|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcpackieh
1046 days ago
|
|
|
Businesses have policies that you're supposed to do this for the same reason that businesses have policies that you're not supposed to spit on people; basic human decency needs to be encoded because some minority of people won't go for it otherwise. Being pleasant to strangers even when you're having a bad day is basic human decency, and of course it's supposed to go both ways. If I'm a customer at a burger shop and I'm having a bad day, I still smile and say thank you when a stranger hands me a burger or holds a door for me in public, not because any boss is forcing me to do it but because this is simply the decent thing to do. Just because I'm having a bad day doesn't mean that I should make that somebody else's problem. Spreading misery around doesn't help me one iota, and only makes things worse for everybody. Having a surly attitude with strangers is basically social vandalism. This is true outside of commercial contexts, and still true within commercial contexts. You're complaining about the power dynamics of the commercial context, which fine, fair enough, but the basic principle of treating people decently instead of making your problems into their problems applies in all public contexts, including the customer side of those commercial interactions and also when no money is being exchanged at all. And of course some minority of the public won't reciprocate, there are some people who treat service workers like trash and unload their problems on those workers... they're wrong for doing it. Those kind of people existing are the reason businesses have to encode common decency into their rules and policies. Edit for Stefan's remark: "It's the least the servant class can do - fake joyfulness to avoid saddening their betters, right?" "Servant class"? What I said is that everybody should be decent to other people. Read my comment again if you didn't catch this the first time. It's supposed to go both ways. It isn't a matter of class at all. |
|
|
I worry, because my spouse had a rough upbringing and it's taken a lot for her to feel comfortable expressing how she feels in a candid way. I strongly desire that people feel comfortable expressing how they feel without judging themselves as burdensome, inappropriate, needy, selfish, or out of control. This includes in my view, expressing themselves in public.
To be clear, if someone tells a child "Stop glaring, people will think we are bad parents" or "Smile or I'll show you what an actual rough time is like", I consider that to be emotional abuse. It teaches the child to deny their emotions and instead present the emotion the parent wants.
I don't see it as any less abusive when an employer (who holds power) tells an employee "Stop glaring, people won't buy our stuff" or "You need to smile more when talking to customers".
But further from that, and closer to your point, I see it as a problem when society tells people the same. This is a different matter than refraining from violence, yelling, overt aggression, etc. in public (which I would agree is preferable).
Perhaps this is because I believe that most problems originate in society. If a kid is beaten every day, and then blows up and hurts someone, and their neighbors knew, and teachers that knew, etc. Then they've really been failed. But more than that, if teachers in general create a culture where it is hard not to fail individuals, then teachers have failed. And if we've voted in and/or encouraged systems that permit or encourage that culture, than we've all failed. And of course this stuff will always happen with some probability.
But if people are in mass overworked, tired, and frustrated. Then I see that as societies problem, not just their problem. So if they are at the store and they are just standing there staring at the aisle and someone asks if they are okay, and has a short talk about it, that's what society handling it's problem looks like. Because the person that was overworked and the person that asked them if they were okay were both part of the problem. So for me, everyone's problems are everyone's responsibility (up to a point). Like even if it is intensely personal. Let's say someone is pushy in their relationships, and the other person is giving ultimatums. Maybe they are old, maybe they are kids, but society taught them how to manage their relationships. If alcohol is involved then it's society that gave them that too. If binge drinking is a piece of it, then society romanticized it and sold it to them. Yeah, they have their own responsibility, but they didn't do it alone. Even when people get illnesses - society told them they'd live longer; it told them to think long term; it told them to forego gratification for a more promising future; etc.
So to me, the perspective that all of people's emotions are their problem and they should keep it to themselves is a way of society avoiding responsibility for the way it influences the emotions of the people who compose it, and ultimately the consequences of its collective decisions and characterizations.
With respect to boundaries around emotional disclosure, my view also isn't incompatible with people feeling free to tell others they don't want to hear how they feel or asking someone exhibiting aggressiveness to go elsewhere.
Perhaps this can be summarized by saying that I think if people are not happy, that's a symptom of society, and having them smile in public will only succeed in hiding a festering wound. And also that I don't believe being decent is incompatible with authenticity, honesty, or emotional disclosure.