TRB FEBRUARY 6, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
My latest TRB column for the print magazine is about the incursion of "emotional labor" into low-wage sectors where it doesn’t belong. The piece has received some criticism from readers who don’t endorse my distinction between routine courteousness ("service with a smile"), which a boss has every right to expect, and the more fawning behavior demanded by cultish employers like Pret A Manger, which gives me the creeps. I’ve seen no reason to reply to most of these criticisms because I recognize that people draw in different ways the line between friendliness and servility, which after all is subjective. It never occurred to me that anyone would argue that no such line exists, or ought to exist.
But that’s what Andrew Sullivan is arguing—not so much in his initial posting (which accuses me of "the kind of lefty condescension that drives me up the wall") as in a reply to a reader who defended my piece. Here is what Sullivan wrote:
You have every right to patronize only those establishments that do not require their employees to be polite or accommodating or fawning. And the more people who do that, the quicker things will change. But obviously, you’re in a minority. Most people enjoy fawning treatment when being asked to spend money. What always struck me about America was the ubiquity of that ethic and how much more agreeable the consumer process was here. It was an actual virtue inculcated by capitalism.
What always struck Sullivan about America was the ubiquity of fawning treatment? Fawning is a virtue inculcated by capitalism? Not mere politeness, or accommodation, but fawning?
My first impulse is to remember that Sullivan is deadly serious when he calls himself a conservative. This is not a kind of conservatism you encounter very often in the United States. Most American conservatives who defend income inequality, for instance, would never defend social inequality. It's generally understood, even on the American right, that bowing and scraping have no rightful place in a democratic society.
Sullivan is saying something different. He's saying bowing and scraping do have a place, and that being on the receiving end of it is quite pleasurable. If Andrew were some high-born British ninny, I could understand his spouting such nonsense, but he is not. I don't get it. Maybe I just caught him on an off day—which is something, by the way, that Pret employees aren't allowed to have.
12 comments
Having moved here as a young adult from France, I ind fawning to be insufferable. I actively avoid certain establihments because of it. Granted service employees in France can be testy like a cartel kingpin sometimes, but i'll take that over servility.
- cboespflug
February 6, 2013 at 3:10pm
As native born American I find fawning irritating to no end too. I had to call my credit card company last week, of course I was speaking to someone in India who happened to have a pretty good American accent to go with his name of "Tony" (for a change). What was angering was the faux groveling I had to hear. I just wanted some paperwork sent to me, quite a routine thing. The BS script he was forced to spout was infuriating. Apparently being treated with just simple respect as an adult isn't good enough?
- tmmats
February 6, 2013 at 3:48pm
Pot. Kettle. Black. Sullivan has been so fawning with his readers in an attempt to get them to subscribe to his blog that love letters would be a mere trifle. I especially like the high regard he has for himself, as when he promised his readers that he would continue his policy of speaking (or is it writing) only the truth no matter how controversial even if it meant he might lose some subscribers, saying his opposition to the war in Iraq cost him a third of his readers. No, it was his unconditional support for the war that cost him a third of his readers, his late opposition to the war (after everything had gone to hell) bringing some back. Sullivan is, in a word, insufferable.
- rayward
February 6, 2013 at 3:53pm
Clearly fawning service is not part of the TNR package, but unfortunately neither is minimal responsiveness to long-time subscribers complaining justly that the new discussion board structure is an insult. Two weeks have gone by and it's obviously still too much trouble to institute a few changes (nix the italics and bring the functionality of the board back to at least what it was before the change, with date/time etc). What do you call a business that wants customers but treats them like an irritation?
- ironyroad
February 6, 2013 at 4:58pm
It's not news that Sullivan is wrong; if that hysterical blogger ever got anything of importance right, that would be news.
- arnon1
February 6, 2013 at 5:26pm
Several years ago a TNR commenter suggested that Sullivan rename his blog the Daily Pivot (it's called the Daily Dish), so often does Sullivan change his position on important issues. You name it, GWB, the Iraq War, HCR, whatever the issue, Sullivan always begins on the wrong side, then pivots. Either he has no judgment (my view), or he has no spine. His success as a blogger is attributable to adherence to the most important rule in business: know thy customer. Fawning, indeed.
- rayward
February 6, 2013 at 5:45pm
If I have another person behind a counter whom I've never met before and will likely never see again call me by my first name in order to be "friendly," I may get violent.
- timteeter
February 6, 2013 at 8:32pm
I was one of those readers who offered a "small quasi-dissent" to Noah's original piece, not because I disagreed with his distinction between traditional "service with a smile" on the one hand and creepy, "cultish" requirements like those of Pret on the other, but rather because that distinction didn't come through clearly to me at first. I noted the column's focus on "emotional labor," the essence of which is the suppression of true feelings, a requirement of most jobs anywhere, not to mention a routine requirement of non-job-related social interaction. The logic of this attack seemed to extend not only to Pret's apparently obnoxious, clueless, intrusive, infantalizing enthusiasm regimen, which I agreed went too far, but to any sustained, systematic effort on the part of service industry employers to require that workers behave with courteous attentiveness. That two-word description can be fleshed out a great deal and I'm sure can be made to sound creepy in an employee handbook. But it's my feeling that when it comes to *that* commonsensical, non-onerous requirement, in some industries (cough, airlines, cough), a duly respectful refresher course wouldn't go amiss, notwithstanding its status as "emotional labor." As for Sullivan's response, can he really fail to see anything weird or ominous or plain stupid in a fast-food company executive encouraging employees to, for example, make a habit of touching each other so as to create a "sense of fun"? I guess Sullivan wasn't required, like most employees, to undergo workplace harassment training. (Rules 1 through 24: hands to yourself.) Noah's original piece, which began with the radiant glow of a female Pret cashier and the (probably) false promise of sexual attraction, alluded to what I suspect is going on here, which is basically selling flirty behavior to the extent possible within the law, and, if that doesn't fit, then at least the happy simulacrum of being loved and coddled and found important. My problem is that I know I'm not important and find false fawning distasteful and irritating, especially where I'm just looking to, say, buy a sandwich. And if I'm looking to buy something expensive (like a house, a car, jewelry), then it's transparent that the fawning, usually clumsy, is over my money anyway. Classy joints of any type have their employees act with business-like efficiency -- courteous, competent, duly attentive, genuinely helpful, a nice, neutral attitude unruffled by customer unreasonableness -- and not with hyperbolic ebullience, bullshit "empathy," or wide-eyed happy-go-lucky-ism -- all that sort of sugar gives me a toothache. I'm not sure what Sullivan's ideal is, but maybe he's just infatuated with American friendliness. A cousin of mine who has lived in Europe for some years has a rule of thumb: Americans are dumb; Europeans are mean. Maybe Sullivan is just digging on as much dumb American nicey-nice he can, and doesn't want Noah to poop on his party. I like nice too, but my ideal fast food experience is what I get at Mickey's, purveyor of fine greasy double cheeseburgers drenched in grilled onions: Greek guy with a gold chain: "Can I help you?" (No smile.) Me: "Two Big Mickeys, no pickles, medium Pepsi." Greek guy, filling a Styrofoam cup with ice and Pepsi, yelling to the cooks, like Bill Murray in the old SNL sketch: "TWO BIG MICKEY, NO PICKLE." To me: "Five, even." Done and done. I'm getting hungry.
- JakeH
February 6, 2013 at 10:07pm
Here's to you, Timothy Noah. I am a big fan of both TNR and Andrew Sullivan, but you are absolutely right on this one. I try to avoid going to Starbucks in a large part because I loathe being asked "how my day is going so far" at 7:30 AM and I really want to repond, "not too well 'cause I don't have my fucking coffee yet." I don't want a fake relationship, or really one of any kind. I want pleasant, efficient service and then quiet. Indeed, the very best service is service you don't notice. I thought Johnathan Chait would be very hard to replace, and I have been wary of your ability to replace him when you first came, but you have earned my loyalty forever, at TNR or wherever you may roam. And, by all means, have a nice day!
- Schmaven
February 7, 2013 at 2:11pm
Remember how there was an uproar when some banks started charging a fee if you came into the bank and interacted with a human teller? Well, the last time I was in my bank, the teller (who I had never seen before) asked me if I had any big plans for the weekend. ("Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I'm getting a hysterectomy! Thanks so much for asking.") That was about two years ago, and I haven't been inside since. The "fawning fee" was an excellent way to drive people out of the bank. Emotional labor doesn't belong in high-stakes sectors either, just for the record. And who designed this new website? It's completely ridiculous. Is this supposed to appeal to the younger, hipper masses? The titles are so big, they hardly fit on my screen. It's like being inside a really disorganized person's brain.
- jpell64
February 8, 2013 at 5:37pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
This website is too complicated...I posted this to the wrong place once already: “ Remember how there was an uproar when some banks started charging a fee if you came into the bank and interacted with a human teller? Well, the last time I was in my bank, the teller (who I had never seen before) asked me if I had any big plans for the weekend. ("Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I'm getting a hysterectomy! Thanks so much for asking.") That was about two years ago, and I haven't been inside since. The "fawning fee" was an excellent way to drive people out of the bank. Emotional labor doesn't belong in high-stakes sectors either, just for the record. And who designed this new website? It's completely ridiculous. Is this supposed to appeal to the younger, hipper masses? The titles are so big, they hardly fit on my screen. It's like being inside a really disorganized person's brain. ”
- jpell64
February 8, 2013 at 5:47pm
Well, much of a molehill? Sullivan refers to "polite, accomodating, or fawning" and that American stores are much more polite than some other countries he is familiar with. I think the two opinionists are at cross purposes - Noah, and I agree, opposing sticky fake fawning-ism, and Sullivan really more pleased and relieved he isn't receiving failed or wrong service from a lazy nincompoop like elsewhere. Noah's essay really is predicated particularly on distasteful, fawning behavior and I think Sullivan was merely using the word for continuity -- not quite the same "fawning" -- Noah's makes no sense if you replace "fawning" with "correct and polite" whereas Sullivan's still does.
- brucequinn
March 8, 2013 at 6:04pm