Why are people rude? Many of you ask that. Here’s why:
Some people are rude because their parents didn’t teach them the rules, and furthermore, their parents didn’t know all the rules, having never learned them from their parents. So it’s not the parents’ fault. I’m not saying it’s a good excuse to remain ignorant, I’m just saying it’s a cause.
Schools don’t teach manners. Strangely, the only job skill not taught in schools is the crucial skill of getting along with coworkers. One day, the schools will teach relationships, just as they now teach math, science, and history — subjects whose knowledge is less likely to be used. Until then, though, ignorance of what hurts others will remain widespread.
Parents tend to teach manners retroactively rather than proactively. In other words, they don’t teach manners preventively. They don’t give their kids a handbook of rules of good behavior; instead, they wait for their kids to break a rule, and then correct them. Unfortunately, this leads parents to use the same tone of voice when they lay down the law and when they bark the more arbitrary orders like “Clean your room!” In such families, rule-teaching is hard to tell apart from impulsiveness and volatility. This in turn leads to rebellious teenage behavior, once the child comes to assume that all rules of manners are fascist control tactics, not necessary guidelines to protect household property and relationships. This leaves the children permanently soured on the idea of studying manners. Parents cause this form of rudeness if they care more about rigid obedience than household harmony. {You’re reading “Why Are People Rude?” by J. E. Brown.}
Retroactive education also means that rules which are never broken during childhood never get taught, and so, are not passed from generation to generation.
Some parents see “immaturity” as a phase, rather than a result of their own failure to provide relationship education. So, they leave their children to learn manners on the street.
Some people learned their manners from sitcoms. They believe in the myth of the “funny rude” person. These people are those self-appointed clowns who try to get a laugh at any price, and of course the easiest way to get laughs is to insult others. They haven’t yet discovered that the price of rude humor ranges from hurt feelings to divorce proceedings. On television, the victims of insults never get offended, never harbor hurt feelings — how conveniently lucky for the insulters. But in real life, psychology doesn’t work that way.
Some people are naturally evil: rapists, tyrannical bosses, gangs, bullies, and so on. When bullies are asked why they bully other kids, they answer that seeing the victim cry gives them a rewarding rush. (I once even knew someone who derived sexual pleasure from seeing others upset.) Bullies of all kinds do what they do because they feel they can get away with it — before a bully will strike, he or she must see the victim as unable or unwilling to stand up for himself/herself or as uneducated in the techniques of self-defense. {Read this comp1ete article at http://jebrown.us/Relationshop/WhyArePeopleRude.html .}
Some rudeness and abuse persists because of naive bleeding hearts who deny the existence of evil, who insist that all people are basically good. But by choosing to overlook wrongdoing, or by treating it as non-serious, this attitude of denial only promotes evil, by giving it room to grow.
Some people don’t want to be good to others — they just want others to be good to them. Consequently, these people don’t read about relationships to make sure they’re treating others right.
Rude and abusive people have apologists to defend them. Anna Freud called this phenomenon “identification with the aggressor”. Some call it “The Stockholm Syndrome”. It means making excuses for the wrongdoer, and is a behavior often seen in the friends of bullies, who go along with their powerful friends’ mischief in order to avoid being the victims of it themselves. It’s also seen in those people who shift blame away from the aggressor and onto the victims, by telling the victims, “Maybe you provoked the rape by dressing sexy” and “It’s not your place to judge others” and “You should turn the other cheek” as well as (paradoxically) “Well, you should have stood up for yourself!”
Challenging a bully can be dangerous; apologists find it easier to wimp out. Rare is the friend who knows the value of being loyal and taking your side; many “friends” find it easier to selectively point out the logic in the abuser’s position. The abuser’s right to free speech, for example.
One reason why there are apologists: People tend to sympathize with those whose guilt they share. So, by defending the rudeness of others, they betray their own vested interest in not being blamed for having behaved similarly.
If you doubt that anyone could be morally weak enough to defend the rude, watch what happens the next time you stand up to a bully. Bullies of course won’t respond to anything less than nastiness and power; but the general population doesn’t understand this. So, when you tell the story of how you stood up to a rude person and won, watch and see if your audience doesn’t call you rude. See if they don’t also ignore the bigger rudeness you were responding to. By chiding you, they encourage you to keep quiet and be a victim. Such remarks only serve the aggressor’s interests.
Look for friends who care enough to back you up. No one who cares about you will ask you to be a sheep.
™