Atrium, Biltmore Mansion, Asheville, NC

To be genteel is to be polite, refined, or respectable, often in an affected or ostentatious way. We may like to think that a pretentious display of superiority and wealth is a remnant of bygone eras and best left to old-monied folks like the Astors and the Du Ponts or new-monied folks like the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers who jewelled 5th Avenue in New York City with glorious mansions and elegant soirées during the Gilded Age. We may like to believe that such a show of excess is repulsive, a flamboyant snub to all those who would never grace their marbled halls. And yet, many of us consumed the award-winning PBS Masterpiece series, Dowton Abbey and are currently binging the second season of Netflix’s Bridgerton, as well as impatiently waiting for the next episode of HBO’s The Gilded Age and PBS Masterpiece’s Sanditon. In truth, we appear to be fascinated with gentility. We can’t get enough of the satin gowns and kid gloves, the chaperoned strolls in manicured gardens. Ostentatious as this world may be, there’s something about the manners and the extravagance that we tune in for, season after season.

The world of the Gilded Age genteel was a world in which valets and ladies’ maids were essential. No self-respecting men or women would have been expected to dress themselves. Given the quantity and fit of their clothing items, it would have been largely impossible. Corsets and bustles, buttons upon buttons, gloves that were literally made to fit like a second skin–all of these required an able-bodied valet or ladies’ maid, an individual with nimble fingers and some serious upper body strength. We marvel at the ladies’ maids who dutifully brushed (100 strokes at least) the unpinned hair of their ladies, who unlaced and unbuttoned their extravagant gowns, who removed their satin slippers and–finger by finger–their custom-made gloves. Dressing and undressing were productions not to be rushed or taken lightly. Today, we can pull on a pair of elastic waist sweat pants and slip a t-shirt over our head with one hand. All in a matter of seconds and without fuss. None of us can probably imagine our dressing or undressing ever being seriously considered for a television audience’s delight.

Nor can we imagine our meals, our conversations with friends, our social gatherings as being of much interest to a larger audience. We’ve taken informal to a new and much-relaxed level. When I was working, I recall our high school dress code actually specifying–no joke–that pajamas and slippers were not appropriate school attire. We also had to clarify how much skin could show through jeans that were so ripped that it was a wonder they maintained any structure at all. Perhaps there is something in us that longs for structure–if not in our own clothing and manners, then in those we can read about and view.

Perhaps, in spite of the social levelling that has occurred in the last century, we’re closet gentility. That is, maybe there are those of us who imagine ourselves appearing, behaving, and speaking finely. Maybe we imagine sipping tea poured from a sterling silver tea service into bone china cups instead of slurping it from a Starbucks to-go cup. Maybe we can see ourselves carefully weighing our words and politely listening in conversation rather than dashing off a text message or Instagram post. Maybe, just maybe, we can imagine a nicer, gentler version of ourselves.

Clearly, there was a tarnished underside to the Gilded Age. This was an age in which there were many corrupt industrialists, bankers and politicians whose greed exploited the working class. These robber barons and financiers often held more power than politicians during this time. And this was a period of tenements and sweat shops, 12-hour working days and increasing disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Viewers see little of this in the television series and films that profile the genteel because this, of course, brings us perilously too close to the ugliness of the real world–then and now.

There are those, then, who would argue that this gentility is really nothing but an emperor-with-no-clothes, a puffed-up, polished version of the lives of a favored few. And this is largely true. Still, I think it’s the lovelier aspects of the age we long for: the manners of regency courtship, the magnificent architecture and craftsmanship of the family estates, the teas and balls and coronations. We yearn for subtle grace, even if it’s only an imaginary veneer which lies over a cold, brash world.

In reading Denise Kiernan’s The Last Castle, a saga of the Vanderbilt family and the buidling of Biltmore Estate, I learned that in 1926, Thomas Beer nicknamed the 1890s as the Mauve Decade. While attempting to find an artificial way to make quinine, William Henry Perkins inadvertently discovered an aniline dye which resulted in mauve, a color so popular that it became a signature hue for an entire decade. Mauve is not quite plum, not quite rose, a rich yet muted color perfectly suited for the clothing and homes of the genteel.

I thought a lot about this and began wondering what color would best describe the current decade. I could think of many suitable colors, but none of them possesed the subtle, understated gentility of mauve. As a matter of fact, when I looked at my grandchildren’s big box of Crayola crayons, I found colors with names like laser lemon and electric lime. These don’t seem like colors with manners but rather colors with attitude which scream their presence. We have a considerable presence of such attitude today. It manifests itself in all sorts of unrefined ways (like an Academy award winning actor slapping and cursing a comedic host on national television). And maybe this is the biggest reason we thirst for the best of gentility: we simply want a respite from all that is not genteel.

photo by Collyn Ware

It is photography itself that creates the illusion of innocence. Its ironies of frozen narrative lend to its subjects an apparent unawareness that they will change or die. It is the future they are innocent of.
― Ian McEwan, Black Dogs

Perhaps novelist Ian McEwan is right. Perhaps we love the medium of photography because it offers us the gift of frozen narrative, of an illusion of innocence. When our memories begin to fade, when our rotting, ripening world crushes in upon us with all its death and disease, when we find ourselves waking with more dread than hope, a single photograph can remind us of a time of permanence and immortality. It can return us to a snowy field at dusk, to a boy who spreads his arms to the world as if to say: Here I am. Right here in the center of everything where the future kneels before me, a bright, expectant promise. Right here where the moon is my subject, where the darkness, a futile foe, will ever cower at the edges of my life.

One of the greatest joys of my life is living vicariously through my grandson’s exuberant innocence. When he talks of riding bulls professionally on the rodeo circuit, I’m all in. When he speculates about the color of Bugatti he will buy when he gets his driver’s licence, I can see it. When he announces that these past few 50-degree days have been nice enough to fill the pool, I’m smelling the sunscreen and feeling the heat. When he asks if we should make a leprechaun trap again this year, I’m already considering the supplies we’ll need. Of course, these days will not last. At eight, he’s undoubtedly older than many who’ve already lost the innocence that continues to buoy him through his days. And I’m grateful for this innocence. For, as Pablo Picasso said, it takes a very long time to become young, and I find that I’m just coming into my own through him.

I realize that the life expectancy of innocence is often largely dependent upon circumstances. Poverty, instability, disease, violence and war can snuff out innocence before it really ever begins. For children in such circumstances, there may be no photographs that freeze a narrative worth preserving. There may be no photgraphs at all. Innocence may have briefly flickered, only to be extinguished by the loss of family, home, or country.

But I am one of the fortunate. As a Baby Boomer, I grew up after the Depression and World Wars and before 9/11 and Covid. I grew up in relative peace and prosperity, an era during which innocence could live a comfortable and long life. I was 14 when I discovered hypocrisy among my peers who’d cheated their way through our church’s confirmation class only to stand later among the confirmed as the congregation smiled and applauded. I remember feeling truly shocked, my innocence decidedly beginning to unravel. Still, I had a good run while it lasted. When my innocence truly gave way to a growing sense of worldliness, it happened naturally, gradually, and without calamity.

Today, it often seems as though we want to rush innocence’s demise. We want our children to enter kindergarten with several years of reading and math under their little belts. We want our middle school students to chart career paths and plan their adult lives. We want our high school students to graduate with both high school diplomas and two-year college degrees, so that they might potentially begin law or medical school at age 19. It goes without saying that innocence struggles to survive when the academic stakes and cultural expectations are so high so soon. In such an environment, it must necessarily die young.

As a high school English teacher, I taught dual-credit courses in composition, speech, and literature. In the beginning, I had 16 out of 112 students in my school. At the end of my career, nearly 2/3 of the senior class took dual-credit college courses. Although many of these students were ready enough academically, many weren’t ready socially and emotionally. Some admitted that they just wanted to enjoy their senior year: by participating in sports and other activities, by hanging out with friends they would soon leave behind when they left for college, and by resting in the comfort of a school and home environment they knew and trusted. Without saying as much, they were admitting that they weren’t really ready and didn’t relish the rigor of college courses. At that time, parents paid college tuition–fully or partially–for their students’ enrollment in these courses. Because of this, I felt it was my moral and professional duty to advise such students not to enroll in college courses while they were in high school. After all, I reasoned, they had the time and the opportunity to take these same courses during theirr freshman year at college. Years later, however, these courses became free (hence the increased enrollment), and these same arguments largely fell on deaf ears. Even if students weren’t mature enough or academically ready to handle college courses, parents and counselors argued that they should take them because they were free, because their peers were taking them, and because they’d be left behind if they didn’t.

I shouldn’t have been surprised that we would rush children and teens through childhood and innocence and fix their eyes more quickly on adulthood. It’s true that in centuries past, teens left school early (if they attended at all), married, and began adult lives at the age of 13 or 14. And it’s true that even as children, they were often expected to work at home if the family was to survive. But as a Boomer, I never knew this hardship; as Americans, we generally don’t know this hardship today. One might argue that, in light of the fact that people live much longer today, we should ask ourselves some tough questions: Why should we rush childhood and the innocence that should–for a time, at least–accompany it? What do really stand to gain in encouraging more young people to graduate and enter the workforce early? As we rush our youth to adulthood, are we prepared to give them more and more adult privileges and responsibilities?

In his novel, All the Pretty Horses, Cormac McCarthy writes:

He stood at the window of the empty cafe and watched the activities in the square and he said that it was good that God kept the truths of life from the young as they were starting out or else they’d have no heart to start at all.

As insignificant as it may seem, I do remember how my world shifted when I realized my classmates had lied and cheated. And I remember a similar situation when one of my students discovered her peers had copied answers from her test paper. She came to me, crying. Can you believe it, Mrs. Vesely? They were my friends, and they used me! My student and I were both teens when the truths of life began to rear their painful heads. But what if we’d been children? And what if our 6 or 8-year-old worlds hadn’t just shifted but shattered? Would we have had the courage to face our futures, the heart to start at all? Would we have become painfully aware, as children, that we’d never become bull riders or figure skaters, that leprechaun traps and cookies for Santa were just the fictional figments of someone’s foolish imagination, that the world was never–not even once–ours for the taking? Would our innocence have died, as writer Joan Didion claims, when we were stripped of the delusion that one likes oneself?

Perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves of how precious little time we spend as innocents and of the consequences of further reducing that time. It all might start with taping a single photograph to our refrigerators or bathroom mirrors. A photograph that freezes a narrative of what-might-be, a confidence in the world which appears to be, at that moment, ripe for the picking. A photograph of a boy or girl with arms flung wide in bright, expectant promise.

As a child, I always teared up as the Lassie theme song opened each weekly episode. Today, I tear up each time I hear stories or see images from Ukraine. I long for the days when I cried for Timmy and Lassie, who, in spite of 25 minutes of conflict and danger, would ultimately find safety and comfort in the final minutes of each episode. This is the beauty of a fictional television program where a happy ending can be guaranteed. Not so with life. And certainly not so with war.

The images bombard us daily: a 40-mile convoy of Russian supply vehicles pushing its way towards Kyiv; train plaforms crowded with women and children waiting to be taken across the border to safety; shells of bombed buildings and remnants of vehicles abandoned on streets; Ukranian ex-pats returning to fight for their country; volunteers from neighboring countries waiting to welcome Ukranian refugees with blankets, hot food, and hugs. The news stories profile courage and loss from those who are fleeing and those who are staying.

As this tragedy unfolds and as Volodymyr Zelenskyy pleads NATO to enact a no-fly zone over Ukraine, consider the repeated response. No, because we can’t risk a potential World War III. No, because we believe that taking this action would result in even more death and destruction. No, because Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Although I’m painfully aware of the political and moral complexity of this issue and the real risk of taking any action that may further enrage and embolden Vladamir Putin, I’m also painfully aware of how I might feel if I were a Ukranian who saw my country, my home, and my life slipping away with each passing hour. I can only imagine how I might feel as I considered arguments that may appear utilitarian, at best, and indifferent, at worst.

When we justify the morally right action to be one that produces the most good, this is generally regarded as utiltarianism. That is, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [i]n the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good. Many of you may remember the life boat or bomb shelter exercises from psychology or sociology courses. You’re given a list with descriptions of a small group of individuals and a particular scenario. The world is being destroyed (by war, by environmental catastrophe, etc.), and you have a lifeboat that will take you away from destruction to a place where you can potentially start over, build a new life and possibly a new world. Your life boat, however, will hold only 12 people. Whom do you choose to save? Or a nuclear attack is imminent, and your bomb shelter can only hold 15 people, the last people on earth, the last hope for beginning again in the aftermath of disaster. Whom do you choose to save? The purpose of the entire exercise was to examine how you chose the individuals responsible for beginning again and populating the earth, the individuals most worthy of being saved.

Conversations were often heated and went something like this: Of course, you must keep the physician. He may be 78-years-old and suffer from a heart condition, but he has invaluable medical expertise and experience. No, absolutely not! You can’t afford to keep anyone that old with health problems, even if he is a doctor! You can’t possibly justify choosing him and leaving a healthy 20-year-old male behind just because he isn’t medically trained. Choices were most often made from and encouraged by utility: who will potentially offer the most good for the greatest number of people?

These hypothetical exercises bothered me then, but they pale in comparison to today’s real-life scenario of whom-to-save. I watch the news and find myself thinking: Will the world really stand by and watch Russia destroy an entire nation? Will we sacrifice one nation for the greater good? As I said before, I understand the moral weight of this issue and our responses to it. There are no easy answers. There are no actions that don’t carry considerable risks and tragic consequences. As much as I can try to imagine what the Ukranian people and its leaders are feeling, I also try to imagine what NATO leaders are feeling as they consider what to do–and what not to do. It goes without saying that I would not want to be in their positions and pray for their wisdom.

As a Christian, I find that I’m often plagued and confused by the whole notion of utility. In the Parable of the Lost Sheep, when a shepherd with a flock of 100 sheep loses a single sheep, he leaves the 99 to search for it. Utility would dictate that the shepherd stay with the flock, ensuring safety for the greatest number of sheep. Yet, Jesus relays the incredible worth of one lost sheep, the immeasurable value of one sinner, lost but now found. Time and again, Christ reminds me of this as he stops to minister to or heal one person in a crowd, an action that invariably frustrates his disciples who are intent to get on with the real work for the greater good. Time after time, he demonstrates the worth of a single, flawed and broken human being. In light of Christ’s words and actions, I admit that I’m truly struggling as I enter this Lenten season. As a Christian, how should I regard utility towards the Ukrainian crisis? Towards any such crisis?

Polish professor and economist Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski has written that the phrase for the greater good always precedes the greatest evil. I suspect that there are many, like me, who question if this is always true. Still, I wonder what Wisniewski is thinking as he watches thousands of Ukranian refugees pour into his country across a border which may increasingly seem to be a tenuous line between safety and destruction, good and evil. I wonder if he waits in fear for that border to close, leaving the remaining Ukranian survivors imprisoned in their Russian-occupied homeland. I wonder if he struggles with NATO’s pledge to militarily defend all of its members (but not Ukraine) even when the threat of nuclear war is imminent. I wonder if he’s puzzled by the apparent greater good paradox: we justify not taking military action in Ukraine for the greater good, but we pledge to take military action to defend our NATO allies–also for the greater good.

As always, I don’t profess to have answers, and I’m not rushing to advise NATO leaders on the best course of action. I’ve blessedly lived my life without much real threat of nuclear war. There’s no price I can ever put on this safety. But my gratitude must live alongside my anguish, and the moral tension between the two is especially palpable these days. I kneel in my own Gethsemane praying that the cup may be taken–from Ukraine and the world–but trusting ultimately that not my will but Yours be done.