Depuis quand est-on poli ?!? | L'Histoire nous le dira # 160

It's not uncommon to hear today that politeness is lost, that the young people of today don't have never had the decency necessary to live in society. Ok, nice. Young people, it's known they don't know how to live!

If make you happy to believe it, continue. Except that we can ask the question. These people who think that young people can't know how to live imply that politeness is something instinctive, except that it's a social construction but even more, a historical construction.

I'm Laurent Turcot and today in History will tell us, politeness. Subtitles: salvadorarmandoul@gmail. com First, we'll define the concepts, what does that means politeness?

We can refer to the dictionary. Can we refer? Ok: "Set of rules that define a behavior" -But nobody cares.

-Ok, I ask you to take care of your words. We're not far along with that. So, we can use people who have worked for a long time on politeness, and I mentioned Norbert Elias.

Admit it, he'is still look nice about it. Norbert Elias, a sociologist from the early 20th century who will talk about what he calls the civilization of manners. What does his means?

Elias will advance the idea of the conquest of monopoly of violence by the State -this isn't new, we already knew it before him- except that for Elias, this monopoly of violence could be imposed by the process of self-constraints and repression of impulses and passions. For Elias, self-restraint is the internalization of norms, that's, if you want to hit someone after him insulted you, and you're not going to do it. Why?

Because it's so internalized in you, this is called self- restraint and it's not instinctive, it's something learned. So when does politeness date? We have to go back further.

It's said that in courtesy the norms of behavior expected by people who live in society are expresed. We'll find some works that structure social norms, such as at the end of the 14th century, The Book of Manners for People Who Want to Be Part of the Court, the behaviors that will be expected from them in the curial space. But when we talk about courtesy, we often mean the flower of love, and of course, courtly love.

But beware, here we always have the impression that courtly love is devotion that men owe to women. If women are put on a pedestal, courtly love is addressed only to those who are of higher social status and the famous rules that we set are simply for the curial space so very few people. We're far from being in the generalization of what we could qualify as politeness.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, it accelerated and became clearer. This is the Reinaissance's era, and more specifically, the Italian Renaissance. There are different courts competing against each other: Florence, Milan, Venice the Vatican, Ferrara, and still others, fighting to see which is the most important politically, militarily, but also culturally.

And one of the ways to show that you're superior is to show that you have elegance, that you have this way of standing out and raising your head when you want to laugh. "We're better than the others". -You will solve the problems.

And this is where Baldassare Castiglioni will arrive, who will write a book in 1528 called Il libro del Cortegiano, which means The Courtier's Book. This book will have a phenomenal success in Europa. He'll invent the theme of the conversation on the modes of behavior to be had in the court.

He tells a code of politeness and a code of elegance. But even more, he tells what must be the ideal courtier, as for example, he must know how to handle weapons, but be careful, to handle weapons according to the forms. -I wait for you to get a weapon.

-I'll vote that you can't. -When you get a weapon you'll already dead. For example.

But there must also be moral qualities, such as humility, courage, modesty, and he must show all that and become a model for society. But Castiglione is going to invent a word that will define what the courtier should embody, and that word is the Sprezzatura. "There is a very universal rule which seems to me to be worth more than any other on this point for all the human things that have been done or that one says, is that one must flee, as much as possible as a very sharp and dangerous pitfall, affection and, to employ a new word, to show in all things a certain ease (Sprezzatura) which hides art and which shows that what is we did and said came without difficulty and almost without thinking about it".

A whole literature will be inspired by Castiglione and we'll develop in different aspects of courtesan life how we must behave, like as at games, on walks, in society; in short, in all aspects of life. In 1530, shortly after Castiglione, another author will publish a work: Erasmus of Rotterdam will publish Civiliy Puerile, and there the success is dazzling. Erasmus wants to give society strict and precise standards.

Contact between bodies is seen as something loathsome and disturbing. Promiscuity is considered indecent. The other element is role of mediating objects, as handkerchiefs, cutlery, plates, all of this serves to ward off the beast that lies dormant in us.

We're not beasts. We must act like men, and what do men do? They have a rite of distinction, a rite that allows them to be different.

That's the distinction, it's to be different from people. With his work. Erasmus will innovate in three points.

Firstly, it's aimed at children, secondly, it's addressed to all children, not just the elite but from all social conditions. And finally, thirdly, he gives a code of conduct which must organize all life in society, not just life at court but all life in society. Ultimately, ideals of Castiglione mixed with those of Erasmus will see the birth of a society of good manners.

And all this is made possible by the self-restraint processes. Civility prevents people from acting as they want. It creates a horizon of expectation.

To be sure everyone understands, because all of this is a bit theoretical, we're going to use proverb to clearly show that we must distance ourselves from the beast: to be as stubborn as a donkey, to get along like cats and dogs, yawn as crows, to be a real cowhide, take the fly, give jam to pigs, be as hungry as a wolf, eat like a pig. . .

and I'm sure there are others, so feel free to post them below this video to, of course, further educate me. In the 17th century, the term civility gradually fell into disuse. We'll see the emergence of decorum and honesty.

One of those who will work on the development of the concept of honest man is Nicolas Farret, with his text in 1630 of The Honest man or the Art of pleasing the court. Nicolas Farré'll gradually condense the wills of the monarchical state. What do I mean by that?

In the 17th century, we witness a process of centralization of the State, therefore of a legitimate monopoly of violence, and to achieve this, it's necessary to set up self-constraint processes; honesty helps to do that. Another fundamental author, in 1670, is Antoine de Courtin, who will write in his New Treatise on Civility, the way to behave in any social situations and there, really, the wide range of all the social games is put or everyone's pleasure. But 1770 it was the great moment of the Louis XIV's etiquette, of the Versailles label, and we'll use this code of behavior to further fix the body grammar and the expected emotional grammar.

For a while ago, I have been talking about the notion of social distinction and we can't separate the notion of social distinction from a great sociologist named Pierre Bourdieu. -Ok, the distinction. .

. -Just he said. .

. -Yes yes, I want to answer. -No, no.

. . For Pierre Bourdieu, the distinction can only occur within a very precise framework.

The only way to stand out is through compliance. So, we can distinguish ourselves at court, but in the horizon of expectation, i. e.

, label is the only way that the distinction can develop. And soon, a new dimension will be born, that of religion. Well, this isn't new, religion has been there from the start, except that it'll make its entry into the great framework of politeness.

Appearance must indicate the divine part of man and his rank. Social differences are gradually shown in politeness and it serves to fix an unequal and hierarchical society. It allows to ritualize, but even more to dramatize sociability.

And we'll see it in different spaces of society, such as at the table for example: we leave our hands behind and we now take utensils. But also when going for a walk, you'll have to behave decently, have your head straight, straight hands, your legs well bent; in short, there must be social transparency insofar as the body reflects the soul of the person. With the French Revolution, we witnessed a crisis in the symbols of royalty.

We want to put down everything that represents the old regime. The revolution advocates equality and as civility represents inequality, they'll do everything to put it aside and eradicate it. In Paris, there is a revolutionary newspaper: the National Mercury, which was even write, and I quote: "we need a change in manners and customs, the establishment of a revolutionary politeness".

Henceforth, all citizens who, moreover, call themselves citizens, are invited to familiar terms. No, the address is no longer acceptable. Why?

Because the "you" is addressed to a lord and that implies "you and your vassals". There are "many" and in the society we want to build, an individual is only an individual. But even more, they see it as the survival of the feudal regime which they want to get rid of at all costs.

There are even some who will go very far in the end of the address. In 1793, they launched the idea of sending to prison those who would use the address, or as they said at the time, the voussoiement. No law will be adopted however, but it will still be some rather bizarre stories, as for example this waiter who works at the Procope café, on the left bank.

It's December 15, 1793. He's at the end of his day, tired and there, he serves two men and says: "hello, can I serve you something? " And the two men are almost mad, say to themselves: "No, no, that's enough!

To contact us is too much! " They're going to take the waiter to the superintendent, saying: "He spoke to us, he is liable for a crime against humanity". I'm paraphrasing for the sake of the cause.

but it still shows you how politeness is something that represents inequality, and for revolutionaries, you have to put it aside and move on. After the revolution and the empire, those who founded the old politeness of the old regime are returning massively and they'll see titles come back to say: "People no longer know how to behave in society, so we're going to republish these major texts which made the great value of the aristocracy and the elite". We're therefore, in the 19th century.

The 19th century is the golden age of bourgeois politeness. Two great novelties appear. The first is that the court is no longer the only center which sanctifies the codes of politeness.

Why? Because the city, with its multiple spaces: its cafes, theaters and opera houses create new social relationships and new behaviors. The second reason is that with the industrial revolution society and soon the capitalist revolution, we're witnessing the rapid enrichment of a whole caste of people.

But the problem is, these people made quick buck, and we're going to call them the "new rich", they don't necessarily have the decency, elegance, etiquette. They'll therefore want to show all those who are part of the elite that they too have the codes of behavior. French politeness, which serves to polish behavior, will be seen as the quintessence of the art of living.

Many of them will want to deploy it all over Europe and even in the Americas. Good manners are no longer only prerogative of the aristocracy. A more open social game is established in conjunction with liberalism.

And as more and more people are getting richer, they need to be trained. The "savoir-vivre" will therefore become a kind of naughty soap bar. It means that we remove the remains of roture on us to present ourselves clean, decent, and pleasant.

And what do we see appearing once again? Several treatises of civility, treatises on good manners, politeness, of labels, the words are a little interchangeable, and there it'll spread even more widely because as printing costs less and less -we is at the time of mass culture where one distributed novels, newspapers- these treaties of civility will find an increasingly large audience. The best-known work is undoubtedly the Usages du monde de la Baronne Staffe which was published in 1889, which ten years later already has 131 editions, but also we can count in England the Advice to Young Ladies on their Duties and Conduct in Life by TS Arthur in 1849, or Complete Etiquette for Ladies and Gentlemen in 1900.

But the 19th century was also that of America, the United States of America, which began to take its place in history and in world trade. And all over the place, we see these young enriched Americans crisscrossing Europe. The figure of the American golden boy will attract all eyes and turn all heads, and themself will gradually adapt to the foundations of European civility and politeness.

But this process is also an exchange. France will be very marked by the new model of the United States of America, and French language will include new words: fashionable, dandy, smoking, flirt. All these words refer to modes of behavior that must be respected: flirtation, for example, where you have to seduce according to the expected codes of politeness, of course.

For men, what will symbolize par excellence the symbol of 19th century politeness is the black three-piece suit. Why? Because social distinction according to money but even more according to their rank, can't be brought into play in the space of the consumer society and the exchange society.

One shouldn't judge someone by their ability to dress well, but rather by their ability to know the rules of the trade game. So everyone dressed the same, we abandon the famous distinction of pink, yellows, to greens from blues for men's clothing. But the literature of the 19th and 20th century will focus a lot on one figure, the new rich.

For the longtime aristocrats, it's a question of preserving what made their social distinction, and these people who got rich quickly will never be able to be part of their select club, of course, and for them, the codes of politeness that can't be learned, it's lived and it's instinctive. So, the new rich will mimic more and more the figure of the decent and civil aristocrat and they're going to push the rules of politeness even further. And that's when the master will ask the servants to address him in the third person, for example the servant who asks: "Did sir sleep well?

" And the master answered: "Yes, Nestor, I slept wonderfully well". Take a good look here, the master addresses the servants in the third person and pretending that he's near him, he'll answer him using his first name: "Yes, Nestor, I slept well". But there is still a problem with the idea that civility codes are something instinctive.

Yes, because that implies that we can't learn it and figure of servant embodies magnidicently the problem with that. Why? The servant must be control all aspects of the home-life, so he must know all the codes of politeness inside out.

Take for example the figure of Nestor in Tintin or even of Downton Abbey, where we see a lot of these people who are almost more Catholic than the Pope, which implies that ultimately, politeness is something learned and it goes against what the nobles think about the idea that all of this is instinctive. But we know it because since the first capsule and Norbert Elias, we know that all this is a historical construction which extends out over time. Now, in the 20th century, are we still as polite and decent?

Yes, we still are, except that we're witnessing a process of informalization of social relations. What does that mean? It means that we no longer necessarily need to show that we're polite in a very expansive way.

Why? Because good manners are seen as something false, something that betrays the authenticity of who we really are, and politeness, ape is false, there is a politeness of heart. There are people who are boorish, who are aggressive, or who say things a bit roughly, but they know how to live well and are kind of heart, so their politeness of the heart will always supplant the politeness of manners or language.

After the Second World War, but even more so, after the 60s in Quebec, we witnessed a shedding of all social conventions. The church has been a foundation of codes of behavior, especially in catechisms or in the way in which educate young people for marriage preparation. But in the 70s, we witnessed the sexual revolution, sexual liberalization, and the great collapse of social codes will come with the idea according to which "it's phallocratic and corporatists, it doesn't look like us and it's wrong".

But today, what would seem to be the greatest code of politeness? What we could take as being the great injunction to behave well is the law. Yes!

! Judicialization of all aspects of our life in society becomes the norms of society; standards that come with penalty if you don't respect them. But today, in the 21st century, it seems that when the codes of behavior aren't respected, well, you're locked up and we "educate" you.

Finally, it may not have changed so much. It's over for today. I'm Laurent Turcot and I hope you liked this video.

And if you liked it, don't hesitate to give it a thumbs up and also subscribe to the channel. Thank you and see you next time. Bye!