On Dueling, Manners, and Political Correctness

A series of recent observations has led me to consider the relatively modern concept of privilege through the lens of a dueling culture.  I don't know a single person who really wants a return to dueling culture, but there are important lessons in it for modern society.  Consider, for instance, the truism that an armed society is a polite society and dig a little deeper.  An armed society is a polite society - to those who may be armed.  Whether that's Norse, Japanese, or Old West, in that "armed society," it is dangerous to provoke a fight, so extreme measures are built into society to avoid a confrontation in the first place, and to de-escalate it if that happens.  Consider for the moment Romeo and Juliet, and the "do you bite your thumb" scene - both sides are clearly looking for a fight, but only if it is a fight they can not only win, but sustain their victory in the long run.  Equally, consider the number of opportunities available during the Burr-Hamilton duel for either party to de-escalate, or the scene in Njal's Saga where the party of Njal and Gunnar assembles a payment to Thorgeir Starkadsson in an attempt to de-escalate the budding feud, or the fact that the O.K. Corral was the product of months of simmering tensions that came to a sudden boil.

Gunnar against the ambushers, after de-escalation fails.

In all of these examples, the rules of the "armed society" applied specifically to the armed portions of that society; in the case of Njal's Saga, chasing off, hurting, or killing the bondsmen and thralls of a land-owner was an offense, but it was an offense punished by a relatively trivial fine, viewed more as property damage than taking of a life.  Not five minutes earlier in Romeo and Juliet, the Capulet servants who were concerned over whether the law would be on their side if they fought were proudly boasting to each other of what they'd do to the Montague women, without much concern for what effect that would have on said women.  The common picture of Normans in post-Conquest England is one of straightforward rapine, because they could.  The differences between how a samurai behaves toward a samurai, and how a farmer or merchant behaves toward a samurai, reflect the difference in which of them is armed and which isn't.  At its extreme, this produces behavior like Edward III repudiating his debts to the Bardi and Peruzzi, more or less on the grounds that he couldn't pay and they couldn't make him pay, and this contributed to the collapse of the Florentine economy in the 1340s.

One of the consequences of this is that even small slights, if not addressed according to the built-in mechanisms for de-escalation, can blossom into truly absurd proportions.  Consider: in that scene from Romeo and Juliet, both Capulets and Montagues were each just minding their own business walking down the street when the brawl escalated to bloodshed.  They were not out looking for a chance to fight, a fight just found them.  Same with Gunnar's faction and the Burners - chasing off a herdsman escalated through a series of incidents into a blood feud - or the Hatfields and McCoys, or the historical sources behind Chushingura.  The latter is especially egregious, as the incident that provoked Lord Asano to assault Lord Kira in the Pine Corridor is so obscure that, despite being the trigger for the most famous blood feud in Japanese history, we have no idea what it actually was, and writers at the time saw nothing wrong with the shogun's order to Asano to kill himself for it.  In other words, the idea that Kids These Days make mountains out of molehills is not supported by the record.  Kids These Days have always made mountains out of molehills, so long as doing so was between people of roughly equal standing.

Asano attacks Kira in the Pine Corridor.  Reaction at the time: "What in the wide world of sports???"

The point of all of this is that "polite" behavior, in the model of "an armed society is a polite society," is generally restricted to the armigerous, because they are the ones who can hit back if they take offense.  It is a common complaint these days that people are too easily offended; this is not so.  They have always been easily offended.  They have simply not been allowed to show offense, or offending them has had no particular price tag attached to it.  The ability to offend with relative impunity, for that matter, is a relatively modern invention, and even then there are echoes of not offending those higher up the food chain; most people have had objectively terrible bosses, and few of us have deliberately insulted them.

The reason this works today, and why it is more visible than it once was, where it hasn't worked before, is that, painting in the broadest possible strokes, there are no particular consequences to offending someone, or being offended, today.  There is no stake, no chance of being called out in a duel and dying in the process.  There is, of course, the possibility of ostracism, or of boycotts, or protests, but these are, compared to the possible consequences of, say, Emmett Till maybe-whistling at a white woman, these are pretty minor, and to a certain section of the population, you will be a hero - it does not even matter what the stand was over, or whether your stand was needed, justified, or worthwhile from either side.

Given the historical tendency to escalate even small slights - especially if one party doesn't even think they have offended the other - and the trend towards fewer people and groups accepting offense without comment, it's hardly a surprise that offense seems easier today.  Offense has always been easy.  What is lacking today is the built-in means to de-escalate, and a lack of common interest in de-escalation, especially in online interactions.  There is a class of people, not unique to any group or opinion, who view stepping back from a position as evidence of weakness.  It is not my place to criticize them, their motivations, or their choices; in many cases, they are doing admirable work, and if they are indeed morally certain of their position, then I'm not going to judge them for holding a position, even if I may judge them for what that position is.

What is to be done, then? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have adopted a "duel test" for many of my social interactions, especially online.  The duel test is twofold.  First, there is the question, before I do or say something, is this something over which I would be willing to fight, regardless of who is receiving it? If offense does get taken, regardless of intent, am I willing to fight then, or would I be better-served by polite apology even if I didn't mean offense? Second, if someone else says or does something that offends me, is it an issue worth potentially dying over? If in neither case do I believe it's worth coming to blows over, I back off, regardless of who I think was right.  It costs me nothing; there is no social credit score where I have to defend every tiny slight, and, if you insist on viewing social interaction as a win-loss game, frequently apologizing will put the other person off balance because they were leaning into the fight.  It also has the side effect that if you do believe it's worth coming to actual blows over, you're much more likely to believe in what you're fighting over rather than just fighting, which, fun as it may be, is exhausting.

Mind, of course, there are plenty of people who can name times, even since adopting this position, where I have failed to live up to it, but it's a goal.  Regardless of whether or not dueling is a good idea (no), the behavior around dueling certainly is.  If an armed society is a polite society, assume everyone is armed, at all times.