The viewers with alarm seem to miss the point. It is not the “mass” that is going to suffer by this imported passion for exclusiveness; it is the “class.” The “class” cuts itself off from the “mass,” from the full, strong currents of democratic life which alone give vitality and endurance. The mass remains vital and energetic and progressive; the class withers and shrivels and sloughs away.
Nevertheless, the disposition on the part of some Americans to despise and forsake the splendid triumph-producing ideas of their country for the mean and petty, disaster and decay-producing ideas of the Old World, is a matter which should not be passed over without comment. Of necessity our snobs will be pushed aside and trampled in the resistless onrush of the Democratic idea. The nation would be feeble indeed if it could be halted or even slackened by such an obstacle. But the snobs ought to be noted and warned. Disobedience to the great laws which determine the evolution of mankind is important only to the disobedient individual. But it is part of our humanitarian duty as democrats to be patient with the ignorant, the weak and the erring, and to be helpful to them as far as we can. It is impossible for any one with the broad sympathies which Democracy engenders not to feel the impulses of pity when he sees fellow-beings, through vanity or ignorance, flinging themselves and their innocent young children across the very pathway of the mighty wave of Democracy.
A snob is a person who feels inferior and wants company in his misery, and longs for the consolation of finding those even lower than himself. Snobism should be exterminated, just as, more and more scientifically, bodily disease is being stamped out. The snob is the only one who wants class distinctions, or who can encourage their existence. It is the snob who returns from abroad deeply impressed by courtesies shown him over there in expectation of and in exchange for tips. He uses his first intake of native air to fall afoul of the native manners. And no doubt our manners do need improving. We have always been in a great hurry under press of work, and there is still a great deal more to do than our competent doers can find time for. But in polishing our manners we must be careful to use a sound brand of democratic polish, not the English brand so much admired by those who yearn for a deference from others which they would not when alone venture to show themselves.
Back of manners is instinct. Often a man’s lack of manners enables us to see whether his instincts are right or not. Aristocratic manners hide moral and mental defects, just as whiskers and clothes hide physical defects. What we ought to develop is sincere manners—not the bowings and scrapings of fear and cupidity and servility. Democratic manners!
Good manners among the various kinds of public and semi-public servants in England would not be considered good manners here. Without disputing the point with those admirers of the English servant, we must insist that it would be ridiculous for a self-respecting American citizen to grovel and scrape and look and act “humble.” We want no servility here, much as we would like to please those persons who constantly feel the need of assurances from others that they are as grand folks as they would like to think themselves.
Scraping and cringing, whether in a duke or in a domestic, are as bad manners for a human being as are arrogance and impertinence.
The grotesque nature of the snob complaints against the manners of our everyday people is striking when one recognizes a certain criticism that can justly be made against us. It is among so-called well-bred people, a certain brand of them, our snobs, that bad manners are most prevalent. For out of them is left that on which alone good manners can be built—the proud, erect, democratic spirit.
It is not difficult to have good manners in a graded social system. It is extremely difficult to have good manners in a Democracy. Any one can easily be a snob, a looker-up and a looker-down. But how very difficult it is to be a simple, unaffected man or woman, considerate, courteous, looking all other men and women straight in the eyes and saying: “You are certainly as good as I am. I hope I am as good as you are.”
“I am your equal” is at the basis of democratic bad manners. “You are my equal” is the basis of democratic good manners.
Again and again in fashionable society, frequently among those most prone to call their poorer countrymen and women ill-mannered, there are barbarities and repulsive lapses of good taste not merely tolerated, but approved as marks of fashion and refinement. For example: A rich woman gives a cotillon, provides many thousand dollars’ worth of handsome favors. You look about the ballroom—there sits a circle of girls, pretty and ugly and passable, attractive and unattractive. Some are loaded down with favors—you can hardly see their radiant faces for the mass of articles which testify to their popularity.