Dissense

One wonders whether any social convention would withstand Garbanzo’s exacting scrutiny. Standing for the National Anthem is a hassle. Handshakes probably disperse more pathogens than any other unnecessary human activity. Holding the door seems fairly innocuous in comparison; tell me the last time it ever killed a man.

But holding the door has its benefits. When your hands are full, or it’s raining, or a door is difficult to reopen when closed, expedient ingress is essential. Garbanzo’s marginal discomfiture is a small price to pay for such convenience.

Now maybe holding the door is appropriate in some contexts, but, absent exigent circumstances, the practice falls within Garbanzo’s critique. Such reasoning, though, misses something essential to the human psyche: our commitment to habit. Ideally, we could consciously limit ourselves only to the most warranted door-holdings, but in reality, we are slaves to routine. The question, then, is whether we should prefer a habit of overinclusive door-holding or one that is underinclusive. As for me, a few awkward pauses are a reasonable cost.

None of this deals with the deeper problem in Garbanzo’s lament, though. Subjecting human decency to cost-benefit analysis misses the point. Common courtesy is about according respect, not balancing efficiencies. That respect might manifest itself in antiquated or inapposite form, but it manifests an essential concern for others. Think about it this way: as inconvenient as door-holding may be, how annoyed are you when someone lets a door swing back into your face?

Norms don’t always make intrinsic sense; path-dependent evolution renders many obsolete. But they do pose an opportunity to signal just what kind of person you really are. Apparently Garbanzo is the type who can’t be bothered to hold the door for you.