(the) American (Novel of)

Impolitics
effective a manner precisely because, among other reasons, they appear
to be both less serious than the imperatives of morality and less stable
than the kinds of epistemic prescriptions made by the social sciences.
Because etiquette (1) is adopted as “mere” performance; (2) appears
value neutral due to its lost ties to morality; and (3) is sometimes as
fickle as the trends of fashion, it isn’t hard to see why most philosophers
have not appreciated it as a worthy object of study. Nevertheless, beginning
with its inception in the middle of the eighteenth century,
etiquette has carried out the decisive social and political tasks that have
continuously been refined and elaborated by every historical form of
propriety. That is, etiquette continues to operate as an important set of
techniques through which individuals actively participate in the social
constitution of themselves as subjects living within complex relations of
power—what Foucault calls “technologies of the self ” or “ethics.” 2
For a brief example of this fundamental role played by etiquette,
consider the last chapter of the 1969 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette. 3
Here we discover a number of guidelines for creating a “happy marriage”
that, in fact, can be critically recognized as reproducing some of
the gender-based inequalities that have traditionally characterized heterosexual
marriage in the West. Of particular note is Post’s claim that
“for some reason, it seems that the bride generally has to make more
effort to achieve a successful marriage than the bridegroom.” 4 Within
this single remark we might begin to recognize the significant capacities
and formal characteristics that make etiquette worth paying attention
to. Because the rules of proper behavior are prescribed by Post as
simply being “the thing to do,” no reason or rationale is required for
them and none is offered, thus helping to preserve their apparently
value neutral and everyday character. The rules of comportment simply
are what they are “for some reason,” a reason that is presumably unknown
even to a popularly recognized expert like Post. Nevertheless,
the binding force of these rules must apply to all who would normally
be expected to appropriate them as the maxims of their own behaviors,
in this case any newly married couple in late 1960s America. 5
The imperative force of etiquette need not remain a mystery to
us. Perhaps what was possible in 1969 is not so today—the long list of
prescriptions for the new bride accompanied by a more meager set
of advice for the groom is itself immediately suspicious. We can no
longer read such passages from Post without recognizing these “neutral”
61