Make New Rules, But Keep The Old:
Etiquette for America’s Business Class in the 1920s
By Sammie Levin
According to historian and former Harper’s Magazine editor Frederick Lewis Allen, America
experienced a “revolution in manners and morals” between World War I and the onset of the Great
Depression (encyclopedia.com). The 1920s—or “The Roaring Twenties”—were characterized by
sweeping changes in the way people dressed, thought, talked, behaved, socialized, and lived. Not
everyone accepted the modernization of American society and the new freedoms it brought with open
arms, however. As Allen explains, “A time of revolution… is an uneasy time to live in. It is easier to
tear down a code than to put a new one in its place, and meanwhile there is bound to be more or less
wear and tear and general unpleasantness” (xroads.virginia.edu). Conservatives who were raised to
follow strict morals and precise manners undoubtedly felt this uneasiness, but there was another group
who was not quite ready to abandon traditional etiquette altogether: the business and professional
class. Just as the members of this tier fell somewhere in between the lower-middle class and the upper
crust of society, many were likewise caught in the middle of the transition from the old to new order of
social conduct. This tension is manifested clearly in Mary D. Chambers’ Table Etiquette, a guide
written specifically for the business and professional class in 1929. Chambers wavers between
embracing the newly relaxed rules of the dinner table and clinging to older conventions. Her
perspective and advice to readers suggests that she assumed they were interested in modernizing their
behaviors while still adhering to a standard of etiquette to affirm their position on the social ladder—or
even climb to a higher rung.
In Table Etiquette, the tension and uncertainty surrounding the transformation of etiquette felt
by the business and professional class can be detected as early as the introduction. “Within the last
decade there has been a revolution in table (and other) etiquette. So many have been the changes and
new departures, and often so unwarranted by good taste, that it became increasingly difficult to
distinguish between the wheat of right usage and the tares of bad manners,” Chambers writes, implying
that she was compelled to write this book to equip her audience with the tools needed to differentiate
between right and wrong manners (Chambers). She then makes a distinction between old rules that
should still be followed, new rules that should replace older ones, and new freedoms that are not yet
appropriate to adopt: “The large number of new rules, which because of their reasonableness and good
sense are here to stay, are set forth in contrast with those that are older and less excellent. The old rules
that have not been modified are presented as still obligatory, and likely, because of their propriety, to
remain so. New freedoms that are excessive and in bad taste are named with counsel to ‘play safe’ by
avoiding them” (Chambers). These telling categories further elucidate the tension. While it was
possible for newer, more “excellent” rules to develop and replace less reasonable customs, there was
still an ambiguous line of “propriety” that could not be crossed.
The aspects of the changing times that Chambers appreciates can be determined by examining
the new rules she marks as having “reasonableness” and “good sense”—and why she welcomes them.
Let’s first consider her explanation of the proper usage of the fork, a subtle yet revealing example: “A
generation ago it was customary in America after one or two mouthfuls of meat had been cut…. to
transfer the fork to the right hand… this rather affected process, with the unnecessary motions involved
in transit of the fork from one hand to the other has been discontinued by the up-to-date diner”
(Chambers, 2). She supports the increased convenience, simplicity, and modesty of the new technique,
suggesting that the “revolution of manners” favored common sense and fluidity over the pretentious
mastery of an unnecessary practice. By deeming those who have adopted this new style as “up-todate,” and later adding that the “conservative and old-fashioned are slow to make the change,”
Chambers hints that there is an allure and appeal to modernity (Chambers, 3). Perhaps by following
updated, in vogue customs, the professional class could convey cultural and social savvy that reflected
well on their character and workplace credentials. A similar example is of another “old-fashioned rule”
which “insisted that dinner couples should speak to one another exclusively until the hostess gave the
signal” (Chambers, 169). Chambers explains that “this wood and mechanical method” is no longer in
style, reinforcing the notion that, to a certain extent, naturalness now trumped contrived protocol.
This shift in preference becomes even clearer in Chambers’ chapter on formal dinners. She
welcomes the increased comfort and conviviality present in the newly reformed dining experience by
asserting, “it is an encouraging sign of the times that the very stiff and formal dinners are not given
nearly so often as are the smaller and more friendly ones,” (Chambers, 122-123). She explains that
displaying proper etiquette at these old, stiff formal dinners was of the utmost important because one
minor mishap could damage a reputation beyond repair. “The old writers on etiquette delighted in
citing awful examples of wrongdoing on the part of dinner guests, which resulted in their being left
socially dinnerless for the rest of their natural lives and which branded them as misbehaved…thus
swiftly did retribution follow crime, in the ancient days before the war,” Chambers says (Chambers,
124). She commends the younger generation for bringing a more social, communal atmosphere to the
table by rejecting the oppressive expectation to adhere to a strict code of conduct without fault. “We,
their elders, are growing young with them in casting off restrictions that hinder intercourse with our
fellows,” she says. “We are happily substituting common sense for convention. Today, the
worthwhileness of a man, and his claim to friendship and social recognition no longer depend on
whether or not he touched his lips with his napkin before he drank from a water goblet. Today we
recognize that the marks and signs of innate courtesy are demonstrated by acts far outweighing in
significance the correct use of table silver… the person comes first—the points of etiquette second”
(Chambers, 124). Based on this passage, adopting new morals and attitudes inspired by a younger
generation may have been a way to reflect youthfulness and freshness, which were underpinnings of
the Roaring Twenties’ character.
It’s likely that the spirit of the new generation, in the context of a changing society and a
flourishing economy (that is, before the Great Depression hit), provided impetus for the transformation
of table etiquette. With greater social mobility and new ways for people to interact with one another
and prove themselves in other outlets, etiquette was no longer the be-all and end-all of one’s
reputation. That is not to say that etiquette was simply shoved aside by elbows resting shamelessly on
the table and free speech exchanged between bites of pot roast, however. By 1929, the transition was
still underway and thus certain customs were held onto. Chambers notes that she addresses the rules of
a strict, formal dinner in her book because “sooner or later most of us, however steam-yachtless may
be our lives, will find ourselves bidden to one or obliged to give one (Chambers, 122-123).” This
implies that it was still important for the business and professional class to be informed about
traditional conventions.
Aside from the potential need to attend or host a formal dinner, Chambers expresses throughout
her entire book that etiquette could still serve as a lens into one’s upbringing and social status, just as it
did in the “ancient days before the war.” Herein lies the tension between the old and new social
conduct. For example, though Chambers communicates her appreciation for the relaxed usage of the
fork, she states that “how to use the knife and fork properly is so important a mark of good breeding
that no matter how correct may be the conduct of the guest in other respects, to transgress in this
stamps him at once as second rate—so far as etiquette goes” (Chambers, 5). So while it was no longer
the case that a dinner guest may be thrown out of his social circle if he failed to demonstrate proper
usage, the way that he held his silverware was still considered an indicator of his upbringing.
Similarly, she advises that nothing else besides croutons should be put into soup “provided the family
aspires good breeding.” Something as simple as a non-crouton addition to a bowl of soup could reflect
poorly on how someone was raised! Furthermore, despite the increased frivolity and freedom of the
1920s, there were still arbitrary rules that upstanding citizens of the business and professional class
were expected to abide by. For instance, “to place a knife with the handle on the table and the blade on
the rim of the plate is, and always has been, one of the strictly forbidden violations of good usage,”
(Chambers, 6). Continuing on the subject of silverware, Chambers explains that, “if a guest drops a
fork, a spoon, or anything else, she never picks it up” (Chambers, 167). She suggests that picking up
the utensil is ill-advised not only because it is inconvenient, but also because there is no clear way to
proceed once it is picked up (“Will you at once resume your use of it, after its sojourn on the floor? Or
will you surreptitiously clean it with your table napkin?” she questions).
It is interesting to compare Chambers’ hesitance toward picking up a utensil with the advice
proposed in a different etiquette book, Etiquette, Entertaining, and Good Sense, written by Eileen
Cumming in 1923. The book is an introduction to etiquette that is much simpler and smaller in scope
than Chambers’ book, and it is targeted at a lower or middle class audience. Cumming recommends
that if a dropped utensil “is within easy reach and the impulse is to pick it up, then do it. The idea that
failure to do either one thing or the other marks one as unversed in the ways of society is ridiculous,”
(Cumming, 3). This discrepancy in advice and perspective could signify the pressure that members of
the business and professional class may have felt to distinguish themselves from the classes below
them. Chambers establishes the place of the business and professional class in American society in
1929 in the dedication of her book: “This book is dedicated to the nice people like ourselves of the
business and professional class—frequently butlerless, and always steam-yachtless. This, our own
class, ladies, is the most important of all, for its members do the most worth-while things. They are the
most representative of their country, consequently they are the ones whose manners matter most”
(Chambers). While they might not have steam yachts or all the other luxuries of the wealthy elite,
Chambers asserts that this does not degrade her cohort, but rather makes them more significant because
they stand for all of America. This mindset was likely a product of the growing presence and influence
of business in the booming post-war American economy; as President Coolidge reflected in 1925, “the
chief business of the American people is business” (americainclass.org). According to Chambers’
rationale, members of the business and professional class must learn and display good manners not
only for the sake of building and protecting their own reputations to succeed socially and in their
careers, but also to represent their nation in a positive light. It is arguably because of this added
responsibility that Chambers still valued etiquette—and assumed the rest of her class did too—despite
appreciating many of the ways in which the rules of the dinner table were relaxing.
The rules and roles of etiquette are dynamic, shaped by an interaction of cultural, sociological,
and economic factors. Chambers believed that the rules she outlined in her book were “here to stay”
because of “their reasonableness and good sense,” but that has clearly proven not to be the case over
ninety years later. Because social norms and expectations are redefined by each generation, there will
likely always be a tension between the old and the new—felt especially by those caught in the middle.
Works Cited
Chambers, Mary D. Table Etiquette: Menus and Much Besides,. Boston: Boston Cooking-School
Magazine, 1929. Print.
Cumming, Eileen. Etiquette, Entertaining, and Good Sense. Hamilton: Meriden Britannia, 1923. Print.
Lewis Allen, Frederick. "The Revolution in Manners and Morals." The Revolution in Manners and
Morals. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/allen/ch5.html>.
"The 1920s: Lifestyles and Social Trends: Overview." Encyclopedia.com. American Decades, 2001.
Web. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468300881.html>.
"The Twenties in Contemporary Commentary – Business." Americainclass.org. National Humanities
Center, n.d. Web.
<http://americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/prosperity/text2/colcommentarybusiness.p
df>.