, haven't you ?

[Fat Guy]

...societal norms are not the true test of right or wrong when it comes to etiquette decisions.

But etiquette is nothing more nor less than a codification of societal norms.

Etiquette is "the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life." (Merriam-Webster) It is "the practices and forms prescribed by social convention or by authority." (American Heritage) It is "conventional rules of social behaviour or professional conduct." (Oxford condensed)

Etiquette is emphatically not a codification of societal norms. It is prescriptive, not descriptive. It's based on a combination of aristocratic tradition, reason, selflessness, and doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you. And I think it has for a long time been understood that the majority does not rule when it comes to questions of etiquette. It's the difference, as Emily Post puts it, between "society" and "Best Society."

From Emily Post, 1922:

Etiquette must, if it is to be of more than trifling use, include ethics as well as manners. Certainly what one is, is of far greater importance than what one appears to be. A knowledge of etiquette is of course essential to one’s decent behavior, just as clothing is essential to one’s decent appearance; and precisely as one wears the latter without being self-conscious of having on shoes and perhaps gloves, one who has good manners is equally unself-conscious in the observance of etiquette, the precepts of which must be so thoroughly absorbed as to make their observance a matter of instinct rather than of conscious obedience.

Thus Best Society is not a fellowship of the wealthy, nor does it seek to exclude those who are not of exalted birth; but it is an association of gentle-folk, of which good form in speech, charm of manner, knowledge of the social amenities, and instinctive consideration for the feelings of others, are the credentials by which society the world over recognizes its chosen members. (My emphasis)

[TheMan,TheMyth]

Everyone should receive their food at the same time and there shouldn't be any plates cleared from the table until everyone has finished eating. You shouldn't have to deal with being served first. A good restaurant should know how to accurately time their meal preparation. If one meal is done before the others then you should hold that meal in the back until the other meals are completed.

The Man, The Myth

TapItorScrapIt.com

[tommy]

steven, i can't speak wilfrid et al, but i'm pretty sure that we are all in agreement. but again, what to do? the simple fact of the matter is that not everyone knows the "official" etiquette, and they sure as hell ain't reading this thread.

it has been suggested (i'm not sure if it was on this thread or in a "real" conversation) that most people, when getting up, say "start without me if the food comes." i suppose that if people find that others still don't, we'll have to start following that up with "...i'm serious you assholes."

"You know what? I'm going to get in first so you don't have to slide across, okay?" And then don't wait for an answer.

you and i think alike. i'm forever explaning my well-thought-out decisions to people so my actions don't seem rude.

thoughts on that revolving door?

[Rachel Perlow]

Hey, you know we really should have a dining-etiquette expert on eGullet for a Q&A. I'm going to see if I can make that happen.

Be sure to add a link to this thread to their suggested eGullet reading before doing the Q&A.