Rude Awakening
Photo: No Spitting sign, Mumbai - from flickr.com, by Paul Keller
The Times, London (20 June 2006) reports on a survey done by Readers Digest magazine on the state of politeness around the world. The findings are unexpected.
They surveyed 35 cities and used three tests. 1. The researchers dropped papers in the street to see if anyone would come and help. 2. They counted the number of times shop assistants said “thank you” and 3. They counted how often someone would hold the door open.
New York comes out as the world’s most polite city.
Near the very bottom at no. 33 is Kuala Lumpur and at no. 30 is Singapore. The rudest city in the world is Mumbai.
The Times article says:
“Courtesy is not big in Asia, either. Every city on that continent tested, with the exception of Hong Kong, finished in the bottom ten. None of the three tests scored more than 40 per cent in any Asian city.”
London comes somewhere in the middle at no. 15, jointly with Paris. Now we can no longer complain about the Parisians being rude to us when we go over there!
I am stunned by the results of the survey. Asia has always prided itself in being polite and Malaysians in particular have always enjoyed thinking of ourselves as more gentle and polite than Singaporeans, in keeping with the friendly rivalry between the two countries. And here we are, Asian cities in general and KL in particular, at or near the bottom of the politeness list!
Perhaps we can try and comfort ourselves by saying it was a test carried out by a Western publication and reported in a Western newspaper. Personally, I think that’s a bit of a cop-out, like saying I didn’t pass the exam because the examiners set difficult questions.
I’d like to hear what you think. Are Asians really that rude? Should the researchers have used different measures of politeness? If so, what counts as general politeness in public places in Asia? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.
- Posted on
Tue, June 27th, 2006 - Author
Yang-May Ooi - Category
- 6 responses
- Leave a comment
June 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I think picking up someone else’s papers and holding the door open is a very western politeness social construct. Wouldn’t politeness in Malaysia be more about how we act towards our old Uncles and Aunties - understanding our place in the hierarchy, “giving face” is also polite but hard to explain…and difficult to subject to a test. We should collect stories on “giving face” - it is quite abstract and elusive to people who don’t live in Asia, yet crucial to “politeness”. I dunno - for example: to give face is to not challenge someone spouting some obvious rubbish who is older than you - but to allow that person to graciously think they are correct and wise. In the West a discussion would be allowed, or some form of debate - perhaps still not culminating in compromise, but one is allowed to speak up and join in on the expression of ideas. I haven’t lived in Asia for a long time - would this be rude in Kuala Lumpur? Or am I labouring under an illusion! tell me!
June 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Politeness of nations/cities needs an historical perspective. Before the ‘68 ‘evenements’ in Paris, when Parisians were generally thought to be rude and uncaring, I found people very willing to give information (if asked in French) and the frequent use of monsieur and madame seemed to stand in for politeness. I used to amuse myself by seeing how often I could say ‘madame’ when buying my bread each day from the baker. On the other hand, tube trains and buses all had ‘no spitting’ notices in them, which I found 1920s primitive.
As for the Chinese and others points East, in general I find them shy with strangers. Americans in London don’t often say ‘thank you’ whereas the English do. I don’t think any of these things are more or less polite, simply different.
New York 1973 was slightly scary - mainly because the people were scared: cabs had grills between driver and passenger, a frail beggar in Times Square put up ineffectual fists when saying to me ‘Gi’ me some money’. I spent a hilarious half hour or more trying to get someone to say ‘thank you’ when I held open the door to Macy’s - they all looked shocked. And when I asked someone the way (and I was in an obvious hurry) to the Opera you would have thought the people I asked were going to be mugged.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
David, you make a good point that what one culture thinks is rude may just be a different way of doing things in another culture. I must say New York in the 70s sounds scary - it has clearly changed a great deal since!
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Fascinating topic. Three criteria as a universal measure of politeness is bound to give some unexpected results. What about some of those other east/west differences such as reactions to sniffing and snorting. Reading this I was reminded of my journey into Muscat this morning from the airport. My driver had one of those colds which seem to come with the summer 45C temperatures and sandstorms which was clearly playing havoc with his sinuses. I have discussed this with some of my Japanese friends and colleagues along the lines of “how can it be better to spend the day sniffing loudly than to get shot of it and blow your nose?”. The response is usually along the lines of “well, do you really think it is more polite to produce an encrusted snot rag, blow your nose into it again and then put it back in your pocket….? that’s against Asian notions of cleanliness!”. Well, I don’t know… -so maybe it’s best to do both!
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
A good point, Matthew. I will think twice the next time I blow my nose in public! What if I wipe my snotty nose on my sleeve…?
July 25th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
It certainly came as a shock to Malaysians when this survey was published in Malaysian papers, with the attendant responses from Malaysians published as well.
I don\’t think -
1 quantitatively, the survey can be used to justify the conclusion. Was it scientifically designed? We need a statistian to tell us the number of sample that should be taken, having regard to the population in each city, the number of times the actions should be repeated, the margin of errors, and so on.
2 qualitatively, the survey can be used to justify the conclusion. There are too many variables and imponderables that will limit the conclusion that the survey seeked eg culture, areas selected for the actions to be carried out, and so on. What is accepted or defined as politeness, rudeness, civility practices or nuances in one place may not be the same in another place. Your action or non action in one place may be deemed as \’helpful\’ in one place, and \’nosy parker\’ in another place. The survey actions assume those three actions should elicit universal responses that can be defined as civility.
In the city, no one has time for anyone else. If you drop your papers, frankly I am not likely to stop to help you. (Elaboration: the ‘you’ there means any stranger unknown to me.) I am likely to be rushing somewhere. It is not a severe enough event for me to stop. If you had fallen down and looks really badly out of sorts, I am sure many, besides me, will come and help you. Dropping papers looks like a pretty silly action to carry out for the conclusion it seeks.
As for attendants saying \’thank you\’, is it a sincere civility that the survey was looking for? It looks like it is sincere civility that they were looking for, with their other lookout for people holding the door for others, and one can hardly term an attendant\’s \’thank you\’ as part of sincere civility.
In fact, I would say that each of the three actions has connotations different from the others, and hardly merits the conclusion of whether or not carrying each action is being rude.
Holding a door for others means consideration for others.
Helping when papers are dropped means helpfulness.
Saying \’thank you\’ is a commercial practice, really. One must be realistic about this.
Consideration for others and helpfulness are elements of civility.
I do not think saying \’thank you\’ for attendants is part of civility; it lacks the sincerity element.
The overall conclusion for each city was couched as a judgement of the extent of \’rudeness\’ found.
I would not consider lack of consideration for others and lack of helpfulness as major elements of \’rudeness\’. Neither is saying \’thank you\’ to me by an attendant.
\’Rudeness\’ has the major element of invading someone\’s civility space in a substantial way, and that one will be offended. In addition, there is an expectation that this civility space of mine should not be invaded, but is.
If no one helps me with my dropped papers, I would not think they are rude. They are just not helpful, and even then, as I said, if they are busy with themselves, I am not offended. My \’rudeness\’ space is not invaded, my \’rudeness\’ meter does not flicker. I have no expectation that anyone will come to my rescue, though it would be nice and helpful if anyone did.
If someone does not hold the door for me, again, I do not think I am offended nor my civility space invaded. I am not offended. They are not as considerate as I would expect, but that is all. They are hardly rude. In a city, everyone rushes.
If an attendant does not say \’thank you\’ to me, I would be least offended. My space is certainly not invaded at all.
An example of rudeness would be - if I ask to be shown an article, and the attendant is not attentive in a satisfactory manner. That\’s rude!
If someone jumps the queue, that is majorly rude and uncivilised, to boot!
For the above reasons, I think that is the reason why so many readers are surprised by the \’survey\’s conclusion\’, when Asia is known for its smiles and welcome.
My conclusion then - quantitatively, the survey is without a scientific base
- qualitatively, the actions chosen do not support the conclusion of \’rudeness\’ reached.
I have found that some newspapers/publications have this quaint penchant to do such \’surveys\’ and reach some \’conclusions\’, which the general public unfortunately goes along with because they are in a way led by the nose and has not the time to properly think out whether the \’survey\’ in fact justifies the conclusion.
I think when surveys are carried out and the results published, the originator and publisher as opinion formers should be more responsible.
Hence, to me, the survey and its results is - hocus pocus and much ado about nothing, at best. At its worst, it is misleading in the worst possible and irresponsible way.
Hope my response is not…rude!
:O) Vic