Summary -1

‘On Saying Please’ is an essay by A.G. Gardiner taken from his Many Furrows, a collection the essay talks about socially important issues that we come across in our daily life. The essay shows how using polite words and phrases like ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ can change the course of our day by being courteous to others. Such words help us in making our passage through life smooth through courtesy, civility, morality, responsibility and good manners. It deals with the themes of courtesy and the benefits

 The story of the lift-man pushing a passenger out of the lift because the man refused to say “top please” instead of “top” make things bad for both of them The lift-man who is likely to be punished for the physical but the passenger cannot be punished for his uncivil behaviour. Though some people might be sympathetic towards the lift man and argue  about  the discourtesy of the passenger but the lift-man only suffers for his actions. Whereas if he had taken the moral high ground and continued to be polite to the man. He may have in fact changed the man’s approach to him. Showing civility, the narrator argues that much is to be gained than if one is ill-mannered or ill-tempered towards others. The lift-man has lost his peace of mind and possibly his freedom but the passenger, according to author may have reciprocated what he may have got from others and thus author argues that good and bad manners both are infectious.

This incident draws a distinction between what is etiquette and what is legally binding. Courtesy is a desirable characteristic but cannot be legally clamped upon people who are discourteous. The legal system, despite its shortcomings, is reasonable in not considering impoliteness an offence. Impoliteness is what is perceived as impolite and hence is subjective and hence, punishment is not possible. At the most, we may brand the impolite boorish person as just ill-mannered but in the case of physical brutality the law gives us the right to self defense.  Morally the law is not responsible for how the lift-man has been treated. The law only deals with issues of a legal nature.

Inorder to prove his point further, the narrator’s tells his experience in the bus to bring out the importance of good manners to improve the society. He tells from his experience of the polite conductor who at all times appears to take the higher moral ground despite the overburdened at times.  He never judges anyone and is apologetic when he makes a mistake. Something that is noticeable when he stamps on the narrator’s feet. Though an accident the conductor ensures that he apologies and that no offence can be taken. This may be important as Gardiner may be suggesting that just as the lift-man lost his patience and peace of mind. The conductor on the other hand remains morally upright. He is sensible enough to know when he has made a mistake and when he must apologize. Unlike the lift-man who has taken matters personally and as a result has broken the law which takes precedence over any ill-mannered approach of the lift man. Legality takes precedence over moral laws in the eyes of society and one is left to deal with a perceived moral injustice by themselves without the support of the law. As to whether the reader agrees with this is a different matter as loss of peace of mind over a moral slight can result in the law being broken or others who are innocent being effected. 

Gardiner may also be exploring the difficulties that can be incurred by an individual when dealing with the public. The lift-man acted inappropriately while the conductor on the other hand is wise enough to know that it is better to be sweet to each passenger than to offend them. Not only does the conductor keep his peace of mind but he also ensures that he is not responsible for breaking the law. Though the conductor may feel like doing so. In contrast the lift-man and the conductor are two very different types of people. The lift-man loses control because he feels slighted in some way. That he may be deemed by the man entering the lift as being inferior to him. While the conductor on the other hand does not lose control of his emotions. Rather he continues to be polite, well-mannered and civil to all his passengers. It is by losing control that the lift-man faces the more serious charge of breaking the law. 

Gardiner offers the example of a good-natured conductor to show how such people can bring about positivity. Gardiner also points out that the example of a genial conductor is not chosen under the assumption that conductors are by and large ill-tempered. Gardiner makes it clear that if here and there we have rude conductors, it is the outcome of their demanding job. Those who treat they passengers as enemies who cheat are indeed very few. However, the friendly conductor made the author feel pleasantly surprised by buying a ticket for him as the author had forgotten his purse at home. Though the author later found a shilling in his pocket to pay the conductor, the cheerful behaviour of the conductor left him with a pleasant feeling. 

It is also clear to the reader that the happier of the two men is the conductor. The lift-man having lost control acts irresponsibly. Whereas if he takes the higher moral ground that is shown by the conductor, but if he still keeps his peace of mind and acts morally superior to the man who did not say please he would have been victorious over his own bad temper. The path to follow is not to retaliate but to maintain one’s dignity at all times ensuring that one can keeps one’s peace of mind without having to lower themselves to the level of the perceived offender. It may be difficult to accomplish though worth the effort. and to take the higher moral ground. 

On another occasion, it was the conductor who had trodden on the toe of the author. But he was so genuine in his apology that the author forgave him easily. It also became the habit of the author to notice the well mannered conductor who took on different roles in helping his passengers. He was like a son to the old, father to the children, friend to the young and helper to the handicapped. The author is especially impressed by the fact that the conductor would get out of the bus, asking the driver to wait for him so as to take the blind across the road or round the comer. Gardiner adds that just as good weather uplifts our spirit, good-natured people too bring about positivity in the surrounding. Their charm cannot be resisted by even unfriendly people.

Gardiner concludes the essay by observing that rudeness seemed to be the aftermath of war. He earnestly appeals to his readers to bring back civility to social behaviour. Thus we see that the essay clearly shows the distinction between what is punishable by law and what is desirable though not punishable by law. While the law is very definite about how individuals should act, it does not have much to say about the issues of courtesy and kindness/politeness to others. The law speaks to individuals who have been wronged, whose rights have been taken away at the hands of another. Yet, it cannot legislate manners or civility in acting towards one another. The reality is that while it is not a perfect state, this state of law is a reasonable one because it does not enter the realm of emotions. If the law gave in to this level of emotional subjectivity, then individuals would be carrying out acts of violence each time someone demonstrated rudeness to them.