The etiquette of being served first

[tommy]

it might be smart to start a new thread for general etiquette discussion.

[macrosan]

it might be smart to start a new thread for general etiquette discussion.

Oh no, Tommy, this is a great thread. I echo FatGuy's earlier comments --- this is like eGullet when I first joined it a year ago

Edited December 11, 2002 by macrosan (log)

[Fat Guy]

I agree with both of you; it's a great thread, but I'm splitting off some of the recent comments and starting a new one on etiquette in general.

[tommy]

see, told you so macrosan.

Edited December 11, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Ron Johnson]

Whats the etiquette on thread splitting?

[macrosan]

I never win lotteries or votes

[Jaymes]

see, told you so macrosan. 

[Bux]

I missed this thread when it started and I've been reluctant to enter this sort of discussion again partially because I thought it went nowhere the last time and partially because I felt a rudeness in the way "etiquette" was defended. I'm sorry Wilfrid is away at this moment, because I thought I made it clear in the other thread that what I introduced as "French" etiquette was how my immediate family and close friends behave at home and in fine restaurants. It had not occurred to me until the other thread that this was not the way most sophisticated people behaved in fine restaurants. Social evolution over time has caused me to abandon most of what my mother taught me and to rely on an intelligent and resonable application of the abstract purpose of most of her rules. This was an easy jump, because her rules were never arbitrary and the understanding was that etiquette's purpose was to make others feel comfortable. So, Fat Guy does not stand alone and while I say that, let me add that he's come far closer to proving that experts support what he's said than the other side has. Nothing could be more impolite than saying might makes right or that we're the majority so we don't need to prove anything, which appears to be the case I see here.

That I live a life that borders on middle class establishment is not entirely something that's happened against my will, but I have no trouble being seen as a renegade or for that matter as rude. I should not like to be seen as inconsiderate however and I see a big difference between rude and inconsiderate, although more often than not, one is both if one is either. What troubled me about the other thread was that the action of the table was pronounced correct because it was appreciated by the lady in question. It seem to me that to continue my argument almost required me to disredit her character. I've come to better appreciate the full nature of the silly dance. Had I been away and returned to the table, I would have thanked the group for waiting for me to join them, if they had waited, or thanked them for not embarrassing me by not waiting. That's the nature of etiquette and of consideration--not to make the other party feel uncomfortable. Etiquette would almost always require you to say the other person was correct if we really wanted to carry it to an extreme and it bothered me that people could defend one form of social custom over another so vehementaly in the name of etiquette. It's clearly a breach of etiquette to tell another person he's rude. Is it not?

And one last thing, it was rude of Fat Guy to bring this up again.

[Fat Guy]

Here, but the way, is the Bride of Dining Etiquette thread:

http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?ac...=ST&f=1&t=13897

[lxt]

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.

My understanding of etiquette extends beyond the notion of the practical beliefs an individual himself entertains or the way he feels about certain kinds of conduct. Assuming that etiquette represents not only a prescribed routine that is "passed down," but also values characterizing different societies, it is set as a behavioral standard to which one should strive to adhere. It doesn't discard the fact that ethical judgments are relative to different cultures and doesn't pass a unified judgment on people in the subcontinent who eat with their fingers vs. westerners who prefer spoons and forks. In other words, etiquette is to some extent a part of our ethics and is valid only within the certain timeframe and borders. However, it is not to be interpreted by each individual, it is to be followed or not followed. In 1836, one of the books on etiquette had a brilliant definition stating that "etiquette is the barrier which society draws around itself as a protection against offenses the "law" cannot touch."

Neither I nor other members were able to find any official proof making an exception on account of hot dishes and missing dining companions. Therefore, it would be sensible to agree that the evidence presented by Fat Guy is a valid rule of etiquette as it is written today. However, considering that certain ethics undergo constant change and that the change becomes registered only after it has been spread and generally accepted by the majority, I think it is worthwhile to question the validity of the existing official rule.

My major thought is derived from the principle of etiquette as being the measure of one's "consideration for the feelings of others - Fat Guy." The act of eating is a physical process that involves chewing, swallowing, and other unpleasant operations that to some extent may be disturbing to observe. When both parties are involved in the process, they are equal in their disadvantage; however, when one party is finished and the other is not, I can't imagine where the comfortable part comes into play. It also would detract from the smooth conversation flow, as the diner who finished first wouldn't probably want to interrupt his companion. On the other hand, the diner who is behind may feel uncomfortable keeping his companion waiting for him to finish. I am struggling to find a rationale other than pure food appreciation to justify the etiquette rule discussed, and I am simply failing to find one. If the purpose is not to place diners in a situation where neither of them would feel uncomfortable, my assumption would be that waiting is preferable.

[Beachfan]

I usually wait, because I can give anyone a big head start and still finish way before them (Japanese Hot Dog Eating Contest Winners excluded).

[mixmaster b]

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.

I think JD's post is exactly right.

Since the "rules" seem to be fuzzy, it makes sense that behavior would change in different situations.

In the "gastronomic situation", I would feel awful if a group that I was dining with waited for me and their food got cold. It would make me feel that I had been horribly inconsiderate by being absent and neglecting to urge others to start if the food did come during my absence.

In this situation, think it would be nice of the group to try to eat the dish slowly. I know it seems like a strange compromise, and certainly too convoluted to become a "rule of etiquette", but it would enable everyone to sample to food at the (hopefully) correct temperature, but would ensure that the absent diner did not come back to find that everyone had already finished the course.

Perhaps the restauraunts should offer an "intermission" during a long tasting menu, to give diners a chance to stech their legs, use the facilities, etc. It certainly is difficult for the restaurant to orchestrate everything perfectly, and having a diner up at the wrong moment can put a wrench in the works. Intermission would help the restaurant provide better service by making the patterns of the diners more predictable.

[Fat Guy]

I am struggling to find a rationale other than pure food appreciation to justify the etiquette rule discussed, and I am simply failing to find one.

It's not a direct hop from pure food appreciation to the etiquette rule, though. The etiquette rule derives from the interactions among people. It has nothing directly to do with food. It's a question of how people perceive conduct, not a question of food appreciation. That's why I reject the distinction between the gastronomic meal and a non-gastronomic meal. After all, there are reasons hot food has value that have little to do with flavor: There is, for example, symbolism in warm food especially in the winter. Most of us here on eGullet have central heating and don't really worry about sustenance, but to our ancestors a plate of hot food might have been a pretty serious thing. That symbol remains with us. There is also the question of the effort to which the host or chef has gone to prepare hot food, and the avoidance of the disrespect inherent in letting it get cold. And yes, there are gastronomic issues as well, but they are secondary.

On the issue of eating being unpleasant to observe: In terms of the specific situation under discussion here, the missing person doesn't have to watch anybody else eat because that person is missing. Perhaps that person will finish last and everybody else will be watching, but that's by no means guaranteed. People eat at varying speeds anyway -- if everybody starts at the same time, it's not likely any two people will finish simultaneously. Moreover, if a person has good table manners to begin with, it is always a pleasure to watch that person eat.

[hollywood]

Moreover, if a person has good table manners to begin with, it is always a pleasure to watch that person eat.

But see, Tom Jones.

[Bux]

If someone were to leave the table after all the diners had started eating, should they all stop and why or why not. Does it make a difference if a diner leaves before or after the food is served?

lxt: It also would detract from the smooth conversation flow, as the diner who finished first wouldn't probably want to interrupt his companion. On the other hand, the diner who is behind may feel uncomfortable keeping his companion waiting for him to finish. I am struggling to find a rationale other than pure food appreciation to justify the etiquette rule discussed, and I am simply failing to find one. If the purpose is not to place diners in a situation where neither of them would feel uncomfortable, my assumption would be that waiting is preferable.

Speaking of discomfort who would like to return to a dinner table and find oneself in the middle of a conversation having missed the beginning and thus at a loss to contribute most effectively not knowing what's already been said? I assume conversation stops in well bread society when someone leaves the table.

[Wilfrid]

Well, I had to find out what happened while I've been away.

Many sensible comments, of which I particular note these from Cabby, Nina and Yvonne:

"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)."

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

"There's the rub. Out of politeness, I might say, on returning from the loo to find everyone digging in, "Oh, glad you stared without me". But in my mind I'd put the lot of you in a group of impolite sods."

I remain unshaken in my belief that this is the consensus of informed opinion about what is polite. I also raise my eyebrows at Fat Bloke's phantasy that he has presented us with evidence to the contrary*. But I don't know that there's much to add.

*Two quotes, one from a source I'm a little sceptical about, neither of them relevant. I am not going to explain why again.

Edited December 16, 2002 by Wilfrid (log)