The etiquette of being served first

[macrosan]

Uh oh, someone pressed my serious button

I'll acknowledge the dictionary definitions of etiquette, but I don't follow dictionary definitions in such matters. I want etiquette to mean what I want it to mean, and it's the meaning and purpose that matters far more to me than what it was once thought to be, or what someone else considers it to mean today.

To me, etiquette is a code of conduct which helps people to live together in harmony, in a civilized way, and which enables one person to show respect for another. In this context, it is a societal norm, which evolves as social mores evolve. Of course it is not a norm in the sense that a majority of all society adopt it, but it is in that the majority of those who have any interest at all in espousing standards of behaviour adopt it.

Etiquette by definition is in a constant state of evolution. Many man/woman interactions have changed radically from what were once patronizing gestures designed to confirm the superiority of men over women. Modern women resent some of the old procedures of men offering their seats to women, men not cshaking hands with women, men helping women to seat themselves, and so on, to the point where most of these gestures would cause offense rather than being taken as a sign of good manners.

Etiquette is not, for me, a practice designed to demonstrate one person's superiority, or "better breeding", over another. That may be how it originated, but for me that is not relevant. Etiquette is important to modern society, and to all members of society. It is a way of ameliorating the problems of inequality, whether economic or social or racial. It is a way of achieving dialogue and mutual understanding where otherwise it could not be achieved. It is a way of demonstrating the value of respect and self-respect.

In the context of this particular discussion about who waits for whom at the dinner table, it seems to me that the "right" answer is what each particular group intrinsically believes to be the right answer. Etiquette is not a perfect science. Etiquette on any individual occasion has "worked" if the group believes (after the event) that evryone present has demonstrated their respect for everyone else. Of course that leave scope for error, and misunderstanding, but a group such as I have described will accept, and allow for, that. If I read this thread correctly, the group at l'Espinasse did what evry individual one of them thought was proper. The "missing person" may have been embarrassed at the others waiting for him/her, but that person will also have felt warmed by the respect that the others showed him/her. That's perfect, mission accomplished. Against that achievement, the minor problem of lukewarm food pales into insignificance.

If FatGuy's peers had been the party at l'Espinasse, they wouldn't have waited, and no possible offence or disrespect would have been deemed to have occurred. Equally fine, equally perfect.

The big problem is that if FatGuy and I were in the same group, where we don't agree on what is "proper", cconfusion and difficulty are bound to arise. It is then that we need an established "rule", but I fear that there is simply no such thing any more. Letitia .... may be FatGuy's guru, but I've never heard of her so I'm not likely to follow her rules. My rules are defined by my upbringing and my environment, and they change with my observation of people around me. But of course, one of my rules of etiquette allows for cultural and other differences, so according to etiquette, I will defer to another provided they tell me about it. At l'Espinasse, if one person left at the table had said "Let's eat, guys, my friend XXXX would far prefer that we do" then I would observe their etiquette without any qualm.

One of the rules of etiquette is to understand when not to follow the rules of etiquette.

[=Mark]

On one hand I should be amazed that this topic has garnered 150 responses, on the other... well, this is eGullet.

[Ron Johnson]

Mark, don't you know that its polite to wait for all members to respond to a thread?

[tommy]

marcosan is far less goofy when he's serious.

[Suvir Saran]

One of the rules of etiquette is to understand when not to follow the rules of etiquette.

Bravo!!

(I must thank 201 for the above image. It would be bad etiquette to not do so.)

[Fat Guy]

Of course etiquette varies by culture and subculture. "When in Rome" has been a guiding principle forever, or at least since we've had Rome. If there's a culture or subculture where you're supposed to put the missing person on the spot by waiting, fine. I can't account for some private club that has a tradition of letting food get cold, or some group of friends that collectively has this policy. But in Western society at large the rule I'm advocating has the benefit of 1) actually being the rule handed down from on high by the bearers of our aristocratic traditions (it's not just Letitia Baldridge -- who happens to be "the foremost American authority on manners" according to Time magazine and others -- but every source; she didn't make it up); and 2) possessing the most compelling rationale on every level to this day. And I've got to repeat, because it seems to be going in one collective ear and out the other, that this isn't about me eating hot food. It's about trying to do what the missing person would want me to do. If I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the missing person would want me to wait, I'd probably advocate waiting. But I don't actually know anybody like that, except maybe Suvir, for whom I'll now wait if I'm ever served hot food while he's away from the table so he'll still be my friend and give me a hug whenever I ask for one. Let me also repeat for the villionth time that I understand we're dealing with a situation where the restaurant messed up, and the restaurant shouldn't have put us in the situation. Okay, right, the restaurant is in the wrong. But now we have to deal with the situation. We can't just ignore it.

Macrosan, when you say, "Etiquette is not, for me, a practice designed to demonstrate one person's superiority, or "better breeding", over another. That may be how it originated, but for me that is not relevant," what are you implying? Just to be clear: Do you think I said the opposite, or that Emily Post said the opposite, or that anybody said the opposite? If not, I respectfully submit it's a straw man. Indeed, if you read through the major etiquette sources -- Baldridge, Miss Manners (who I've not quoted on this thread because she does Q&A to letters and isn't much for codification), Post -- you'll find not a hint of condescention or superiority. Some of the language in Post may seem lofty and quaint by modern standards, because she wrote in the language of another era, but if you read her words there's a tremendously egalitarian spirit behind them, especially if you believe that true egalitarianism is best expressed through equality of opportunity. There may be some imperious jerks who use their knowledge of which fork to use as a way of maintaining a social hierarchy, but those people actually have bad manners and do not represent the great traditions of etiquette. I can't remember the exact story or which Queen it was but maybe I'll find it later. The general outlines are that somebody started to eat before the Queen (this was cold food) but, being possessed of incredible etiquette instincts, when the Queen saw this uninformed person reaching for his food prematurely, she deftly grabbed a tiny piece of her own food and got it to her mouth first. That's what etiquette is all about.

And a couple of clarifications, Macrosan: 1) I think it's still required in polite society to at least offer a woman all the old-style conventions. What's also required today is that you ease off if she expresses the desire for equal treatment. But she needs to take the lead. You should always make the move to hold the door for a woman. If she blocks and gets it herself, you know how to treat her going forward. As long as you're motivated by sensitivity to her needs, your behavior is not sexist. And 2) I have no peers.

Tommy: Give the door a push to get it started, and let the woman go first.

[tommy]

Tommy: Give the door a push to get it started, and let the woman go first.

that's muh girl.

actually, i usually just go right on through, assuming the door was stationary.

we need to get the word out that it's ok and appropriate to start eating while one person is in the restroom. i'm serious. i don't want to eat cold food, nor do i want my company to eat cold food.

shall i send up a bat signal?

Edited December 11, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

we need to get the word out that it's ok and appropriate to start eating while one person is in the restroom.

Well that's what writers are for. Oh, wait a second, that means me. I'll see what I can do.

Seriously, I like to write about etiquette but I'm no authority. So the only writing I've done on the subject has been in the form of interviewing an expert. Interviews are hard for freelancers to sell. They're mostly written by staff.

The other thing I can do is try to push this thread out as a story idea to some media outlets. We've had success with that in the past. Sometimes they cite us, sometimes they don't, which is okay with me as long as we get cited once in awhile.

[yvonne johnson]

But as Tommy said, why are we hammering on when we all "know" the answer.  Steven, you're a dissenter; maybe Ron is too?  But everyone else waits for the other diner to return - unless it is some unexpectedly lengthy delay.  

I'm coming in late on this one. How dare you all start without me.

I don't follow a lot of the logic in this thread. If etiquette means "conventional laws of courtesy" (Chambers), then it's obvious to me that waiting for someone to return to table before starting any kind of food is considered the well-mannered thing to do. I think Wilfrid is correct on drawing on empirical evidence because this supports the convention. Maybe Fat Guy would like the the laws to make more sense than they do, but that's another point. Whether our decision to wait renders the food less hot is beside the point; whether the absent person would rather we begin is also beside the point. Waiting is deemed the polite thing to do and this instance it maybe conveys to the temporarily absent member that their presence is more important than hot food. I'm not sure I need an authority on manners to tell me what is considered well-mannered in this society, as I can see it with my own eyes.

Changing those conventions may be a worthy cause, but again that's a different matter than identifying the conventions.

[Jonathan Day]

Sorry to join this conversation so late in the game. But I did want to plead for a sense of context and for the prevalence of reasonableness rather than rationality here. I agree with FG that the official etiquette codes generally prescribe starting to eat hot foods. But doesn’t the code to be applied also depend on the setting and the purpose of the meal?

Let’s try some contextual examples:

• At one extreme you have the grab-and-go meal, where the main purpose is to satisfy hunger. In essence this is a solitary meal for each participant, it just happens to be eaten at the same place and at (roughly) the same time. This happens at breakfast, for many families, where people are rushed and are leaving on different schedules for work, school, etc.. It would be unthinkable to wait for others to arrive before beginning to eat, because it is not really a meal taken in common. In country house breakfasts people will take food from the buffet and start to eat it, ignoring what others at the table are doing. And they will feel free to leave the table, e.g. to get more food or to fetch a newspaper.
  A related setting would be an informal party (e.g. pizza or snacks eaten while watching a football match on television); again, in some sense a solitary meal rather than a communal one.
  The context changes with family meals, though unfortunately these are increasingly morphing into solitary, grab-and-go meals, as families dine while watching television, reading, and other private pursuits. Here the social function outweighs either the nutritional or the gastronomic. In religious households the meal might well begin with a prayer. Thoughtful cooks will prepare dishes that can easily be held until everyone is ready to dine; this is not a place for à la minute dishes that must be consumed as soon as cooked. The same applies at a restaurant, with a family dining together. In most settings, people would wait for others to arrive or be served before eating.
  A related meal would be a religious meal, such as a Passover seder or a commemoration of a communion or marriage, or the quasi-religious Thanksgiving dinners in the US. To the extent that these are sit-down meals, I would think that the social/religious role would be more important than the gastronomic, and that people would wait for others to be served before eating.
  Then there is the business meal, where the primary purpose is to discuss business affairs, with the meal and wines serving more as a lubricant to conversation than as the centrepiece. To me, it is at least in part a matter of contextually appropriate behaviour (what is reasonable rather than what is prescribed) to avoid extensive discussions of the food or cooking in these meals. At times this is challenging: I have often taken clients to restaurants like L’Oranger, Bobendum or Pétrus in London, and it is tempting to focus on the food. But, unless one’s dining companions are deeply interested in cooking, it would feel strange to discuss the food, or carefully inhale the aromas of a dish before tasting it, or other things that would be appropriate at a meal focused more on gastronomy. Here the decision as to whether to eat before others are served depends somewhat on hierarchy. But in general the safe action would be to wait.
  And that brings me to the setting in which, I am presuming, the original question was posed: the gastronomic meal, where it is presumed that most participants, if not of eGullet levels of fanaticism, are there primarily to test the mettle of the chef (and their own perceptiveness). Here, the focus is on the food, and here it seems reasonable and contextually appropriate to taste hot dishes as close to the condition in which they are served as possible. I can see the formal etiquette codes applying here. Paradoxically, this kind of meal can approach the solitariness of the grab-and-go, depending on participants' behaviours.
  

For more on rationality vs reasonableness and on the situatedness (contextuality) of practices, see Stephen Toulmin’s excellent Return to Reason (Harvard University Press, 2001).

[Fat Guy]

Yvonne, let's get this clear one more time: I'm not asking for a change in the rules. I've presented the rules and most people here have refused to accept them because they just know the rules are wrong. Well guess what? Those people don't have a leg to stand on. The rules are there, and they make sense. I see no reason to get rid of them. Just because a lot of people who don't know any better are ignoring the rules doesn't mean the rules have changed. And that's especially true when all the arguments support the rules. If there was a good reason to get rid of the rule, maybe it would make sense to discuss that reason. But there is no reason.

[hollywood]

Let's get this clear one more time: I'm not asking for a change in the rules. I've presented the rules and most people here have refused to accept them because they just know the rules are wrong. Well guess what? Those people don't have a leg to stand on. The rules are there, and they make sense. I see no reason to get rid of them. Just because a lot of people who don't know any better are ignoring the rules doesn't mean the rules have changed. And that's especially true when all the arguments support the rules. If there was a good reason to get rid of the rule, maybe it would make sense to discuss that reason. But there is no reason.

I think JD's correct. Fat Guy, whatever happened to situation ethics?

[Fat Guy]

JD (London), here's the thing I'm trying to explain, though: This has nothing to do with the hotness of the food per se. It's about trying to figure out what the person on whose account we're supposedly acting would want us to do. And here I think it's more than a coincidence that the rule dovetails exactly with what most people would want done in their absence. And I'm not sure I see how that fundamental issue changes with any of your examples.

[tommy]

i don't know if people care about "getting rid of" or "changing" the rule as much as they just want to just go on ignoring the rule.

obviously the rule isn't working because no one* knows the rule. and if people don't know the rule, following the rule will seem rude, which is part of the reason the rule is in place in the first place. it's a poorly excuted, but obviously logical, rule.

* hyperbole, obviously.

Edited December 11, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

We shouldn't be acting based on our need to feel as though we're being polite, or our belief in whether or not we'll be perceived as knowing a rule. We should be acting based on what's right. That's why I'm saying that what is needed here is a good, seemingly off-the-cuff remark we can make, when surrounded by people who don't understand the rule, to make them understand it and to grease the wheels of social intercourse.

[La Niña]

Personally, I'd find it quite rude if someone started eating before I got back to the table. But I'd also do my best to make my absence as brief as possible. And I would not, under any circumstances, take a phone call (or have my phone on, for that matter), or leave the table for any reason other than a real need to go to the bathroom. And that generally doesn't take very long. If I sensed that the food was about to arrive, and I had to get up, I'd say "please do start without me," and I would hope that having said that, my companions would do so. In a fine restaurant, the food should be held until all parties are present.

And I'm with FG on the rule issue. I could segue beautifully into the appropriate clothing issue from here, now couldn't I?

Oh, and it's not true that nobody knows the rule. Plenty of people know the rule. And the rules of etiquette in general are known by many people - perhaps a declining number, but thankfully, not "nobody."

Edited December 11, 2002 by La Niña (log)

[hollywood]

Eh, sorry, Fat Guy, your seared foie gras was gonna get cold, so we ate it while you were in the loo. Hey, it was subtle but delicious. You'd have enjoyed it. Really.

[La Niña]

We shouldn't be acting based on our need to feel as though we're being polite, or our belief in whether or not we'll be perceived as knowing a rule. We should be acting based on what's right. That's why I'm saying that what is needed here is a good, seemingly off-the-cuff remark we can make, when surrounded by people who don't understand the rule, to make them understand it and to grease the wheels of social intercourse.

FG, what's the difference between what's "right" and what's "polite?"

[Fat Guy]

Personally, I'd find it quite rude if someone started eating before I got back to the table.

Okay, I'll add you to the short list of people for whom I'd wait. Though I'm also hoping to convince you on this thread that you'd be wrong to perceive that action as rude.

[Fat Guy]

Eh, sorry, Fat Guy, your seared foie gras was gonna get cold, so we ate it while you were in the loo.  Hey, it was subtle but delicious.  You'd have enjoyed it.  Really.

As long as you buy me another one, I'm happy!

[La Niña]

But I wouldn't be so rude as to get up at the wrong moment, unless it was a real emergency, and I can hardly imagine such a circumstance. And if I did get up at the wrong moment, I would tell you to start without me if need be, and then I wouldn't feel at all slighted if you did so. I guess I'm saying that the person getting up from the table has some responsibility toward the other diners.

[Fat Guy]

FG, what's the difference between what's "right" and what's "polite?"

Usually nothing. The wrong thing is rarely the polite thing. There are some situations, however, where one needs to create a hierarchy of actions. For example, if you're at a dinner party with a political adversary, no matter how strongly you believe that person is unethical and evil, you need to be polite. Perhaps the world would be a better place if you pulled out a gun and shot the person right there at the table. So that would be the right thing to do, but it would be rude. So the better move is to be polite at dinner, and to shoot the person afterwards.

[Fat Guy]

I guess I'm saying that the person getting up from the table has some responsibility toward the other diners.

I certainly agree with that.

[Ron Johnson]

If people weren't so squeamish about adult diapers, they wouldn't have to get up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the meal, and we wouldn't be having this argument.

[La Niña]

I agree with you about the shooting. But about the starting to eat thing - in that case I think the "right" thing is also the "polite" thing - which is to wait for the person, unless he/she has said to start without him/her.

You also have the option of telling the waiter to take the food and keep it warm for a mintue more.