5 ms·

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on dut

by toufka 13y ago

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on duty'. In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. A lifetime servant is conditioned to be deferential, in every part of their life, not just while working. Or said another way, they are always 'working' - oftentimes from birth until death. There is a stark difference in hiring a cook to come over and cook - and when he's not cooking for you be able to have his own family, hobbies, political motivations and all the rest of his life - and having a cook who 'serves' you - full stop. There is a fundamental difference between these perspectives. I believe this is why the idea of a 'servant' is so distasteful to an American. Though again, it took meeting and interacting with true 'servants' (outside the US) to even become aware of the distinction.

mjn 13y ago
In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. That's definitely true. An interesting cultural difference even further in that direction, that I noticed as an American who moved to Denmark, is that in Scandinavia the equality extends even into the restaurant. I'm not really being "served" at a restaurant, but rather the expectation is that we're interacting in a professional setting as equals. Perhaps partly due to culture, partly due to the lack of tipping, and partly due to the fact that the waiter likely has the same socioeconomic position as their customers, there isn't really an obsequious service-oriented relationship, and it's definitely not the case that the customer is always right. It's more like, their job is to take care of business at the restaurant, and they'll aim to do it well but expect respectful treatment in return, like any other professional employee in any other job. (It's possible things are different at really high-end places that aim to impress international customers, like the $200/plate restaurants and $500/night hotels, but I don't have any personal experience patronizing such establishments.)
- bitops 13y ago
  Heh...as a Danish person, I think part of that distinction also is that Denmark has a really bad service culture compared to the US. It does seem to be changing. But I feel like Danes are a pretty proud (and/or headstrong) folk with very strong (and sometimes misguided, see Janteloven) notions around class and equality. I feel like many Danes who work in the service sector project this attitude that they're really above the work and that the customers are a complete imposition on their time and energy. That's why I'm always so impressed when I get a really nice waiter in CPH or just shopping at a grocery store like Irma. I think you're right about the high-end places -- I've only been to one fancy place one (cause, yikes! the prices) and they did act very differently because it was so expensive. But by and large, yes, I agree, they tend to see it more as a "job" than "service."
  - mjn 13y ago
    It could just be because I tend to find American customers really over-bearing and unreasonable (the "customer is always right" thing makes some people feel entitled to be jerks towards staff), but to me the Danish non-service feels refreshing, though I've definitely heard other people describe it as "bad service". I don't feel it's particularly bad service myself; stuff generally gets done fine, and it's not like I'm waiting hours for my food or they're dumping things on me or anything. They treat me the same way I'd treat someone at work at my own job: well and professionally, but not as if I'm their servant and must please them at all costs.
  - wozniacki 13y ago
    Under Janteloven: The ten rules state: You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as us. You're not to think you are smarter than us. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us. You're not to think you know more than us. You're not to think you are better than us. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone cares about you. You're not to think you can teach us anything.* Wow. Just wow. Needless to say, a lot of American go-getters and super-achievers would find that bitterly stultifying. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante#Definition
wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
You cannot figure out the "servant" business in India without considering the caste system. We get the income inequality side pretty well, it makes sense. But until the caste crap gets replaced by a different currency, being/having a servant is a different concept from a westerner's.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  India doesn't have much income inequality. Their Gini is 33, same ballpark as France, Bangladesh and the UK. (For comparison, Denmark is at 25 and the US is at 45.)
  - anishkothari 13y ago
    > India doesn't have much income inequality This[1] page shows India's Gini coefficient at 36.8 in 2004. India suffers from very high income inequality [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      33 by the World Bank, 36.8 by the CIA. Using the CIA's numbers rather than the world Bank, India is comparable to New Zealand or Japan. It's still well below the US (45) or the world as a whole (39). India's problem is poverty, not inequality. Much as first world hipsters try to conflate the two, they are not the same thing.
      - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
        >India's problem is poverty, not inequality. I would agree, but life in a city like Kolkata is very different from a place like tribal Odisha. Sheer numbers (as opposed to percentages) are more important when you get in the hundreds of millions.
      - yetanotherphd 13y ago
        Thanks for that info, like many people I had always assumed that India was especially unequal, and this was the cause of many of its social problems. The more you know...
atlantic 13y ago
I've never been to the US. But I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on Floyd Mayweather's personal life. He lives with a retinue of about a dozen very attractive female "personal assistants", ranging from the masseuse to the cook and the secretary. It was very clear from the videos that these people were on call 24/7, and their functions included sexual services. If this doesn't fit the definition of servant, then what does? The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality.
- rgbrgb 13y ago
  Yeah, Floyd Mayweather is a pretty good example of typical American life.
- evan_ 13y ago
  Admittedly I haven't seen that video and I'm not very familiar with Floyd Mayweather but you should take anything you see on American light-entertainment television with a healthy dose of skepticism. It's likely the women were friends or actresses hired by either Mayweather or the production to act as staff during filming, to raise his apparent status. This is extremely common in "reality" television. Not saying there's nobody in the US with a staff of 12 but it strains credulity- and the "sexual services" is definitely not true or he'd be up on charges. If you post the videos someone can probably attest to the reputation of the program that produced it. Was it MTV Cribs?
- incision 13y ago
  >"The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality." I hope this is deadpan sarcasm. You're drawing an analogy between sub-living wage housemaids to the for-television version of an exceptionally flamboyant professional athletes entourage. Worse, you're extrapolating the latter - the promotional image of a singular talent, the elite prizefighter of a generation, who earns the U.S. median yearly income every 1.5 seconds in a 12 round fight - to be somehow representative of "the US".
rz2k 13y ago
Though I think it is widely regarded as unseemly to treat people differently according to a ranking of professions or wealth, the US is not actually a classless society, and in many social settings certain amounts of deference are expected as the default even when people are off the clock. With the number of parties this time of year, if you look for it it can be a little ugly. Another example that readily comes to mind is the comments in response to Mario Batali suggesting bankers as Time man of the year in the vein of Hitler and Mussolini a couple years ago. Many of those comments, rather than focusing on the quip being offensive or stupid, primarily complained that he should be more deferential to a great portion of his restaurant customers. Throughout history many artists have criticized their patrons, and today there's the widely claimed ideal of not penalizing everyone from unskilled workers to professionals and business owners for their political beliefs that are independent of their employers and customers, yet the reality is different even if sometimes manifests itself subtly.

by toufka 13y ago

mjn 13y ago

In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. That's definitely true. An interesting cultural difference even further in that direction, that I noticed as an American who moved to Denmark, is that in Scandinavia the equality extends even into the restaurant. I'm not really being "served" at a restaurant, but rather the expectation is that we're interacting in a professional setting as equals. Perhaps partly due to culture, partly due to the lack of tipping, and partly due to the fact that the waiter likely has the same socioeconomic position as their customers, there isn't really an obsequious service-oriented relationship, and it's definitely not the case that the customer is always right. It's more like, their job is to take care of business at the restaurant, and they'll aim to do it well but expect respectful treatment in return, like any other professional employee in any other job. (It's possible things are different at really high-end places that aim to impress international customers, like the $200/plate restaurants and $500/night hotels, but I don't have any personal experience patronizing such establishments.)

bitops 13y ago
Heh...as a Danish person, I think part of that distinction also is that Denmark has a really bad service culture compared to the US. It does seem to be changing. But I feel like Danes are a pretty proud (and/or headstrong) folk with very strong (and sometimes misguided, see Janteloven) notions around class and equality. I feel like many Danes who work in the service sector project this attitude that they're really above the work and that the customers are a complete imposition on their time and energy. That's why I'm always so impressed when I get a really nice waiter in CPH or just shopping at a grocery store like Irma. I think you're right about the high-end places -- I've only been to one fancy place one (cause, yikes! the prices) and they did act very differently because it was so expensive. But by and large, yes, I agree, they tend to see it more as a "job" than "service."
- mjn 13y ago
  It could just be because I tend to find American customers really over-bearing and unreasonable (the "customer is always right" thing makes some people feel entitled to be jerks towards staff), but to me the Danish non-service feels refreshing, though I've definitely heard other people describe it as "bad service". I don't feel it's particularly bad service myself; stuff generally gets done fine, and it's not like I'm waiting hours for my food or they're dumping things on me or anything. They treat me the same way I'd treat someone at work at my own job: well and professionally, but not as if I'm their servant and must please them at all costs.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  Under Janteloven: The ten rules state: You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as us. You're not to think you are smarter than us. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us. You're not to think you know more than us. You're not to think you are better than us. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone cares about you. You're not to think you can teach us anything.* Wow. Just wow. Needless to say, a lot of American go-getters and super-achievers would find that bitterly stultifying. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante#Definition

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago

You cannot figure out the "servant" business in India without considering the caste system. We get the income inequality side pretty well, it makes sense. But until the caste crap gets replaced by a different currency, being/having a servant is a different concept from a westerner's.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
India doesn't have much income inequality. Their Gini is 33, same ballpark as France, Bangladesh and the UK. (For comparison, Denmark is at 25 and the US is at 45.)
- anishkothari 13y ago
  > India doesn't have much income inequality This[1] page shows India's Gini coefficient at 36.8 in 2004. India suffers from very high income inequality [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    33 by the World Bank, 36.8 by the CIA. Using the CIA's numbers rather than the world Bank, India is comparable to New Zealand or Japan. It's still well below the US (45) or the world as a whole (39). India's problem is poverty, not inequality. Much as first world hipsters try to conflate the two, they are not the same thing.
    - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
      >India's problem is poverty, not inequality. I would agree, but life in a city like Kolkata is very different from a place like tribal Odisha. Sheer numbers (as opposed to percentages) are more important when you get in the hundreds of millions.
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      Thanks for that info, like many people I had always assumed that India was especially unequal, and this was the cause of many of its social problems. The more you know...

atlantic 13y ago

I've never been to the US. But I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on Floyd Mayweather's personal life. He lives with a retinue of about a dozen very attractive female "personal assistants", ranging from the masseuse to the cook and the secretary. It was very clear from the videos that these people were on call 24/7, and their functions included sexual services. If this doesn't fit the definition of servant, then what does? The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality.

rgbrgb 13y ago
Yeah, Floyd Mayweather is a pretty good example of typical American life.
evan_ 13y ago
Admittedly I haven't seen that video and I'm not very familiar with Floyd Mayweather but you should take anything you see on American light-entertainment television with a healthy dose of skepticism. It's likely the women were friends or actresses hired by either Mayweather or the production to act as staff during filming, to raise his apparent status. This is extremely common in "reality" television. Not saying there's nobody in the US with a staff of 12 but it strains credulity- and the "sexual services" is definitely not true or he'd be up on charges. If you post the videos someone can probably attest to the reputation of the program that produced it. Was it MTV Cribs?
incision 13y ago
>"The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality." I hope this is deadpan sarcasm. You're drawing an analogy between sub-living wage housemaids to the for-television version of an exceptionally flamboyant professional athletes entourage. Worse, you're extrapolating the latter - the promotional image of a singular talent, the elite prizefighter of a generation, who earns the U.S. median yearly income every 1.5 seconds in a 12 round fight - to be somehow representative of "the US".

rz2k 13y ago

Though I think it is widely regarded as unseemly to treat people differently according to a ranking of professions or wealth, the US is not actually a classless society, and in many social settings certain amounts of deference are expected as the default even when people are off the clock. With the number of parties this time of year, if you look for it it can be a little ugly. Another example that readily comes to mind is the comments in response to Mario Batali suggesting bankers as Time man of the year in the vein of Hitler and Mussolini a couple years ago. Many of those comments, rather than focusing on the quip being offensive or stupid, primarily complained that he should be more deferential to a great portion of his restaurant customers. Throughout history many artists have criticized their patrons, and today there's the widely claimed ideal of not penalizing everyone from unskilled workers to professionals and business owners for their political beliefs that are independent of their employers and customers, yet the reality is different even if sometimes manifests itself subtly.