As we celebrate International Women’s Day we have been leafing through an 18th-century guide to etiquette to gain some fresh insights into how the women who lived generations before us were expected to behave. The Lady’s Companion, an Infallible Guide to the Fair Sex, by ‘A Lady’, 1743, is typical of many of the etiquette books that catered for teenaged girls who were just about to be launched into society. It takes a high moral tone and is loaded with repressive admonitions. High standards of behaviour and compliance are demanded of young women, who above all are expected to be becomingly modest, meek and unassuming.
The anonymous writer of the Guide also seems to be alarmed by the ‘degenerate age’ in which she lives (a perennial concern) and is anxious above all to safeguard young women’s virtue, with dire warnings about the dangers of bold and flirtatious behaviour, vanity and – heaven forbid – drunkenness. She abhors any signs from women that they are behaving like men and insists that, above all, they should be obedient in all things to their parents and guardians.
The sheer volume and weight of the restrictive advice that is ladled out to young women must be shocking for their 21st-century descendants. It is a vivid reminder of how much society has changed and how deeply ingrained attitudes have been eradicated over the last two centuries allowing us to reassess and reinvent our notions of gender and all that it entails.
“Modesty [is] a Guider and Regulator of all decent and comely Carriage and Behaviour… and is the great Civilizer of Conversations… It appears in the Face in calm and meek Looks, where it so impresses itself, that it gives the greatest Lustre to a Feminine Beauty. Modesty… banishes all Indecency and Rudeness, all insolent Vauntings, and supercilious Disdains, and whatever else may render a Person troublesome, or ridiculous to Company… It restrains all excessive Talkativeness.”
Modesty is revered above all virtues because it is seen as a way of reining in any ‘dangerous’ impulses – self-assertiveness and talkativeness are seen as ‘troublesome’ and ‘ridiculous’ in a young woman. There is a general sense that any displays of strong character (firmly held opinions, confidently expressed) will be entirely injurious to the reputation, proving a fatal impediment to prospects of marriage, the ultimate goal.
“Such a degenerate Age do we live in, that every Thing seems inverted, even Sexes, whilst Men fall into the Effeminacy and Niceness of Women, and Women take up the Confidence, the Boldness of Men… Vices of Men are carefully copied by some Women, who think they have not made a sufficient Escape from their Sex, ‘till they can be as daringly wicked as the other… And when to this a Woman adds the Sin of Drunkenness, nothing that is human approaches so near a Beast. She who is first a Prostitute to Wine, will soon be to Lust also.”
It is scarcely surprising in these constricted circumstances that young women might aspire to the swagger and panache characteristic of young men, but the ‘Lady’ is thoroughly alarmed by the prospect of young women becoming more like men – boldness, spirit and self-assurance are repudiated, and there is an implication that taking on these characteristics will soon lead to ‘wickedness’ – succumbing to the temptations of alcohol and lust.
“The Female Sex ought to maintain a Behaviour toward Men, which may be secure to themselves without offending them. No ill-bred affected Shyness, nor a Roughness, unsuitable to their Sex, and unnecessary to their Virtue, but a Way of living that may prevent all Cause of Railleries or unmannerly Freedoms; Looks that forbid without Rudeness, and oblige without Invitation, or leaving room for the saucy Inferences Men’s Vanity suggests to them upon the least Encouragement.”
As if the above-mentioned remonstrances were not enough, young ladies are firmly instructed about their behaviour towards men and are told in no uncertain terms that the way in which they behave (boldness, flirtatiousness) may lead to ‘saucy inferences’ and ‘unmannerly freedoms’. In other words, men are, according to the ‘Lady’, vain enough to respond to the least encouragement, and are likely to misinterpret young ladies’ behaviour. This is dangerous territory, as it has the potential to lead to sexual scandal and a devastating loss of reputation. Yet young ladies are not seen as victims of predatory males; instead, they are told that it is their own demure behaviour that should control and repress lascivious intent.
“Youth is apt to be foolish in its Designs, and heady in the Pursuit of them; and there can be nothing more deplorable than to have it left to itself. Children are under the Guidance and Protections of their parents, ‘till, by the maturing of their Judgements, they are qualified to be their own Conductors.”
It would be a rare young woman in the 18th century who asserted her own will over that of her parents. Etiquette guides such as The Lady’s Companion reflect societal norms in the ways in which they condescend to young people, dismissing them as foolish, impulsive and misguided. There is an assumption that in all things they must be guided, directed and, in effect, controlled by their parents and guardians.
“Affability and Courtesy are, without doubt, amiable in all, but more especially in the Fair-Sex, and more necessary to them than to the other; for Men have often Charges and Employments which justify, nay, perhaps, require somewhat of Sternness and Austerity, but Women ordinarily have few or no Occasions of it.”
The “Lady” is under no illusions about the roles of the sexes in 18th-century society. She pragmatically points out that men go out into the world, take on great responsibilities and difficult challenges, and on these somewhat dubious grounds may be excused a certain “sternness”, but women do not have this excuse, living quietly as they do within the confines of the domestic sphere. They must therefore be ‘affable’ and courteous, countering any ‘austerity’ (bad temper) displayed by men.
“Women should let every seven Years make some Alteration in them towards the graver Side, and not be like the Girls of fifty, who resolve to be always young, whatever Time with his Iron Teeth determines to the contrary...the Liveliness of Youth in a riper Age, looks like a new Patch upon an old Gown.”
Most of the ‘Lady’s’ advice is for younger women but she does not spare the older representatives of her sex, roundly condemning them for their determination to be “always young” and resist the “iron teeth” of time. Her contempt is reserved for older women’s behaviour rather than their appearance, and she clearly feels that their attempts to ape the “liveliness of youth” are unseemly and inappropriate. Apparently, the implacable grip of convention was not reserved solely for the young, but continued to be applied as women aged, ensuring that they complied with generally accepted social expectations.
While we all aspire to socialise with ease and panache, the reality is that most of us have experienced moments of crass social ineptitude, awkward pauses, jokes that fall flat or mis-timed interjections.
This can lead to feelings of social awkwardness – shyness and nerves, an inability to pick up on social cues, a tendency to overthink or regret things you have said, and a feeling that people don’t really enjoy talking to you and do their best to avoid you.
Most people experience moments of self-doubt about socialising, but if you feel self-consciousness is blighting your encounters and impeding your ability to function socially, try the following:
Every day you will meet people who offer you a service (in shops, cafés, on public transport, delivering goods to your home etc). It is part of their job to be approachable and affable and they will therefore be receptive to your overtures and appreciative of your friendliness. Even if all you do is exchange a few pleasantries (observations about the weather – that great British standby – are an excellent default), you will gradually feel more at ease about chatting to strangers and less convinced that your attempts at small talk are going to end in disaster.
Concentrate on listening carefully when other people are talking. Focus on what they are saying and don’t spend all your time feeling distracted because you are trying to think of a witty or fascinating response.
Practise being an audible listener – that means making an occasional short and encouraging interjection like ‘really?’ or ‘how terrible!’ or ‘I can’t believe he said that!’, but don’t overdo it. If the person you are talking to seems to be running out of steam, re-start the conversation by asking a relevant and penetrating question.
All these techniques will ensure that people you converse with will feel truly heard and understood and will enjoy your engagement. All too often, people can leave a social encounter feeling that nobody has really attended to what they’ve been saying, so your obvious signs of interest will make you both memorable and appreciated.
Everyone responds positively to empathy, which is the cornerstone of satisfying human relationships. One simple way of coming across as empathetic is to monitor and mirror other people’s emotions – it will make them feel both closely observed and understood, but it will also ensure that you won’t make elementary social blunders such as laughing at an inappropriate time, or interjecting lugubriously when someone is trying to be light and amusing. Taking your lead from other people will compensate for any deficiencies in your social antennae.
Reinforce feelings of empathy by seeking similarities and pointing them out (‘That’s just how I felt when gave my first presentation!’ or ‘I’m just like you, I can’t stand shellfish!’). This technique may seem crude and obvious, but everyone is seeking ways of bonding socially and will welcome helpful pointers.
Everyone loves to be complimented and if you can manage to do so without sounding clunky or artificial it will certainly oil the wheels of social intercourse. Try and avoid bland generalities (“You look well!”) and concentrate on specifics (“I love the colour of your dress, it really suits you”). Try and be spontaneous and genuine when you offer compliments. Be careful about getting too personal when it comes to appearance and don’t stray into danger areas – “have you lost weight?” can be a counterproductive compliment as it tends to imply that the person needed to do so.
Compliments, while much appreciated, can sometimes lead to an awkward hiatus in the conversation, so it can be helpful if you move swiftly on, rather than waiting for the complimented person to react.
That said, if you receive a compliment, simply smile and say thank you. Don’t simper and don’t denigrate yourself. Never retaliate with a knee-jerk compliment back, which will sound false and self-serving.
Firstly, remind yourself that there will always be natural lulls in conversation, so don’t go immediately into panic mode. Resist the temptation to fire off a barrage of random questions in a hysterical attempt to re-boot the exchange. A more congenial way of dealing with conversational hiatuses is to acknowledge that they have happened. If, for example, someone has told a funny anecdote and a lull occurs after the laughter has died down, it might be helpful to acknowledge it by saying “well, there’s not much anyone can say after that!”. If you feel a particular subject is exhausted, recognise it by saying “There’s really not much more we can say about that is there?” or “I’m sorry, I’ve clearly been rendered speechless!” Commenting on the lacunae in your own conversation can create feelings of affinity and connection.
Self-control and thinking carefully before you speak will prevent you blurting out something inappropriate or out of context (eg mentioning a stomach upset in polite society, referring to a salacious bit of scandal in front of a person who is related to the perpetrator, or airing robust political views when you are with people who emphatically do not share them). You might be someone who has no boundaries and has a tendency to talk openly and revealingly to new acquaintances, who are disconcerted by your revelations.
Remember past gaffes and indiscretions, take a deep breath and wait a couple of seconds before you speak – that should give you enough time to filter out inappropriate remarks.
While conflict, provocation and indiscretion can all contribute to memorable conversations, as a rule it is best to play safe when you first meet people and test out their tolerances and sensitivities by avoiding these topics:
• Private matters like relationships, personal finance, mental health, or family issues
• Taboo and controversial issues like religion, politics, gossip, body parts, or sex
• Strong or overbearing opinions
• Negative comments about other people
• Excessively deep emotional sharing (especially in the early stages of a friendship or relationship)
If your filter isn’t functioning properly and you get into deep water, pull yourself up short and laugh at yourself (“sorry, I don’t know where I was going with that!”, “oh dear, please ignore me, I’m rambling!”).
Socialising is a delicate dance: when you first meet people you may find the conversation tends towards the bland and innocuous, but this is a safe and gentle way of establishing contact and getting to know them. If you make a connection, you can take it further and push the boundaries. If you don’t connect, you can simply move on.
Major rites of passage can pose an etiquette dilemma for divorced couples, their family and friends. While there are few social strictures nowadays relating to the rituals surrounding births, marriages and deaths, it is important to exercise discretion, and ensure that your behaviour does not cause offence.
These critical stages in our life’s journey can bring the breakdown of a marriage into sharp relief. For some couples they offer a chance to reposition, yet find a role for, divorced spouses. For others, these occasions simply reinforce the separation, and there is no desire to integrate divorced spouses into proceedings. There is no right or wrong way of dealing with major rites of passage; whatever the choice, however, divorced couples should do their best to communicate openly and to behave in ways that have been mutually agreed.
If you have managed to maintain civilised relations with your partner during the divorce proceedings, you might find yourself invited to the christening (or naming ceremony) of his/her baby with a new partner. Your ex-partner may be inviting the children from his/her first marriage and feel that it is appropriate to include you in this family celebration.
If you receive an invitation, clinically examine your own feelings about the new baby. If you are forced to admit to yourself that you see this new child is an interloper, liable to supplant your own children, then you are nursing feelings of animosity and bitterness that you may find yourself powerless to conceal on the big day. It might be best to politely refuse the invitation – simply write a short note, thanking the hosts for their kind invitation, and explaining that unfortunately you are unable to attend. You don’t need to explain your refusal. If you want to mitigate the impact of your non-attendance you can always send a small christening gift.
Even if you can’t face the prospect of the christening, accept that your children may be very excited about their new half-sibling, and do everything you can to ensure that they are able to participate.
If you decide to go, take a back seat and don’t upstage the parents. Wear a discreet outfit, don’t thrust yourself into the front row for group photographs, don’t make a performance of your good relations with your former in-laws. Behave impeccably, admire the baby extravagantly, and make sure you don’t get drunk and embittered.
Traditionally ex-partners weren’t invited to remarriages, but social customs have become more fluid, and you may find yourself on the guest list. If the whole notion of the remarriage makes you feel ill, politely refuse the invitation (no explanation needed).
If you do attend your ex-partner’s wedding it is imperative that you act impeccably. Don’t attempt to upstage the bride or groom. Don’t drink too much and turn maudlin or aggressive. You might be wise to tip off friends to look out for you and make it their job to escort you home as soon as they see your social façade begin to wobble.
It is understandable that the bride and groom will want children from previous relationships to be involved in the celebration of their new marriage. Children are often happy to play a special role, such as being a bridesmaid, pageboy, or even best man, but they should always be consulted in case they wish to stay in the background. The couple must discuss these issues at an early stage, both with the children and with ex-partners.
If you are embarking on a second marriage, it is advisable to acknowledge previous marriages if this prevents children, friends, and even ex-in-laws from feeling confused or rejected.
When children are in attendance it is quite appropriate to refer to them and therefore to a previous marriage in the speeches – keep any allusions wry, affectionate and light-hearted. Behave as if you are embracing the past, not obliterating it.
If you are hosting or attending the wedding of one of your children from a previous marriage, remember that it is your son’s or daughter’s big day. Whatever their wishes, you must accede. Behave in a civilised manner, without a hint of bitterness.
If there is abiding antagonism between you and your ex-partner, make some simple provisions. Plan the seating carefully to avoid conflict between the different ‘sides’, but close enough to appear unified.
Split wedding duties. For example, the natural father could walk the bride down the aisle and the stepfather could give a speech. At the reception you could opt for three ‘top’ tables. Each of the separated parents can host their own table, leaving the bride and groom to sit with bridesmaids, ushers and friends.
Divorces don’t necessarily terminate relationships with the ex’s family. Many people find that their quarrel is with their ex-partner only; they feel nothing but affection for their ex’s parents, siblings and so on and may well continue to see them regularly.
In cases like this, it is only natural for divorced partners to want to attend the funerals of former in-laws, and it is quite socially acceptable to do so. But beware, no matter how warmly you feel towards your former family, you are no longer officially part of it, and you should not make assumptions about your inclusion. You should not, therefore, head for the family pews at the front, or walk behind the coffin at the end of the service.
The possible exception to this rule is when you are accompanying your small child – perhaps to your ex-father-in-law’s funeral. In this case, your relationship to the deceased’s grandchild may entitle you to ‘family status’. If in doubt, discreetly ask a member of the family where you should sit.
Finally, never upstage the blood family when it comes to displays of grief. Your divorce has necessarily placed you at one remove, and you should maintain a tactful and dignified distance. People will understand that you have come to pay your respects and appreciate your discretion.
If your ex-partner has died and not remarried, you may find yourself and possibly your children unexpectedly playing a central role in the funeral. Put the travails of the past behind you and behave with dignity – your children will need all your support.
If your ex-partner has remarried and subsequently died, you may face another set of dilemmas. Even if you are invited to the funeral be prepared to find yourself and your relationship airbrushed out of the eulogies.
Alternatively, you may find yourself completely excluded by a new partner. Resist the temptation to turn up at the funeral as an uninvited guest; it will only increase everyone’s distress, especially if a scene ensues. If you feel absolutely compelled to pay your respects, do so discreetly – slip into a back pew just before the service starts and melt away once the main mourners have exited.
Unfortunately, it is the prerogative of the current partner to make the funeral arrangements, even if they are petty and vindictive. If you have children with your former partner, you could explore the option of holding a separate memorial service, with their full participation.
Regimented lines of cubicles, head-high partitions or rooms with firmly closed doors have been confined to office history. Nowadays, most offices are designed on open plan principles: colleagues are visible and accessible to each other, encouraging conversation, collaboration and creativity.
But the shared communal space throws up many challenges relating to privacy, territoriality and distractions, and these need to be negotiated with the help of consideration and good manners. Follow our open plan recommendations for a happier, more productive shared working space:
• Work the layout
It will be counter-productive if you cluster all the desks together in large blocs in the centre of the working space. It is better to create ‘pods’ of up to four desks (or shared tables seating up to four colleagues), with lots of passage space between them. This will ensure that workers get up and move around, and easy access will encourage them to walk over to their colleagues’ desks for conversation and consultation, rather than shouting across the office and distracting everyone.
• Create dedicated spaces
Think carefully about how people work together and create spaces away from their desks and the communal area that will accommodate them. You may need to have a formal meeting room with a whiteboard and closing door; alternatively, you may simply need to hive off an area of the office where colleagues can gather around a table to brainstorm, chat or exchange ideas. Maybe it is a good idea to have a ‘quiet space’, where colleagues who want to concentrate can sit with their laptops or notebooks away from background chatter. The important thing is to ensure that team collaborations take place in a dedicated space, which will encourage focus and concentration.
• Separate the Kitchen
Everyone enjoys taking a break, making a cup of coffee, heating up their lunch and enjoying a casual chat with colleagues. It’s time out from the working day, so it shouldn’t be allowed to intrude on working space. Don’t take the open plan aspiration too far; ensure that the kitchen stands apart.
• Respect Privacy
One of the disadvantages of open plan offices is that people’s screens are visible, and employees can feel scrutinised or spied upon. Think about sight lines when you’re positioning desks and computers and try to offset seating positions so that co-workers are not staring at each other or looking straight at a colleague’s screen.
Once you’ve got the open plan layout right, the success or failure of your office is very much down to the behaviour of your employees. For a communal working place to succeed, they will need to be conscious of other people and considerate about how they behave:
• Keep a Tidy Desk
Your workspace is on full view in an open plan office so it’s a good idea to eliminate teetering piles of files and papers, dirty coffee cups or overflowing in-trays. Try and ensure your desk is as empty as possible when you leave it each night – remember, people will read unsightly clutter as a telling sign of disorganisation and disarray.
• Don’t be a Noise Nuisance
You may love listening to music or podcasts as you work, but if you do so ensure that you are wearing efficient headphones or earbuds and that no sound is leaking out. Moderate the volume of your voice and don’t shout across the office. Don’t listen to voicemail messages by speakerphone. If you’ve got to make an important phone call or you’re having a video meeting, politely warn your colleagues, and reciprocate by respecting your colleagues’ pleas for silence.
• Don’t be the Office Chatterbox
It’s great to chat with colleagues, to be friendly and interested in their lives. But you must be very aware of the time and the place and ensure that you’re not keeping them from their work or distracting them when they’re trying to concentrate. Attempting to minimise distraction by having whispered conversations is never a good idea – no matter how innocuous the chat, onlookers will begin to feel paranoid and targeted.
• Don’t Eavesdrop
Inevitably, in an open plan office you will be able to hear your neighbours’ conversations. You may be able to switch off from them, but if you do hear something (when they’re talking on the phone or with another colleague) the convention is that you don’t give the game away by reacting to what is being said. Open plan offices can leave people feeling over-exposed, so it is vitally important that colleagues respect each other’s privacy.
• Avoid Smelly Foods
You’re in a shared space, so if you’re inclined to indulge in greasy burgers or last night’s heated-up curry, spare a thought for near neighbours. If your lunch smells pungent it will permeate the atmosphere and your colleagues may find your food odours invasive or repulsive.
• Take it Outside
Try to avoid forcing your near neighbours to witness unfolding personal soap operas. If you’re experiencing a personal drama or crisis, especially something that involves endless phone calls, try and remove yourself from the communal area – explain to your boss if need be.
• Stay Alert and Observant
Keep an eye on your neighbours and ensure that you are not invading their space or distracting them needlessly. Ideally, you shouldn’t have to wait for them to plead for silence – if you can see they’re making an important call, moderate your voice or take a tea-break to give them privacy.
A new model of school is offering a combination of home learning and time in the classroom. We look at the pros and cons and find out more about this new way of learning from hybrid school Portland Place.
Since the pandemic, much has been written about the move in the workplace to hybrid working, with employers and employees enjoying greater flexibility in terms of working from home and time in the office, so much so that Debrett’s, in conjunction with Poly, have created a Guide for Global Etiquette in the Workplace.
But it is not just the workplace that is changing. For most of us, not just here in the UK but around the world, the effects of Covid19 and the ensuing Lockdown has had and will have a significant impact. So many of the clients and schools that we speak to disclose increased levels of anxiety in their children/student body, and much of this anxiety is centred around social situations and the pressures of school life. There is also an ever increasing number of providers offering online education for children around the world.
In our role as education consultants, advising families who are looking for the very best education provision for their children, Debrett’s Education has discovered one school that has taken the idea a step further and is providing a hybrid model, where children learn online for part of the week but can then opt to attend school in person between one and two days.
Part of the AlphaPlus group of schools, Portland Place was founded in 1996 to be an alternative to the intense, large, examination-focused independent day schools. Headmaster David Bradbury recognises children need a safe space to thrive and explore their creativity, and he and his team work hard to ensure that Portland Place is just that.
Our founder, Sioban O’Connor has built a relationship with the school over the last five years and has seen at first hand the nurturing ethos of the school. She was excited by the possibilities that a hybrid model affords and wanted to find out more.
Portland Place’s model started in response to the pandemic as it had successfully navigated its way through online learning and found that many of its students had thoroughly enjoyed the virtual experience. It decided to extend the idea into a hybrid school offer from September 2020 and has found that it has gone from strength to strength.
There are now just under 40 students in the school, all of whom have chosen this route for a variety of reasons. Some found that full time schooling was just too much, but are now finding that the hybrid model allows them to build their confidence and ease back into full time. Others have other commitments – especially children who excel in sport and would struggle to balance their training and competition schedules with a more conventional school structure. Hybrid schools also give parents the opportunity to access independent school education at a fraction of the cost.
So how does it work? Every morning starts with a compulsory registration period, where the students meet as they would if they were in school, and have time with their tutor. This roots the students in the group and creates a pastoral structure for them. Then the lessons begin.
Students come into school either one or two days a week, depending on what they feel they can manage, not least in terms of the logistics of getting into school – one pupil lives in Manchester, but does come into school for Geography field trips and other key events. The lessons that students come in for are predominately those with a practical element: Science, Drama and DT for example. This is also a great way to connect them with other students and with the school community; they can also be part of the whole school activities and can join sports fixtures, school productions, choirs etc.
If you think that this might be a great solution for your child (and you as a family) and would like to find out more, have a look at their website and see what some of the existing parents have to say about it:
Hybrid School | Portland Place (portland-place.co.uk
Alternatively, if you would like free impartial advice about a range of school options for your child, please give one of our consultants a call on +44 (0) 203 848 9201, or fill out the enquiry form on our website: education.debretts.com
There have been many reports in recent weeks about a rise in rowdy behaviour in British theatres. Accounts range from intrusive use of mobile phones and loudly rustling sweet papers to drunkenness, singing along, abusive behaviour and outbreaks of fighting in the stalls.
There is a consensus that audience behaviour has deteriorated since the pandemic lockdowns, and undoubtedly the return to communal experiences has engendered a febrile sense of joy and excitement, which can get out of hand.
What should we expect from a theatre experience? In Shakespeare’s times audiences were loud and bawdy, uninhibited about vocally expressing disgust or appreciation. It was only in the mid-19th century that Britain’s notoriously riotous theatres began to be subject to regulation, and a wealthier and more demanding audience began to impose more recognisable standards of audience behaviour, with the emphasis on quiet attentiveness and decorum.
While audiences have never been completely controllable and from time to time there have been outbreaks of riotous and anti-social behaviour, the tendency has been to observe generally recognised theatre etiquette: sit quietly, no noisy eating or drinking, respect your neighbour’s space, reserve commentary on the play for the interval.
The first chink in this painstakingly constructed carapace of good behaviour was the arrival of the mobile phone. Ringtones interrupted performances, audience members texted or scrolled mid-play, creating distracting pools of light in the darkness of the auditorium, people used their phones to take photographs during the performance. Theatres reacted by broadcasting warnings and politely requesting the audience to switch off their phones – inevitably some diehards did not always comply.
But these transgressions seem comparatively minor when compared to some of the more egregious recent examples of bad behaviour. In some performances the whole notion of audiences gathering together to experience what the late director Peter Brook called the “good” kind of silence “when everyone is so keyed to the same point that there is this extraordinary life” seems to have evaporated. It would, however, be senselessly doctrinaire to expect the level of rapt and silent attention to a joyous jukebox musical that is demanded of a Shakespeare tragedy. As with all manners, context is crucial and behaving well is grounded in a willingness to take note of the prevailing ambience and to respect it.
Audiences may be understandably somewhat confused by the ways in which theatres choose to market their productions, in particular musicals. If they are told there will be “dancing in the aisles”, then it is not unreasonable to expect an uproarious party atmosphere. Reining in some of these more extravagant claims might go some way towards managing audiences’ expectations and behaviour, and printing warnings about behaviour (“No singing along, stay seated throughout the performance etc”) on ticket confirmations or in the programme might also be helpful.
Theatres are obviously reliant on sales of alcohol in their bars before the performance and during the interval, but allowing their customers to bring alcohol into the auditorium may be a step too far. It sends signals that the show is going to be the “best party in town” (another marketing claim) and inevitably can lead to disinhibition. Similarly, selling food in the theatre bar that is encased in noisy wrappers is inviting problems; when people in neighbouring seats are distracted by loud rustling at moments of high drama, they will be understandably irritated and disputes between audience members may break out.
The worst examples of recent bad behaviour concern the abuse of ushers and theatre staff. They may find themselves in situations where they are obliged to police audience behaviour and are subjected to unwarranted aggression. If you are called out by a fellow audience member or an usher because of your behaviour, then you must acknowledge that you have transgressed the communal codes of conduct, apologise graciously and move on. You may feel aggrieved or resentful, but you must accept that, in a society where people are generally tolerant and unwilling to complain, you have genuinely caused offence.
Theatre tickets are expensive, and it is understandable that all theatregoers feel that they have made an investment that entitles them to a great night out, whatever their definition of this may be. But the joy of theatre is all about the delight of shared experience, and while much of the time this is wholly positive, there will be occasions when compromises and concessions must be made.
With the advance of hybrid working and the seemingly unstoppable march of social mores in the direction of increased informality, it is scarcely surprising that many of us find ourselves in workspaces where it appears that anything goes. We can wear what we want, choose our own work hours, brainstorm lounging over endless cups of coffee, and chat about work-related issues while we play ping pong or sip prosecco.
Many of us will be thriving in a more relaxed and congenial atmosphere and will be enjoying importing aspects of our home-based working lives into the workplace. But there is no getting away from the fact that – no matter how cooperatively your team works – workplace hierarchies do exist and must be acknowledged. Confusingly, many workplaces have moved on from the traditional symbols of authority – the boss’s corner office, imposing desk, dedicated secretary, well-tailored clothes. So it is scarcely surprising that employees can find it confusing when their boss is sitting at the next desk, wearing casual clothes and joining in the tea rounds and office banter.
Despite the collegiality and conviviality, you must remind yourself that you are answerable to your boss, that they have the power to promote or fire you, to assess and adjudicate you, award you pay rises or institute disciplinary proceedings. Your demeanour and commitment to work is being judged, so don’t be lulled into laxity or tempted to speak unguardedly, especially when you are in earshot of your manager. Informality can be very disinhibiting, but that can be perilous in a professional context.
Working in an informal atmosphere certainly requires employees to comply with the prevailing ambience – turning up in super-casual clothes, happy to hot desk, relaxing strict expectations about working hours. But it would be foolish to act less than professionally just because rules or expectations aren’t explicitly spelt out or enforced.
Informal workplaces are successful when hierarchies are recognised and respected but are implemented with a light touch and a minimum of rigid protocol. Hierarchies can introduce a certain amount of order and predictability, which will ensure employees are not left feeling lost or directionless.
Hierarchies provide structure and accountability, but they can also create competitiveness, resentment and tension. If people are openly vying for advancement within a rigid pecking order, then you will inevitably find that there is stress and discord.
Many of these potential problems can be solved by the choice of who gets promoted. Many people rise to the top of an organisation because they are dominant, confident, vocal or charismatic, not because they have expertise and experience, which will make them worthy of respect from their colleagues. Choosing managers who know what they are talking about, rather than merely knowing how to talk, is the first very important step in building an effective hierarchy.
Teams will always work better if certain individuals are given areas of responsibility that they can own for themselves, creating a sense of autonomy and responsibility within the hierarchical structure.
If your hierarchy is essentially triangular, with a wide base of colleagues who enjoy the same status and respect, it will always work better. It will foster a sense of cooperation rather than intense competition to climb the ladder.
An accessible second-in-command, whose job is to mediate between the boss and the rest of the team can really help when it comes to office communication. He or she is responsible for liaising with top management, translating what is being said in the corridors of power, as well as reporting back from the ‘shop floor’, raising concerns and giving credit where it is due. This liaison and interpretation will ensure that workers feel they are being taken seriously and it will also help them to feel confident and relaxed about speaking up, suggesting new ideas and mapping new ways forward.
Remember, even in the most informal of work settings, the borderline between familiarity and overfamiliarity is very, very finely drawn, to be crossed at your peril. Tread carefully and use your social antennae. Pick up clues from other people and don’t appropriate a familiarity that you haven’t earned – that will come naturally by getting to know your boss and working alongside him/her. It would be naïve to believe that traditional hierarchies have disappeared altogether, despite appearances to the contrary.
Seating plans are imperative for any large formal event, and most of us will encounter them at wedding receptions. A good seating plan is a finely-tuned piece of social engineering, which will ensure that compatible people meet and talk to each other, long-lost friends are reunited and new friendships are forged.
At official formal events, seating conventions are quite rigid, and differ from the customs at a social or purely private party. The host is seated at the centre of the table and as a general principle, guests radiate out from the centre of the table in order of precedence – whereas in some situations social rank may still be deemed to be of utmost importance, at most events considerations such as professional status and age are now treated as equally determining factors. For example, the chairman of a host company, the MP of the constituency in which an event is held, a foreign dignitary whose country is being honoured or a benefactor should all be recognised and seated appropriately.
The principal guest is placed on the host’s right. Traditionally the principal guest’s wife would be placed on the host’s left, the host’s wife being placed on the right of the principal guest. If wives are not present, the second most important guest would be placed on the host’s left. It is now as likely for the host, or the principal guest, to be a woman, in which case the same basic principles may be applied, with any necessary adaptations employed to achieve the desired balance.
It is up to the host to decide whether husbands and wives are to be seated together or apart. The former is easier to arrange, but the latter arrangement gives both husband and wife a chance to meet new people. It is usual to adhere to alternating the sexes. At single-sex dinners the same basic rules apply, and seating is arranged in order of precedence.
At an official event when there is a governing body or organising committee, important members or other subordinate hosts – the ‘home team’ – should be interspersed among the principal guests. For instance, at Buckingham Palace banquets, members of the extended Royal Family would qualify under this heading.
Even when you are hosting a small dinner at home, it is a good idea to at least have an idea about where people should sit (even if you don’t go as far as writing place cards).
The traditional plan is for the host and hostess to sit at either end of the table, with the most important female guest on the host’s right and the most important man on the hostess’s right. Some hosts prefer to sit opposite each other in the middle. Hosts who need to go in and out to the kitchen should sit near the door. Men and women are alternated where possible and, by convention, couples should not be seated next to one another (traditionally this rule was relaxed for engaged couples who would always be seated together). Try to avoid seating together workmates or those who see one another all the time.
It is, of course, the host’s prerogative to deviate from this conventional formula, and it is certainly sensible to accommodate peculiarities of the room and table shape, as well as guest requirements (for example some guests may prefer to be near the radiator and away from the drafts), in order to arrive at a harmonious solution. The emphasis should always be on ease and conviviality.
The seating plan is a critical organisational task when planning the reception. It can become a difficult juggling act as complications arise, people drop out and new guests are added. There is no point starting the seating plan too early, as names and numbers are bound to change, but it shouldn’t be left to the last minute.
The shape of the venue may dictate the shape and size of the tables – small round tables, which seat 8-10 people, are the most sociable. If the bride and groom decide to have a top table which is oblong facing towards the room, the traditional seating plan (facing the table from left to right) is as follows: chief bridesmaid, the father of the groom, the mother of the bride, the groom, the bride, the father of the bride, the mother of the groom, and then the best man. This sort of seating arrangement works well for speeches, affording guests a good view, but it is more formal and may make the wedding party feel that they are on public display. It is also not very sociable for those seated in a long line.
A plan of the room should be made first, locating the wedding party’s table(s). Important family or guests’ tables can then be allocated. Positions for the speeches and cake cutting, and access routes for the caterer and photographer, must also be considered.
Tables are numbered or may be named after something relevant to the bride and groom, such as places they have visited. Each place setting should have a name card; these can be decorative and themed to match the wedding stationery, or calligraphy, or neatly printed black on white. The table plan – a diagram of all the tables with people’s names – should be clearly displayed at the entrance to the seating area. Alternatively, little envelopes with each guest’s name, containing a card with a table number or name, can be laid out in a prominent place. This can create interest and conversation as guests try to establish who is sitting at their table.
The caterers must be supplied with a full seating plan, highlighted to indicate those with special dietary needs. They should also be given an envelope per table containing name cards for laying the tables. If there are any late changes, the best man or chief usher can keep the caterers informed. A few contingency name cards should be to hand for new guests and last-minute changes.
Generally, a seating plan is a chance to integrate your guests; you can have great fun ‘matchmaking’ your friends and you may even find you are responsible for new friendships forming on your wedding day. Try and ensure that you alternate sexes and arrange the tables so that guests can recognise at least one other person on their table. It’s a good idea to seat at least one lively extrovert at each table. Don’t take integration too far – you wouldn’t want your maiden aunt to be sitting on a table with a bunch of rowdy 20-something singles, so it’s often a good idea to match generations.
Traditional seating conventions, with a top table effectively hosted by the bride’s parents, who flank the newly married couple, are very much a reflection of the fact that in the past the bride’s parents would have paid for the entire event and were the effective hosts. Nowadays, payment and hosting arrangements are much more elastic, and frequently weddings are hosted by the couple themselves, rendering the traditional top table redundant. It is perfectly acceptable to dispense with these conventions and devise your own seating arrangements.
Foregoing the top table is a good way of steering clear of complications when dealing with divorced parents. Instead, they can be seated at separate tables; it may be sensible to ensure that they are flanked by new in-laws (for example the new spouse’s parents or siblings) and key members of the wedding team (bridesmaids, ushers) to make them feel an integral part of the celebrations. The bride and groom need not feel obliged to sit with their families, particularly when there are stepparents or difficult family politics involved.
If you are having traditional speeches, it helps if the father of the bride, the best man and the new husband are be seated at the same table (or at adjacent tables) and these should be in a central position so that they will be clearly visible and audible. These basic guidelines can easily be adapted for same-sex partnerships.
For many generations of Britons, the handshake was a default greeting. It was egalitarian, could be used by both sexes, and was seen as straightforward and uncontroversial. It was recognised throughout the world and was a safe option in most foreign countries. But in the last two or three decades the greeting situation has become much less clear-cut. Kissing began to take over from handshaking, much as the handshake took over from the bow and curtsy. This may well have occurred under the influence of our more demonstrative European neighbours – the French, for example, are inveterate kissers – and it may well have been the choice of younger people, who chose to discard the comparative formality of handshakes in favour of a warmer gesture.
The rapid ascent in popularity of the kiss was dealt something of a body blow by the Covid pandemic. British people, who had been becoming more relaxed and tactile, suddenly found themselves in a situation where any physical greetings, especially handshakes and kisses, were off the menu. We all had recourse to awkward bows, namaste gestures, elbow bumps or apologetic waves. This peculiar panoply of greetings inevitably persisted for some time after most social interactions had ostensibly returned to normal.
The ‘normal’ situation that was devastated by the pandemic was, however, already a cause of confusion, and navigating the ins and outs of British greetings still requires a large dose of tact and social awareness.
When should you choose the social kiss? This is usually dependent on situation, age, background, profession and your relationship. The double kiss is the norm among younger people, and it is not unusual for younger people to greet complete strangers with a double kiss, whereas middle-aged people are more liable to reserve kisses for friends. Don’t kiss colleagues, unless your workplace is very informal and friendly. Do greet close friends and dates with a kiss.
While young men are enthusiastic huggers, and a manly hug, often accompanied by affectionate back-patting, is becoming more popular amongst middle aged men, it is still more unusual for men to kiss one another in greeting than women, and kissing is still rare within more traditional professions, amongst older men or in very rural areas.
Many children hate being kissed by adults they hardly know. By the same token it is inadvisable for parents to force their children to kiss people. Instead, they should encourage small children to learn to shake hands, which is seen as charming and a sign that they are well brought-up.
The key is to make your actions clear to avoid embarrassing confusion. Usually, it’s right cheek first but prepare to change direction at the last minute. Pull back decisively (but don’t be too abrupt) if you are just giving one kiss. Be cautious with those you are less familiar with – two kisses might seem over the top. If confusion occurs over one-kiss-or-two, take charge and go in for a second. Humour is useful in deflecting embarrassment over the meet-in-the-middle mix-up. Three kisses is definitely too many.
An air kiss, with no contact at all, may seem rude or impersonal, but at least it is not intrusive – it is simply a social kiss, not a sign of affection to a loved one. A very slight cheek contact is best, and no ‘mwah mwah’ sound effects are needed.
Hand-kissing, or rather a man bowing over the hand of a married woman, never a young girl, and not quite touching it with his lips, is an elegant gesture which has an old-fashioned air of Mitteleuropa. It has never really caught on in Britain and tends to look affected unless you come from a culture where men are brought up to perform this courtly gesture.
Despite the increasing popularity of more tactile greetings there are undoubtedly many people who recoil from physical contact with someone they hardly know or are simply reticent about their physical boundaries and feel that kissing is intrusive. Additionally, some people are still cautious around close physical contact in the wake of Covid and prefer to keep their distance.
If you really object to being kissed by people you hardly know then you may extend a straight arm and offer to shake hands, which should give a clear message. This pre-emptive gesture is designed to nip any kissing in the bud, so if you are a social kisser, do not force kisses on people who are extending a hand.
If, like many people, you are confused by the whole contemporary greetings culture, you will probably find that the best attitude is somewhat improvisational and ad hoc. If you find yourself amongst a group of people where kissing prevails, then – unless you have any violent objection – it is probably best to go with flow. Simply hang back, take your lead from other people, and never visibly baulk at an unexpected kiss.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are clearly expected to be the initiator of the greeting, you can always default to a handshake; it is a more formal gesture, but at least it doesn’t intrusively presume on an intimacy that does not exist. Quite frequently it is deployed as an icebreaker on initially meeting someone, only to be supplanted by a more friendly kiss on saying goodbye.
“There is nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.”
Thornton Wilder
We all disdain this habit, condemning it as a violation of privacy or excessively nosey, but we all do it. It is very human to feel intense curiosity about the private lives of others, and if the opportunity arises it is extremely hard to resist listening in.
Eavesdropping is defined as ‘stealthily’ or ‘secretly’ listening to private conversations. There is a fine line between eavesdropping and snooping, which tends to involve a much more active seeking-out of private information, possibly with a negative end in mind, for example proving that a neighbour is in some way transgressing social or legal norms.
Many of us don’t even realise we are eavesdropping. As we go about our daily lives we are gifted with snatches of overheard conversation, in shops, bars, buses, trains, and if something about them fascinates us and we begin to tune in to what is being said, rather than dismissing it as background chatter, we have turned into eavesdroppers.
If you are transfixed by a conversation at the next table, avoid the obvious signs of eavesdropping: cocked head, frequent glances and the distracted inability to participate in your own conversation. Resist all urges to gate-crash the discussion – “Excuse me, I couldn’t help but hear…”. Your targets will, rightly, be outraged.
In the era of mobile phones, we have all been provided with an abundance of eavesdropping opportunities. Private conversations are going on all around us, sometimes at a very loud volume. Research has indicated that we find one-sided conversations, where we have to ‘supply’ the missing half of the dialogue, particularly distracting. We are all turned into sleuths, trying to anticipate responses, process half-understood information and visualise the person at the other end of the phone. While for some of us this detection game is infinitely diverting, many of us will resent being ‘forced’ to listen to half-understood revelations about strangers' lives.
Given that eavesdropping is a universal, although frequently denied, tendency, it is extremely surprising how careless and indiscreet people can be about private conversations. It is reasonable to assume that, if a potential eavesdropper is within earshot, they will be listening to what is being said. If you care about your privacy, it is always sensible to be aware of your environment and to assess whether you can talk confidentially – remember, crowded restaurants and cafés provide excellent listening opportunities, and you can safely assume that everyone will be listening to your conversation on the train or bus, whether they like it or not.
Be aware of the volume of your voice; if you tend to shout or talk loudly when you’re feeling animated, then you will be providing listening fodder for everyone who is sitting nearby. If you’re in a public place and you want to be discreet, lower your conversation to a low murmur or postpone your conversation to a more appropriate time and place – nobody will be offended by a quick text to say “I’m on the train and can’t talk right now. Will call you later”.
Be very wary of listening in to the conversation of friends and family. Listening behind closed doors or tuning in to half-heard snatches of conversation is not only obtrusive it is potentially extremely damaging. You may hear something that you were not meant to or access a juicy morsel of gossip or scandal that was not for your ears. Worst of all, you may hear something about yourself that you find upsetting or provoking. When you’re only hearing snatches of conversation it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion – Shakespeare expounds on this theme in Othello, when his hero’s jealous rage and ultimate downfall is predicated on an act of eavesdropping.
It is only human to eavesdrop, so it is foolish to forget that you are surrounded by potential eavesdroppers if you seek to create boundaries between your public and private persona.
