« Federalism and Abortion | Main | Chaim Saiman (guest post) on Caperton »
Monday, June 08, 2009
Pure Social Norms and the Seinfeldian In-town Courtesy Call
The funny thing about the cliché “it’s funny because it’s true” is that it’s true. Take, for example, the TV show Seinfeld. I was never a huge fan, but what seemed to give the show such broad appeal was that it identified so many quirks of human behavior that persist as strong social norms despite their apparent irrationality (thus setting up the next generation of humor in Curb Your Enthusiasm, where Larry David created oodles of awkward-tainment by openly violating those norms).
Even the silliest of the Seinfeldian social norms, though, have some kind of plausible explanation or intuitive appeal behind them, even if they don’t make perfect sense. Consider the mania about holding elevators in an office building. In the famous scene where George lets an elevator door close in the face of an oncoming person, Seinfeld gets the courtesy exactly right: there’s a strong expectation that people in the elevator hold the door, and it is perceived as particularly rude about letting the door close as you watch them desperately run toward you. But there’s something sensible about this: your minimal effort of holding the door for a few seconds might save that onrushing person a lot more time that they’d otherwise spend waiting for the elevator to return, so the courtesy seems to work as a simple welfarist matter (i.e., it's Kaldor-Hicks if not Pareto optimal).
But there’s one rule of social behavior lampooned in Seinfeld that I could never make any sense of, because it seems untethered to--and possibly inconsistent with--any practical explanations or instincts about courtesy. I say more about what this norm is and whether it may signal a category of "pure" social norms below the fold.
The norm that has me nonplussed is the rule that out-of-town visitors should contact their friends and relatives who live in the town they’re visiting to say hello—even if they don’t have the time or interest to actually meet them in person (you may recall that Jerry violated this rule with respect to (I think) his Uncle Leo, to Leo’s great offense—he was all like “if you’re in town, you gotta call me”, yada yada yada). This may seem like a fictional invention, but it persists at least amid some subset of the population. I know this because I've been on the receiving end of it a few times, including just the other day. A friend sent an email saying “Hey, I’m in LA. How are things?” I wrote back suggesting that we meet up (which I sort of assumed was the point of the original email), and the response came: “No time to meet up. Just saying hello.” I was baffled and kind of offended in equal part.
The reason this baffles me is that, unlike the elevator-door norm, I can’t come up with a plausible, practical explanation for the obligatory in-town courtesy call. You’re no more or less capable of calling or emailing out-of-town friends when you’re in their neck of the woods (although maybe it's a holdover from the pre-cellphone days when local calls were significantly cheaper?). And as my story above suggests, the in-town courtesy call norm may actually come off as discourteous; it seems to emphasize to someone that their friend or relative is not interested in seeing them during their time in the same city ("Hi, I'm in town, and I just wanted to call and let you know that I won't be making time for you." Ouch!).
So I write this for a pair of reasons. The first is to canvas the blogosphere to see if there is some intuition or practical explanation behind the Seinfeldian in-town courtesy call that has thus far escaped me. And if not, the second is to query whether this conduct falls into a category I’ve come to think of as the “pure” social norm. The pure social norm is an expectation about social behavior that persists despite its neither having any instinctive moral force, nor having a plausible practical explanation. It's a norm for norm's sake. Does such a category exist? Is this kind of norm distinguishable from other ones? Should we act in a way that intentionally frustrates pure social norms in order to extirpate their wasteful presence from our lives? These are the things Seinfeld makes me think about. What the hell is wrong with me?
Posted by Dave_Fagundes on June 8, 2009 at 09:17 PM in Culture | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef011570de90e0970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pure Social Norms and the Seinfeldian In-town Courtesy Call:
Comments
Some of us are shy, and feel a bit awkward calling up an old college or prior job friend out of the blue. If there's an excuse - their name is in the paper, you've been talking about them with a mutual friend, or you happen to be 1032 yards from their front door - it makes the contact less random and awkward. Put differently, if you get a call from the long forgotten guy who is passing through, it may conceivably be because he misses you, just a little.
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2009 4:28:17 PM
I always assumed it was the long-distance-call thing: You should call to keep up with distant relatives, even if you don't see them that often. But calling is (used to be) expensive (or at least more expensive than local). When in town, expense ceases to be a reason not to call. So, you should call to keep up--and do it while in town because it is cheaper.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jun 9, 2009 4:02:23 PM
All very interesting. There may be more to this norm that I originally thought.
In terms of ohwilleke's points, I think a lot of these make sense but it's not clear that there's a nexus between them and calling relatives while in town. You could just as well catch up with extended family by contacting them on their birthday or some other holiday, and so much the better because you avoid the downside of the in-town courtesy call: offending them by highlighting that you're not going to take the time to actually meet them in person during your trip. Contacting relatives when you move to a new town makes perfect sense, but that's not really the same as the in-town courtesy call (as least as I've defined/understood it). There, you're calling with the express purpose of setting up at least an in-person visit if not starting up a longer-term relationship.
Anon's point is pretty convincing, though it depends on the size of the city. If you think there's a real chance of running into the in-town relative, then yes--better to call than just to bump into them and explain that you're not going to visit them in person. But if we're talking about LA or NYC (as in Seinfeld) the chances of that are vanishingly small.
As to Michael's point, I can certainly see why the extended family would want the out-of-towner to actually visit the in-town relative (I've certainly visited relatives out of this sense of obligation), but the norm is that you call even if not visiting, and this seems like the worst of all worlds. No actual visit takes place, just a cursory phone call, and the call seems to emphasize the point that you're not taking the time to make a visit.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 9, 2009 3:40:06 PM
Yes, there is an explanation. The norm is not driven by the person visiting, but by the close relatives about the person visiting. These relatives care about the friends or family, and they think it is important for the visitor (and usually more important for the remote friend) that the visit happen.
Of course, this attributes a desire to the remote family that may not be there, but it seems pretty intuitive to me.
Posted by: Michael Risch | Jun 9, 2009 7:14:37 AM
Simple. You don't want to run into a friend or family member who you HAVEN'T told you're in town on the street. Or have a friend/family member who you did meet up with accidentally spill the beans to the other one. Those conversations are far more awkward than the one where you explain you're only in town for a few days and don't have time to hang out.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 9, 2009 12:54:44 AM
An intown courtesy call usually involves low cost to the person making it, and often facilitates events that would otherwise be expensive to make (e.g., "I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine . . .", "Could drop something off with Aunt Zelda since you're flying back anyway . . ."). It also facilitates short visits ("I'll meet you at the airport coffee shop."), which opens you up to more piercing review of friends and family than non-in person communications would afford ("Oh, how about that, you've grown 50 pounds, started wearing a bear, are wearing a wedding ring, and have gotten a tattoo on your neck . . .") which benefits people who are called including you if others honor this norm.
It also serves a similar purpose to Thanksgiving and birthdays and the like. It provides a trigger or nudge for you to engage in social contact with someone you might otherwise never contact because they are no longer in your core network. Networking with family and friends from time to time is often beneficial (particularly when they are someplace where you usually aren't and may have information you don't know that you lack which could help you in your endeavors, "oh yeah, I know the guy you're meeting, it was in the local paper last week when he got indicted for fraud" or "didn't you hear about the sinkhole that errupted in I-25 yesterday, you should really take I-225 instead"), but is overwhelming if you don't have some way to police who you contact when you contact them. A visit allows you to highlight a small group of people to network with at a particular time and limits that contact to the group of people most likely to have beneficial information.
For example, when I travelled from New York to Colorado for a new job, I was informed by family that I had several distant relatives whom I had a duty to contact when I got to Colorado. Without the norm, I would have never been prompted to contact these people and I didn't know that I had relatives in Colorado myself (I'd met one or two at family reunions but hadn't known where they lived). Those contacts, in turn, have turned out to be valuable over the years, personally and professionally.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jun 8, 2009 10:28:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.