1 The essence and value of etiquette norms for society

Human behavior is variable and diverse. There is no doubt about the validity of this axiom. However, another statement is no less true: the behavior of a person in society is typified, that is, it is subject to the norms developed in society, and therefore with inevitability in many respects is standard. This situation is the result of two opposing trends. The first trend can be called centrifugal. It manifests itself in a variety of behavior, its variability. It is this aspect of behavior that is meant when one speaks of individual features, a kind of “stylistics” of behavior. However, the diversity of behavior is never limitless (otherwise it would be impossible to communicate with people, to unite them in various kinds of social formations). The opposite (centripetal) tendency towards the unification of behavior, its typification, and the development of generally accepted patterns and standards of behavior is aimed at streamlining heterogeneous behaviors. This second trend is expressed in the fact that every society, caring for its integrity and unity, develops a system of social codes (programs) of behavior prescribed to its members.

A set of typical behavior programs is specific for each team. All of them are aimed at neutralizing the tendency towards individualization of behavior, holding back the growth of its variability, because the uncontrollable growth of diversity would inevitably lead to the disintegration of society. Nevertheless, socially approved behavior programs never cover the whole sphere of human behavior in society. Some fragments of behavior remain unregulated because they are not regarded as socially significant. Moreover, each ethnic culture is characterized by its own ideas about the significance of certain fragments of behavior and, consequently, its configuration of the border between compulsory (typed) and free (individual) behavior. Moreover, the more significant the spheres of behavior, the more strictly they are regulated, the stronger the control over the observance of standards and samples.

Standardized behavior has its own options. In accordance with the characteristics of social organization in the sphere of “given” behavior, various types are distinguished: the behavior of a peasant, a warrior, a hunter, an artisan, etc. The behavior of children, adults, the elderly, men and women differs according to the criteria for the bisocial division of the life path. The typology of behavior is naturally not exhausted by this. With the introduction of other coordinates (for example, ethnic and confessional), one can speak about the behavior of the Japanese in contrast to the European, the Christian in contrast to the Muslim. If we move to an even higher level of abstraction, then we can talk about epochal styles of behavior - for example, the behavior of a medieval person. Real human behavior is always a synthesis of several types, several programs. A person in his behavior implements not one any program of action, but constantly makes a choice, actualizing any strategy from an extensive set of possibilities.

So, it is conditionally possible to talk about two main forms of behavior. One of them is reduced to relatively free, variable behavior. The other one is a regulated behavior, subject to standard schemes developed in the team in standard situations. What is the nature and function of stereotyping?

Each society in the process of interaction with the external environment accumulates a certain experience. This experience is the foundation on which the very possibility of the existence of a collective in time is based. Naturally, the team is interested in the storage, accumulation and transfer of this experience to future generations. The transfer of accumulated information occurs in two ways: genetically and non-genetically. The transfer of non-hereditary information is carried out in the process of socialization and is entirely based on learning. Storage, transmission and accumulation of social information implies its streamlining, firstly, and the selection of the most significant fragments, secondly. The stereotyping mechanism is focused on the performance of these functions. With its help, the accumulated information is not just the sum of useful knowledge, but in a certain way organized experience, which due to the presence of the structure can be committed in time. At the same time, “collective memory”, apparently, also has its limits. It may not include the whole experience. The stereotyping of the most significant information allows not only to select, but also to preserve its working volume in the conditions of constant updating. Thus, the stereotyping of information was an effective means not only to condense entropic losses, but also to combat ectropy.

The structuring property of stereotypes is directly related to their centripetal introverted orientation, that is, orientation to the internal mechanisms of self-organization. According to BM Bernstein, the more complex the system is, the more space is occupied by self-organization, self-regulation, coordination of the actions of its subsystems, coordination of internal processes, etc., and the preservation of this experience ensures the system’s integrity and identity.

The introversionary, regulatory nature of stereotypes brings them closer to the concept of social norm — the basic category of social control. The concept of the norm contains an estimated meaning. In this case, the norm appears as an expression of some external point of view, according to which any action can be described as “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “bad”, “high” or “low”, etc. The natural correlator of the norm in this sense would be a violation (and not “free” behavior, as in the first case). Moreover, the norm exists only against violations. The complete triumph of the norm is impossible in principle, since this concept loses its meaning. Meanwhile, behavioral stereotypes exist not only for the expression of the norm, its observance, but also for its violations, that is, “wrong” behavior has its own standards. This is indicated by a wide class of phenomena inherent in each ethnic culture (from rituals, including the inversion of everyday norms, to linguistic stereotypes). According to Yu.M. Lotman, “the norm and its violations are not contrasted as dead givens. They are constantly moving into each other. There are rules for breaking the rules and anomalies necessary for the norm. Real human behavior will fluctuate between these poles. At the same time, different types of culture will dictate a subject-oriented orientation to the norm (“correct” behavior is highly appreciated, life “according to custom”, “like in people”, “according to the statute”, etc.), or its violation (striving for originality, singularity , eccentricity, foolishness, the depreciation of the norm by an ambivalent combination of extremes) ”. No need to think that the orientation on the violation of the norm refers only to the sphere of individual behavior. Entire strata and groups of society had their own models of both “correct” and “incorrect” behavior (let us compare, for example, the repeatedly described “scenario” of a merchant spree). At the same time, the second type of behavior in historical terms is not an innovation. It has much deeper roots. In any society and at all times, the first type of behavior inevitably alternated with the second, the vivid expression of which is the holiday. In this case, we are not interested in the psychophysiological background and historical options for the motivation of this phenomenon. It is important that the ratio of the norm and stereotype of behavior is not reduced to their identification. The norms and stereotypes of behavior in some cases overlap, and in some - significantly diverge.

Universal, invariant behavior patterns, it would seem, are entirely determined by the biological properties of man. However, it should be noted that they are significantly adjusted by social, cultural mechanisms. A particularly striking effect of cultural factors on universals of behavior manifests itself in cases where social significance is attached to “natural” actions. The Indians of the Kutina tribe and cough have an entodifferentiating meaning: they distinguish their fellow tribesmen from representatives of other groups by the characteristic nasality of cough. According to S.A. Arutyunov, “even seemingly purely biological phenomena such as sexual intercourse or childbirth, is carried out in humans by various methods in which there are definite and very significant ethnic differences. Ethnic differences are manifested in the way people dress, how they eat, in their favorite postures of standing or sitting, although all people on the ground dress and eat and eat and sit. ” The regulation in the sphere of “natural” behavior affects only the external side of actions, their “design” and understanding, while the nature of actions remains unchanged, universal and invariant. You can sleep on a dais or on the floor, in a certain position, for a while to abstain from sleep, but this section of behavior has no alternative action (do not sleep at all). In other words, this behavior does not imply a choice and, therefore, has only one way of implementation. There is no “wrong” option in this behavior.

Alternative behavior always implies a choice and, accordingly, an alternative solution: you can do "right" or "wrong." This behavior is regulated exclusively by means of secondary restrictions that do not directly follow from the context. These restrictions are of a private nature, conditional and relative, which makes it possible to consider them as ethno-differentiating features underlying the division of people into separate groups. In turn, the category of choice serves as the basis for all sorts of ethnic assessments and concepts regarding certain actions.

If in the first case (“natural”, invariant forms of behavior) external aspects of activity are subject to stereotyping, then in the second one, both the plane of expression and the plan of content are stereotyped. Of course, ethnic characteristics manifest themselves both in the deep and superficial structure of the stereotype of behavior. But if the identification of the general and particular stereotype in the outer side does not cause any particular difficulties, then similar procedures in relation to the inner content side of the stereotype are more difficult, since this sphere is not limited to pragmatic meaning or motivation and, as a rule, is complicated by everyday, ethnic, religious and other views.

We should probably distinguish between stereotypes (models) of behavior and behavior itself, that is, concrete actions and actions that are an objectivization of stereotype (cf. the distinction between the concepts of “language” in linguistics; “code” and “communication” in semiotics; “closed” and “ open behavior in psychology). In this case, the stereotype plays the role of a program of behavior that is realized in a behavioral text (in the semiotic sense of the term). From this point of view, the texts are stereotyped forms of behavior: standards, customs, etiquette, labor skills and techniques, games, fashion, leisure, celebration, methods of education, courtship, insults, punishment, etc.

The correlation between stereotype and corresponding text is far from unequivocal. Ideally, each stereotype should correspond to a certain type of text behavior. But this is not always the case. It depends on many reasons, among which the lability or preskreptivnost operating in the culture of norms should be called. It should be borne in mind that each society develops its own standards of rigor or tolerance for violations in different spheres of behavior. So, for example, the stereotype of marriage relations in those societies that are characterized by exogamous marriage systems is characterized by a rigid preskreptivnost, in contrast to the lability of the rules in societies with non-exogamous marriage systems. In addition to “external”, “internal” regulators of behavior, such as shame, guilt, fear, honor with appropriate ethnic, religious, aesthetic and other motivations, are essential.

In societies of the archaic type, the fact of unchanged reproduction of the ritual was considered as a guarantee of the well-being of the collective. This is natural, since the ritual verifies the stability of the social structure of the collective, its ability to resist external impulses. In the sphere of ritual, any violation was in principle impossible, since it threatened the existence of the collective in time. “Not by chance,” writes V.N. Toporov, - that the man of the cosmological period saw the life and its purpose in the ritual, the main social and economic activity of the human collective ”.

The sphere of custom was relatively less strictly “regulated”. If the ritual did not allow any distortion at all, then the observance of custom assumed the existence of a system of sanctions provided for all sorts of violations. In other words, the custom was realized only in the context of violations. Different areas of custom allowed various degrees of freedom of conduct. In this case, the system of etiquette is especially shown. The reception of a guest of many nations was extremely regulated (it was not by chance that this fragment of etiquette had long attracted the attention of ethnographers, who distinguished it even in a special custom, or “ritual” hospitality), while less stringent rules operated in other areas of communication. Of course, this does not apply only to archaic groups. Fundamentally similar phenomena are also characteristic of modern societies (let's compare at least different “stylistics” of behavior at home and on the street, in the theater and in the workplace). The situation is complicated by the rapid turnover of behavioral stereotypes, the presence, along with the general ethnic heterogeneous subcultural and intragenerational standards, determined by the action of such phenomena as fashion.

It is believed that the differences between ritual and custom are rooted in the field of pragmatics. Quite recently, this point of view was again expressed in S.A. Arutyunov’s article: “By custom, one should keep in mind the stereotyped forms of behavior that are associated with reality that has practical significance. But the ritual embraces only those forms of behavior that are purely symbolic and have no practical significance in themselves, although they can be indirectly used for practical purposes (communication, psychotherapy, etc.). ”

Standardization of all aspects of life is characterized primarily for the so-called traditional culture. Moreover, the stereotyping of experience is the essence of the mechanism of tradition. This, of course, does not mean the absence of stereotypes in modern culture, since no culture can exist without tradition.

Stereotypical forms of behavior have long attracted the attention of representatives of various scientific disciplines - psychologists, sociologists, historians, linguists, ethologists, etc. Such types of stereotyped behavior, like rituals and customs, have become traditional objects of ethnographic research. And this is not accidental, since the ethnic identity of culture is clearly expressed in stereotypes of behavior. The set of stereotypical forms of behavior produced in every society, naturally, is not limited to the sphere of ritual and custom. Standards of behavior are characteristic of many other spheres of activity, and above all - communication (and already - etiquette), socialization of individuals, technological processes (labor methods and skills), game behavior, etc.

When considering stereotypes of behavior, it is likely to proceed from several premises.

First, behavioral stereotypes (like behavior in general) are social phenomena. This means that human behavior in society is due to the peculiarities of the social organization of society, its sociocultural mechanisms.

Secondly, human behavior is variable both in synchrony and in diachrony (that is, in historical and ethnic space).

Third, the standards of behavior correlate with the real stratification of society. In other words, each age and gender, confessional, ethnic, professional and other groups and subcultures of society have specific behavioral patterns.

There is no doubt that stereotypes (in the narrow sense - etiquette) are a peculiar value of culture, because they offer optimal behaviors in specific, previously known situations of communication between people. These forms are largely due to the aesthetic, everyday, psychological and other needs of human communication.

“Etiquette is the mind for those who do not have it,” Voltaire said bitingly, as always. Let's give him a tribute to the ability to speak aphoristic and evil, and ask (ourselves, first of all): why, exactly? And we will begin to answer from afar and in order.

The French word “etiquette” is included in all languages ​​of the world and has long been perceived without translation.

Meanwhile, such a unanimous, uniform understanding of etiquette was justified, probably only very recently.

Strictly speaking, the history of etiquette is taken to count down somewhere in the century from the 16th century - when etiquette became the way (and often the meaning) of the existence of the royal courts of Europe. The gallant century is all gallant. Perhaps the public was bored; and perhaps the monarchs absolutized their power in any conceivable way - regulating the lives of their subjects at every step, and themselves, at times, becoming slaves and victims of the lush and slightly absurd (seen from the heights of past years) ceremonies.

Whatever it was, but in the XVI century "etiquette" meant a code of conduct at the monarch's court. It was born in these depths - it flourished in these depths.

And outside of his influence remained, in essence, the whole life - the life of the common people, peasants and artisans, becoming the “shop” of the intelligentsia, as well as the lives of soldiers, officials, people of art (not admitted to the court), marginals of various kinds and others.

But is it really? Should we assume that no one knew etiquette other than the court audience and did not use any ceremonies? Maybe in the very understanding of the word “etiquette” you need to correct something?

Literally translated from French, “etiquette” is a label, ceremonial and label.

Can we say that the ceremonies - in the broadest sense of the word - were only in the XVI century and only among the courtiers?

Nevertheless, it is worth saying that such a narrow understanding of the word “etiquette” has developed historically? And it's time to look at the problem wider? And then it will be necessary to recognize the obvious fact that in the XVI century there was not an institution of etiquette as such, but only a certain code of conduct and honor, established and strengthened at the royal courts of Europe. He received the name “etiquette”. And it was from the XVI century that this word, along with the rules of court life, originated among the inhabitants of Versailles, began to spread throughout the world, penetrating into all languages ​​without translation and special comments.

Let's try to consider etiquette as a specific institution of social life, as a set of norms, rules for people to communicate with each other, the behavior of each individual person in society, in the social environment where he lives, with whose members he interacts.

The poet said: "My freedom to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins."

The “noses of the neighbors” surrounded a person from ancient times, already with the pre-communal system there was a clear understanding of who the “neighbor” was, and what threatened with the careless handling of the nose “far”.

Strict regulation of people's behavior and communication permeates the entire human history. And this regulation has a deep meaning - otherwise, strictly speaking, it would not accompany humanity at all times and throughout the whole space of its life activity.

Etiquette in general is a set of rules of conduct governing the external manifestations of human relationships (dealing with others, forms of address and greetings, behavior in public places, manners and clothing). Etiquette - an integral part of the external culture of man and society. It includes those requirements that acquire the character of a more or less strictly regulated ceremonial and in observance of which a particular form of behavior is of particular importance.

Although etiquette ultimately expresses the content of certain principles of morality, in traditional society it, as a rule, becomes a ritual, has a form that is strictly external, torn from its moral content, and strictly canonized. It is expressed in a complex system of elaborate rules of courtesy, clearly classifies rules for dealing with representatives of various classes and classes, with officials in accordance with their rank (who should be addressed, who should be titled), rules of conduct in various circles (court etiquette , diplomatic etiquette, “high society” etiquette, etc.).

At the same time, a strict observance of etiquette may hide a malevolent and disrespectful attitude towards people. And then you need to say that etiquette, in fact, is a legalized form of hypocrisy in the everyday relationships of people. Etiquette in modern society reflects the process of democratization and humanization of social life. Etiquette is greatly simplified, it becomes more free, it acquires the meaning of a daily benevolent respectful attitude towards all people, regardless of their position and social position.

Courteous treatment of a woman, respectful attitude towards elders, forms of addressing and greeting, rules of conducting a conversation, behavior at the table, dealing with guests, meeting requirements for a person’s clothes in various circumstances - all these laws of decency embody the general ideas about human dignity, simple requirements of convenience and ease in the relationship of people. Attention to the external form is manifested here only to the extent that it reflects the idea of ​​beauty in the behavior and appearance of a person.

In general, etiquette coincides with the general requirements of politeness and tact. Democratization of etiquette is expressed in the fact that well-established forms of treatment in special cases (at the table, on a visit) are becoming more and more universal respect for a person in all situations and regardless of his special (social, ethnic, etc.) characteristics. In addition to knowing and adhering to certain, often conditional, rules, the etiquette measure of interpersonal communication is also determined by courtesy, which is an important moral virtue, an indicator of moral civilization, human luminosity. However, if the weakening of the etiquette rules is not replenished by an appropriate upbringing, it results in not only untiedness, but also frank rudeness.

Any act of a person has both ethical and aesthetic value, and can be evaluated, on the one hand, as beautiful or ugly, and on the other hand, as good or evil. This feature of perception is taken into account and fixed in etiquette. In the social and individual consciousness, the moral and the beautiful have long been thought of as a kind of organic unity, which is fixed even verbally (for example, the notion of “beautiful” in Russian epics and fairy tales is used to denote physical perfection, spiritual strength and moral purity). Such interpenetration of two relatively independent concepts reflects the most important value setting that historically developing social consciousness has developed: from a humanistic point of view, it’s wonderful that moral, moral, that elevates and ennobles a person,and moral cannot be recognized as moral good, if it is not internally connected with the beautiful.

It is the internal affinity, the essential unity of the ethical and aesthetic spheres that condition the semantic specificity of the notions “sublime”, “low”, “heroic”, etc., where the ethical and aesthetic evaluations of the act act inseparably, together.

But the relationship between ethnic and aesthetic is not limited to their unity. In specific historical situations, these areas often conflict with each other. This contradiction is caused either by poor social conditions or by one-sided development and upbringing of the individual, by virtue of which the striving for beauty or the observance of generally accepted moral standards is purely external, “ostentatious”. The variety of specific cases of ethical and aesthetic mismatch, as a rule, is the result of a violation of harmony in the relationship between the real and the ideal, the natural and the spiritual, the internal and external in the human activity itself.

In the sphere of personal behavior and relations between people, this is expressed, in particular, in underestimating the “form” of an act or communication, which can be polite and coarse, elegant or vulgar, or, on the contrary, in neglecting the “content” side of behavior and communication that evident in the “pure” forms of ethical and aesthetic - in etiquette and fashion. The ethical and aesthetic come into conflict in cases where a person likes, gives pleasure to something that is morally defective or immoral. In real life, vice, vulgarity, spiritual poverty and limitation are often masked by the external beauty of form, manners, and words. Therefore, the difference between genuine beauty and imaginary beauty is revealed through its relation to the good, that which is through the establishment of its own human content.The moral evaluation of an act or an act of communication is organic, inherent in human perception.

Слова “этика” и “этикет” воспринимаются как близкие по значению. И это естественно. К такому восприятию подталкивает не только сходство самих слов, но и теснейшая связь этих понятий. Однако, на самом деле эти слова сблизились сравнительно поздно. Слово “этикет” заимствовано из французского языка, а “этика” – из греческого (“ethika”, от “ethos” – привычка, нрав). Одно из значений слова “etiquette” – “надпись”. На основе этого развивалось более узкое значение – “записка с обозначением последовательности протекания церемониальных действий” и далее – “церемониал”. (В русском языке еще в начале 20 века слово “этикет” могло обозначить “ярлык, наклеиваемый на бутылки и обертки товаров, с обозначением названия фирмы, торговца и производителя”, однако, укоренилось с этим значением все же слово “этикетка”).

Вообще говоря, дистанция между этикой и этикетом столь велика, что проследний с большим правом можно было бы назвать “эстетикетом” – ведь в нем закрепляется в виде канона именно эстетические качества поведения, его стиль. С этической ценностью содержания этикет несомненно связан, но лишь в конечном счете: во-первых, генетически (ибо всякий этикет уходит корнями своими в нравственную полезность тех или иных действий); и во-вторых, функционально (так как этикет приобщает человека к определенной социальной группе, дисциплинирует его, укрепляет чувство ответственности и т.д.).

However, in each particular case, such a connection is by no means obligatory. On the contrary, aesthetic behavior that complies with all the norms of this etiquette can imply an immoral act (for example, you can insult and humiliate a person elegantly, in accordance with the rules of etiquette). Therefore, etiquette is an expression, the embodiment of the contradictory connection between the ethical and aesthetic aspects of behavior.

The existence of man in the environment of his own kind, the interaction of people with each other is one of the most important components of being. People can not live normally, share experiences, labor and household skills without contacting each other, not communicating with each other. In the process of communication, people not only form their own ideas about the world, develop mutual understanding, find a “common language”. Communication is at the same time an exchange of actions, deeds, thoughts and feelings, experiences with other people, as well as the conversion of a person to himself - to his own soul, memories, conscience, dreams. For a culturally developed person, communication becomes a necessity, his absence is perceived as a grave, irreplaceable loss.

Genuinely human communication is a form of creativity that helps to reveal and reveal the best aspects of the personality. It is based on respect for the dignity of another person, the observance of simple moral norms developed by mankind. The most meaningful, capacious and expressive means of human communication is word, speech. The ability to speak and listen, to talk - an important condition for mutual understanding, checking the truth or falsity of their opinions, ideas. But there is also the “dumb language” of human feelings - a look, a gesture that can be friendly or offensive, beautiful or vulgar, to express sympathy or antipathy towards a person; a pose, a manner of holding on in a conversation also characterize the culture, good manners.

Genre, method and means of communication have a moral, humanistic meaning, because they show how developed in a person is the ability to put oneself in place and in the position of other people. In this sense, the value and role of etiquette is difficult to overestimate. If we extend the concept of “etiquette” to morals, customs, and manners adopted at various stages of human history, it becomes clear that, without etiquette, by and large, human communication does not exist. And if someone says that he does not know etiquette and does not obey his rules, it can only mean that this person does not realize where his or her usual habits, manners, and peculiarities of relationships with other people came from. In other words, some etiquette forms have become so organic that they are taken for granted. And some peculiarities of etiquette are such that one has to state: “bad” etiquette is not the absence of etiquette, but only the absence of etiquette of adequate, appropriate for a given place, time, this particular communication situation.

Since etiquette refers to the whole system of established relationships between people (within a particular people, social group, historical community), then it’s worth talking about terms that are often used in everyday life, rarely reflecting on their real content and meaning. What is “custom”? How is it different from “tradition”? from “demeanor”?

“Custom” is a certain order of behavior of people in society. It develops historically. Social life with all its diversity and complexity is characterized by frequent repetition of similar situations that require people of the same type of actions. The “customs” (in the broadest sense of the word) include methods and methods of work repeated within the framework of a certain society, forms of social and political activity, marriage and family life, mutual relations of people in everyday life, religious rituals, etc. Through customs, there is a transfer of forms of mass activity from the collective to the individual, from generation to generation. The customs in the narrower sense of the word include those actions that are given spontaneously. For example, the rules provided for by any instruction, or rules, the execution of which is supported by the state, cannot be attributed to customs. Custom is an element of the lifestyle adopted in society. With the development of society there is a transformation and breaking of customs, the struggle between old and new customs.

“Tradition” is a type (or form) of custom, distinguished by its particular stability and the efforts of people to preserve the forms of behavior inherited from previous generations. Traditions are characterized by: respect for the existing way of life as a cultural heritage of the past, attention not only to the content of behavior, but also to its external manifestations, to style, as a result of which the external form becomes more stable. If this form is strictly canonized and begins to dominate the content of people's behavior, the tradition becomes a rite, goes into ritual. Each society has its own measure of tradition, it is determined by the need for harmonious relations between different generations. Traditions often cultivate an outdated way of life - and then they become a brake, an obstacle to the development of society.

“Manners” is a way to keep oneself, external forms of behavior and dealing with other people, a set of speech properties (use of expression, tone, intonation) and gait characteristic of a person, gestures, mimicry, and, finally, what is called “the manner dress". Manners are governed by etiquette. Attitudes towards them are different for different social groups. The aristocratic view of manners regards them as an expression of the innate nobility of a representative of the “highest” class or as an external gloss that characterizes a person’s membership in a “secular” society. A democratic understanding of manners comes from the fact that external beauty and grace should be an expression of inner purity and beauty, an external manifestation of the moral image of the individual. Nowadays, good manners are considered as a form of everyday expression of a person’s modesty and restraint, ability to control one’s actions (self-control), attentive and tactful treatment of people (sensitivity and respect). The lack of manners introduces petty tension and awkwardness in interpersonal relations. Excess, commonly referred to as mannered, also does not contribute to harmonious communication. Finding an exact measure in the external forms of behavior is particularly difficult in the modern conditions of the dynamism of life and the rapid change of fashion. Therefore, decent manners increasingly depend on the internal culture.