AP Lang Essay #2

 Michael Ignatieff Professor of the Practice of Human Rights Policy at Harvard University made the following observation.

“To belong is to understand the tacit codes of the people you live with.”

Consider how unspoken rules help to define group identity. Then write a carefully reasoned essay that examines the relationship between unspoken rules and belonging. Use specific examples to develop your position.

Shakespeare said that every man plays many parts- people wear many different hats in different parts of their lives and interact with many discrete sets of people over their lives. And they interact with these discrete sets of people in distinct ways, even when the objective content of the interaction is the same.

A high school clique is a rather cliched example of this. Stereotypical athletes and theatre kids interact with each other in very different ways, not just in how they say things, the distinct terminology for their interests, their slang, but also in what’s considered appropriate to say. Furthermore, people who are part of both these groups also change their behaviours based on who they are hanging out with. Since some things are considered appropriate and other things are not, there must be rules for what is and isn’t acceptable. Thus, there are rules that govern social interactions and different rules for different places.

Furthermore, these rules aren’t to be conflated with morality. Moral rules, like “be kind” and “help others” are largely accepted to be universal, and transcend most of the sets of people we interact with. Does social rules overlap with etiquette? Yes, these social rules govern the same things as etiquette, or “polite” behaviour. Let us consider politeness as a separate entity from kindness, and also malleable, amorphous entity. For example, travel guides often state that in some cultures, it is considered rude to finish everything on your plate, while in others, it would just be seen as a sign of enjoying one’s meal.

Thus, the social rules that govern different groups are a part of etiquette, not morality, and vary by culture. However, who decides what etiquette , within a culture? In an etiquette guide, one may find rules such as “don’t place your elbows on the table”. Yet few know of this rule, and fewer still follow it- and for the most part these people are not considered rude. However one might also find rules such as say please.

And indeed, when interacting with someone we don’t know very well, it would be most likely considered rude not say please.

Clearly, some but not all rules we see in etiquette books apply. So if not experts who write books, who determines what the social rules are? Social rules are constantly in flux, just as the social requirements of the Victorian era are far different from those of today, and what’s in style this week is unfashionable the next. They thus cannot be recorded, cannot be learnt from a book. Yet, some people seem to be able to abide by these rules and function smoothly within the group- and these are the people who belong to the group- as rules are never static only those that belong to the group keep up with the rules, as they are the ones who make the rules.

So those, and only those, who know and keep up with the changing rules belong to the group- because those who belong in the group are the ones who change the rules- and having to be told the changing rules by someone else, whether a person or a book, instead of picking it up for oneself as one is part of the change, implies that one is not truly part of the group and will not be able to keep up with its changes. Thus within the true members of the social group, there is no need to voice the rules, in fact, the eternally changing rules be voiced, the rules are tacit. And intrinsically knowing the rules is intrinsic to being in the group.

However, some knowledge of the rules can also be used to signal empathy and companionship. For example, a journalist in rural India once told me that asking for a glass of water in a rural lower class house-hold signals belonging, as many members of upper castes may refuse to eat or drink in lower class homes and puts people at ease. This gesture acknowledges the tacit rule, about who eats where, and signals that one is aligned with the community

Furthermore, does knowing the rules imply always following the rules?

Comedians aim for their jokes to be surprising. And violating a social rule is surprising and a little scandalous, and hence makes the joke funnier. However, this requires the comedian understand the tacit social rules and assumptions of the audience. For example, a joke that hinges on the scandalousness of say, women revealing her ankles, something that would shock the Victorians, would hardly shock us- we dwouldn’t quite get the joke.

Furthermore, those attempting to make a conscious statement by breaking the rules must also first understand the rules. For example, in India, prominent lower-caste leaders demonstrated for equality by going to temples that were reserved for the upper classes. This statement would not have been effective had the leaders not known the social rules and the implications of their actions.

Thus, to make an effective statement to members of the group, either funny or shocking, it is vital one knows the rules and is able to communicate them.

Thus, I conclude that knowing social rules is essential to belonging or truly being a part of a group and these rules cannot be summarised in a book or in words, they are tacit, as these rules are constantly changing. However, this does not mean members belonging to the group never violate these rules, however, they violate these rules intentionally with the purpose of being funny or making a statement. Additionally, members outside the group with some knowledge of the tacit social rules may demonstrate their knowledge to express kinship.

Humans indeed may wear many hats- and because with each hat comes a complex tangle of eternally morphing social rules and implications, it is truly fascinating how multi-faceted an individual can be.