What Is Decorum?
Or: How Decorum Can Silence Marginalized People
Image Description: Letters cut out of a piece of metal that reads “Silence”.
In the past, I have heard the phrase proper decorum used for settings like court hearings or meetings with government or by legislatures — places that typically operate with a level of increased formality rather than everyday encounters.
Decorum Defined
So, it made sense that when I looked up a definition of the term that Google returned with:
“Decorum is defined as behavior in keeping with good taste, propriety, and social etiquette. It dictates polite, dignified conduct that is appropriate for a specific setting, occasion, or formal environment.”
On its face, this sounds appealing. Yes, I do want to be treated respectfully, and so manners and etiquette do matter for smoothing interactions.
But when I dig further into one aspect of decorum, propriety (or: “acting in a way that is socially correct, calm, and respectful”). Then my warning sensors start blinking. Merriam-Webster’s reveals more of the meaning of propriety:
“1: the quality or state of being proper or suitable: appropriateness
2a: conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech
2b proprieties: the customs and manners of polite society”
A flood of questions rose in my mind: Who decides what is appropriate? How does conformity (or not) determine who is listened to and who isn’t? In sum: how do the unwritten rules of decorum silence and exclude people who are marginalized?
Decorum as a Tool of Oppression
Like many things humans create, rules for polite interaction can be twisted into weapons of harm. A useful example of weaponizing decorum can be gleaned from two state legislatures that decided to penalize minorities who spoke up on issues in 2023. (Similar acts are still being committed now, so this is an ongoing struggle.)
“This Article examines the various benefits of free speech as it has evolved from the Founders’ understanding into the 21st century. From those purposes, and considering that only legislators themselves can protect free speech rights of other members, the Article identifies seven principles to guide how legislatures may balance decorum and speech: all members are equal, the business of the state must be done, speech has several legitimate legislative functions, speech rules should ensure more speech and the opportunity to be heard, the legislature should spend time and energy educating new members, uncomfortable speech has its place in debate, and the quality of debate should bring honor to the legislature. Based on these principles, the Article proposes several new rules for inclusion in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which is used by many legislatures, to hopefully prevent legislatures from misusing decorum rules to silence minority voices in the future.”
Rules of Decorum Shouldn’t Ban Uncomfortable Speech
I particularly like the observation that “uncomfortable speech has its place in debate” as a reminder that those in power may not want to hear certain points of view, but that doesn’t mean that these views are invalid. On the contrary, sometimes difficult to hear messages are the most important ones.
For a historical perspective, the civil rights movement was built upon decades of trying to speak to power. During years upon years of effort through writing, education, meetings, and lobbying — Black people and their allies attempted to shine a light on Jim Crow laws, voter suppression, and the many harms of violence and racism being perpetrated on them. When organizers planned marches, sit-ins, demonstrations, and speeches there was great resistance to their message: that racial discrimination was severe, ongoing, and needed to be swiftly remedied. Many in power reacted by inflicting even more violence and repression on people just wanting to be heard and treated equitably.
Decorum Judgments Often Come from the Eye of the Beholder (or Whoever Holds Power)
From the perspective of power, those who are marginalized and speak up are frequently deemed as breaking decorum. But from the perspective of those who are marginalized, decorum is merely another method of harmful silencing and sidelining.
An informative essay explores that a deeper meaning of decorum makes room for dissent and change:
“For the ancients, decorum was not identical with politeness or good manners. It made room for disruptive or impassioned speech – indeed, the very kind of speech that today might be branded as lacking in decorum. Historically, decorum has been a much richer and more challenging idea than its modern usage would suggest.”
I would argue that those in power actually have a responsibility to listen to marginalized people, to understand their concerns, and not use decorum as a tool of suppression or avoidance — that this is a hallmark of democracy. If we are all equal and choose our leaders from among the people, then all people have earned the right to speak.
After all, truth is sometimes uncomfortable — just like my painfully full bladder when I am denied access to the restroom (as depicted in my previous newsletter). In retrospect, the stall abuser was definitely both indecorous and made me feel silenced when I tried to advocate for my basic human needs (being able to use the accessible restroom stall). Hopefully most people agree with me that unnecessarily blocking accessible restroom access is beyond rude, and ultimately a demonstration of the height of ableism and disdain for disabled people.
Conversely, if I ever have to violate decorum to unmask harmful ableism, I will proudly flaunt these rules toward the cause of justice. I vow to not be silenced by decorum and to say the things that power may wish to remain unspoken.
Thanks for reading Rolling With It! I love hearing from readers, so comments are warmly welcomed. If you enjoy this newsletter, please “like” it to let people know it is worth checking out. Thanks so much for your support!
I'm exhausted just reading this.
Thank you for opening up this conversation! It immediately made me think of the travel industry—specifically the unspoken "decorum codes" expected in First Class. It begs the question: who actually sets these standards, and what responsibility do private corporations have in shaping them?
As a mom to a child with an invisible disability, walking through that First Class cabin to get to our economy seats is often our biggest hurdle. When we struggle during preboarding, we end up boarding last and the judgment from First Class passengers who just assume he's a "bratty kid" is palpable. It’s a stressful moment for us, but I try to view it as an involuntary learning opportunity for everyone else in that cabin. True decorum should include a little grace for the invisible challenges people are carrying.