That outward sign of an inward or unseen calamity.

February 17, 2017 3:30 PM

The Age of Rudeness. An essay by Rachel Cusk. "Society organizes itself very efficiently to punish, silence or disown truth-tellers. Rudeness, on the other hand, is often welcomed in the manner of a false god. Later still, regret at the punishment of the truth-teller can build into powerful feelings of worship, whereas rudeness will be disowned. Are people rude because they are unhappy? Is rudeness like nakedness, a state deserving the tact and mercy of the clothed? If we are polite to rude people, perhaps we give them back their dignity; yet the obsessiveness of the rude presents certain challenges to the proponents of civilized behavior. It is an act of disinhibition: Like a narcotic, it offers a sensation of glorious release from jailers no one else can see."

"In the United States, Hillary Clinton calls half the supporters of Donald Trump “a basket of deplorables.” At first the remark impressed me. I approved of Clinton for her courage and honesty, while reflecting on her curious choice of words. “Basket of deplorables” almost sounded like a phrase from Dr. Seuss: It would be typical of him to put deplorables in a basket, for the moral amusement of his young readers. A sack or a box of deplorables wouldn’t be the same thing at all, and a swamp of deplorables is too Dante-esque; but a basket is just the kind of zany, cheerful container that makes light of the deplorables while still putting them in their place. It quickly became clear, however, that as a public utterance, the phrase was malfunctioning. The basket began to speak, to distinguish itself: Inside it were a number of offended individuals. Clinton had made the mistake of being rude. The “basket of deplorables” wasn’t Dr. Seuss after all. It was the snobbish language of the liberal elite, caught committing the elemental moral crime of negating individual human value. Yet Clinton’s adversary regularly committed this crime with impunity. Were Clinton’s and Trump’s two different kinds of rudeness?"

posted by storybored (30 comments total)

I LOVE RACHEL CUSK SO MUCH.

Thank you for sharing this! It was exactly what I needed to read today.
posted by potrzebie at 3:52 PM on February 17, 2017

"The deluge of fine writing that follows the referendum contrasts strangely with the reticence that preceded it. The liberal elite are defending their reality, but too late. Some urge a show of tolerance and understanding; others talk about the various stages of grief; others still call for courage in standing up for the values of liberalism. These are fine performances, but it is unclear whom they are for. I have often noticed how people begin to narrate out loud when in the presence of mute creatures, a dog, say, or a baby: Who is the silent witness to this verbal outpouring?"
posted by semmi at 4:15 PM on February 17, 2017 [3 favorites]

But most people seem to believe truth IS rudeness ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:34 PM on February 17, 2017

You stole my comment, asshole!
posted by leotrotsky at 4:50 PM on February 17, 2017 [2 favorites]

It's the internet. Anonymity has brought out everyone's rudeness. And empowered them by showing them how many other assholes there are out there. You don't need manners when there's no consequence for being total prick to a stranger online. People of Earth need a major dose of empathy.
posted by Liquidwolf at 5:25 PM on February 17, 2017 [2 favorites]

The essay rubbed me the wrong way, and I am trying to find the words to articulate it. It was almost insufferably navel-gazing and pretentious, but intermittently it would wink and reveal that it knew this about itself. I was left wondering why write an article at all that undercuts itself at every turn. But perhaps I entered this with the wrong spirit; the title led me to think that this was an article about society and current events, but what this actually is is just a personal essay. If this were in the middle of a memoir or a series of introspective essays about personal problems, I wouldn't have been annoyed at all by it.

For me, the problem is another one solved by depression and low self-esteem. I, too, am blunt and outspoken, and I am both comfortable with this fact in myself and prefer this mode of communication from others. However, I do not "take pride" in it in the way the author describes; it means I am a rude asshole. I may be individually startled by incidents in which people take offense to what I have said because I am bad at reading them and unskilled at concealing my reactions with politeness, but I am not surprised when it happens, if that makes sense. It is a failing of mine, but it is not one that rocks me to my core when I realize it has occurred, nor one that I would insist on generalizing. I apologize where I can or where I am willing, and I move on. Thus, the air of almost panicky self-assessment and moping about the future of society or the meaning of words in response to the incidents described in the essay seems absurd and futile to me, the grasping of someone who previously bought into the justification that being outspoken was different and morally superior to being rude.

In a more action-oriented vein, I do not personally see a problem with informing assholes that they are assholes, nor do I feel it merits much concern if the assholes feel bad about it afterward. The difference between Hillary and Trump's respective rudenesses is simply that one of them is correct. You can tell which is which because a person who is being rude and honest doesn't repeat themselves. (As the essay notes, people who are being rude for the sake of the "high" of breaking a social taboo will keep pushing the button like a caged rat on a cocaine drip.)
posted by Scattercat at 5:43 PM on February 17, 2017 [12 favorites]

And Jesus went forth into airport security checkpoint 5, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he lightened their luggage.

And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, this is a squalid place, and the time is now past; send the multitude on their flights, that they may go into the air, and be gone.

But Jesus said unto them, We can yet bring comfort unto this multitude, and he touched the casing of the computer terminal, and free baggage allowances were given unto all.

And when the disciples saw him hacking on the Gibson, they were troubled, saying, It is a contravention of the Computer Security Act of 1987 and our Lord will be arrested as a terrorist.

But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

Then they that were in the queue came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

And that day all flights departed and arrived at the scheduled times.

posted by sfenders at 6:07 PM on February 17, 2017 [14 favorites]

The 1200-word anecdote about the sad dour obsequious London dress shop "assistant" made me feel sorry not for the author but for the assistant, who had to deal with the author's imperious aloofness and on-tenterhooks offense-taking, and then, worse still, had to be dissected like a dead frog in the author's longread.
posted by blucevalo at 8:08 PM on February 17, 2017 [10 favorites]

"In the event, all I did was criticize him. I made him angrier...."

Jesus. Just reading the essay has pissed me off, too. If she has the wherewithal to be writing for the New York Times, she should have the common sense to know that nothing good can come from telling a rude person that "There's no need to be rude".

"In a world as unmannerly as this one, how is it best to speak?"

Well, a little empathy wouldn't hurt. If I were that man, a simple "rough day?" would likely make me aware of my attitude—and I would appreciate the acknowledgement of the situation.

Granted, it might be hard for her to identify with the situation. I suspect she has never worked a job where she had to deal with crowds of people equipped with little more than "faux power" and I would bet hard money that she has never had to wear a uniform made of synthetic material, with only a cheap tie for an accessory. (The fact that she felt a need to mention that in this context says volumes about the woman.)

"It is already being said that this situation has arisen out of hatred..."

Hate isn't necessary. A simple inability to be able to identify with fellow humans is sufficient.


The overall tone of the essay was so fucking annoying—I could go on, but that would be rude.
posted by she's not there at 10:44 PM on February 17, 2017 [7 favorites]

Well that's kind of the whole expression of the author's essay--commenters (included many presumably American readers on the linked page) are angrily criticizing the author for various "obvious" reasons, while failing to empathize with the author's concerns. This polarization proves her right, ultimately. The whole point of the article is to show that reduction to empathy is not simple, that it is simultaneously politically and personally implicated (as labor) and involves class conflict and new social changes that are not trivial to understand. If anything I'd read the author's decision at the end as unsatisfyingly tentative and yet understandable, in that she resolves to be more polite and that's about it.
posted by polymodus at 2:36 AM on February 18, 2017 [2 favorites]

The self importance of a writer convinced their boring anecdotes are so interesting and meaningful they should serve as base for general analysis always me feel it would be remiss of me to not be rude. It's a shit essay.
posted by yoHighness at 2:46 AM on February 18, 2017 [2 favorites]

I was less sympathetic to her failure to PTFU (Polite The Fuck Up) with the airport security staff than I was with her interaction with the shop assistant. Because you can psych yourself up to go through security and think "I'm going to make this experience better for me & everyone else by treating everyone I see like a human (unless something goes wrong)", and you will probably have the desired effect. Look at how the security person who made the black woman throw away her toiletries tries to rehumanise herself by treating the (presumably white) painter civilly. (Hard to judge whether the painter could've got away with a "would've been nice if you could've done that for her, too")

The shop assistant, though: they were forced into a script where they couldn't get what they wanted. Clearly, the author wanted some time to daydream about new clothes in silence, and the shop assistant was bored out of her mind. The only tool the shop assistant had to get herself noticed was obsequiousness, and the only tool the author had, or rather, used was terseness. Having a strategy to break from terseness into a "thanks for being so attentive, but I need space to think about this" is a high wire act because you're only being terse since your interaction reserves are so low. And your overfriendly interlocutor might well need more explanation.

I'm sympathetic to her exploring the issue because it's about her internal attempts to be a better person, and just because she's privileged doesn't mean it's necessarily easier to make the best of your interactions with other people.
posted by ambrosen at 4:04 AM on February 18, 2017

Incidentally, I'm pretty proud of naming the phenomenon of the PTFU. I'll definitely make a mental note that that's what I'm doing when I next brace myself for a tricky situation like that.
posted by ambrosen at 4:07 AM on February 18, 2017 [4 favorites]

Scattercat - you made me think about this. I didn't really like the essay either, but it did make me consider something:

These days I don't get my hackles up about much at all.

Except for people who treat rudeness or a lack of tact as a virtue.

In my 20s, in social situations, I must have heard the following phrase - or similar - a bazillion times:

"Oh, I'm a bitch/asshole because I just tell it like it is. That's just how I am!" The tone would be crowing or boastful. And I heard it often enough that I began to think it coded for something else. The best I could come up with is that it really meant, "the feelings of other people or social convention are too nuanced and unimportant for me to deal with. I am, in fact, a selfish prick and you have to deal with me at your peril."

My job demands that I often embrace personality types that adopt rudeness as an autonomic function. In these moments, I go poker-faced. Outside of my professional realm, I avoid these sorts of people like the absolute plague they are.

It's one thing if your wiring impedes you from recognizing rudeness when it occurs, at least you recognize it and don't endeavor to keep pushing that button.

But the revelers in their own dickishness need to die in a car fire.
posted by Thistledown at 5:42 AM on February 18, 2017 [17 favorites]

Where is Dr. Lecter when you need him?
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:54 AM on February 18, 2017

Having read the comments here as well as on the NYT, I find it so depressing the way people reflexively turn to nitpicking, fault-finding and moral condemnation when faced with any kind of reflective essay (especially ones by women?). Like, sure, there's always some justification for it, because humans are flawed. But why does that have to be the approach? It's just such a drag. And I feel like it's one of the unfortunate things about the internet. There's the possibility of encountering so many people and so many ideas that no one has any patience for anyone or anything that isn't, in their eyes, exactly right. I think there's something inhumane about that, but I'm guilty of it too, sometimes.

As for the essay, it was interesting enough. The author isn't a saint and she isn't exactly like me, but then I chose to read the piece because I was in the mood to read about how someone else thinks. I was puzzled, though, at the way she jumbled up themes of racism, xenophobia, political assassination, etc. into an essay about rudeness. That's one of the things that's bothering me about the comments, I suppose. To me, Cusk is writing about all these hideous things and to other people it's just yet another round of customer service wars.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 9:21 AM on February 18, 2017 [8 favorites]

Well that's kind of the whole expression of the author's essay--commenters (included many presumably American readers on the linked page) are angrily criticizing the author for various "obvious" reasons, while failing to empathize with the author's concerns. This polarization proves her right, ultimately.

So, those of us who found her rather insufferable are guilty of proving her right about how rude this culture has become because we fail to empathize with her apparent inability to empathize with the people who were rude to her?

Give me a break.
posted by she's not there at 1:10 PM on February 18, 2017 [4 favorites]

I've always thought that what's lambasted as "political correctness" is simply just updated social conventions to better accommodate those people from marginalized and oppressed demographics, and to allow them to experience the common courtesy that other people take for granted. And people who are relentlessly anti-PC simply fail to realize it's just about basic politeness and respect. So part of the problem is getting people to realize that they're not being oppressed when they're expected to show other people common courtesy, they're not being brainwashed into some phantom social justice ideological project... they're simply expected to be polite. Stop being rude.

Requisite Stewart Lee bit on political correctness gone mad
posted by Apocryphon at 1:47 PM on February 18, 2017 [5 favorites]

Mostly I think what people mean when lambasting "PC run wild" is, you can't tell pussy jokes at work or use the n-word anymore.
posted by thelonius at 2:13 PM on February 18, 2017 [2 favorites]

Having read the comments here as well as on the NYT, I find it so depressing the way people reflexively turn to nitpicking, fault-finding and moral condemnation when faced with any kind of reflective essay (especially ones by women?)

I think you hit the nail on the head here... the reason we can criticize Rachel Cusk is that she is trying, to the best of her abilities, to reflect on her experiences from other perspectives, and to describe them in precise detail, including her own thoughts and opinions at the time. She's giving her opponents ammunition by including the details another narrator might have left out, about her privileged background for example, or her admittedly class-colored observations about the service-class workers she interacted with. She's a NYT writer because she's dedicated to precision in language, kind of like a female David Foster Wallace.

Which is why it's an odd choice to for her to center an essay around "rudeness", a concept that's so vague it's useless in critical discourse. Trying to get to the bottom of "rudeness" via personal annecdotes abut service workers is a doomed task, but maybe on the way she can narrow down a ltitle bit more what that "rudeness" means, what her own visceral reactions to "rudeness" mean.

Part of what Rachel Cusk said was rudeness seemed to me more like carelessness, or just not having the inclination or mental energy to deal with other people as individuals. Because, you know, not everyone even values that in their interactions, especially in a formalized worker-patron context. There's a script for customer service interactions, to standardize them, so they are easier for both the workers and the patrons to navigate. Maybe Rachel Cusk objects to that... or to the way that seems to seep into other areas of life... it's an open-ended essay, there can be multiple interpretations.
posted by subdee at 2:34 PM on February 18, 2017 [1 favorite]

People's behavior in tv and movies is often appalling. Kids are disdainful of parents, there's belligerence, violence, gossip, malice, exploitative sex (the 7 deadlies get a real workout) etc. Kindness, thoughtfulness, respect, reasonable behavior are all rare, because they aren't as interesting. But people are social, and they imitate the social behavior they see on tv and in movies.

Basket of deplorables, was, I think, said in exasperation. Whereas Trump was bullying, lying, berating endlessly. Mostly, I found Hillary to be pretty calm and reasonable, but, of course, that was less effective. And that's a thing to deal with. Rudeness is really effective. Bullies get their way a lot of the time. Pushy people get ahead. Lying, cheating and stealing are ways to win. As a peacenik, I have had to recognize that war is a tool, and it gets certain results. Saber-rattling can be a way to influence the less-well-armed.

Really, if I didn't have to work (health insurance), I wonder if I'd ever get out of bed. Kindness is so much more pleasant.

And her friend, the painter? Male. Just the presence of testosterone goes some distance towards getting what you want, and making it possible to literally stand your ground.
posted by theora55 at 4:50 PM on February 18, 2017 [1 favorite]

Which is why it's an odd choice to for her to center an essay around "rudeness", a concept that's so vague it's useless in critical discourse.

Political correctness is often reframed as 'don't be an asshole'. Don't be an asshole means don't be rude. Rudeness is a breach of etiquette, just like a failure to comply with a given shibboleth of political correctness is a breach of etiquette.

If critical discourse doesn't have a way to understand breaches of etiquette then it's flawed.
posted by Sebmojo at 7:50 PM on February 18, 2017

Rudeness and politeness are extremely wedded to local conditions. I've been to many parts of the US now, extended time, so not just tourism, and politeness varies a great deal. It's polite to be like where you're from, rude to be like elsewhere, and this is really, really universal.

It's so much like loving the food one grew up with more than any others. How else could British food be explained?

Loved the essay.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:02 PM on February 18, 2017 [2 favorites]

How else could British food be explained?

Extremely rude thing to say, for what it's worth.
posted by ambrosen at 1:31 AM on February 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

I know. I thought to add a wink in there somewhere, but written humor is hard.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 8:53 AM on February 19, 2017

As a sentient human being take a few seconds to think about perhaps there are other people who exist and your existing might affect that???
posted by sedimentary_deer at 10:05 AM on February 19, 2017

No, seriously, Strange_Robinson, try being British on MetaFilter and see how many stupid, tedious jokes you're the butt of, or how many times you're treated as some kind of defective-American.

The answer is: "far fewer than most other minority groups, but still way too much.
posted by ambrosen at 10:41 AM on February 19, 2017

ambrosen: You guys are our heroes. (seriously)
posted by pjmoy at 2:51 PM on February 19, 2017 [1 favorite]

My apologies. I'd intended it as an illustrative point for my preceding argument about the localized aspect of customs. This would include what's funny, and what is not.

Internet culture has a way of making everything bland.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:24 AM on February 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

I thought it was interesting how the airport worker feels free to be outright mean to a black woman, but goes out of her way to find a solution that will accommodate a man (presumably white, although the author doesn't say that) without any loss of his belongings. Also interesting that said solution involved asking for help from the woman traveling with him. (Why couldn't the second bag of toiletries belong to the black child?)

Personally, I think that particular anecdote goes well beyond plain rudeness.
posted by rpfields at 4:50 PM on February 20, 2017