The Unspoken Rules of Communication: Who Decides What’s “Polite”?

From childhood, we’re taught to “make eye contact” and “sit still” to show respect or engagement. But why are these behaviours considered the gold standard of communication? This article explores the historical, cultural, and psychological roots of these norms, questioning their universality and examining how they might exclude those who communicate differently. Are these rules timeless truths—or arbitrary constructs?

The Historical Origins of “Polite” Behaviour

Many communication norms trace back to hierarchical societies where body language signalled submission or dominance. In medieval Europe, avoiding direct eye contact with royalty demonstrated deference, while upright posture symbolised moral virtue. By the 19th century, etiquette manuals—often written by Western elites—codified these gestures as markers of “civilised” behaviour. Industrialisation further entrenched them, as factories and offices demanded regimented self-control. These rules weren’t organic; they were tools to enforce social order.

Cultural Variability: A Global Perspective

While Western cultures prize direct eye contact as a sign of honesty, others interpret it differently. In many East Asian societies, prolonged eye contact can feel confrontational, with respect shown through bowed heads or averted gazes. Similarly, Indigenous Australian communities often prioritise shared silence over verbal dialogue. Even “sitting still” isn’t universal: Māori hui (meetings) encourage dynamic movement, and some African cultures view rhythmic body language as integral to storytelling. These contrasts reveal how communication norms are shaped by context, not biology.

The Neurodiversity Challenge

For neurodivergent individuals, conventional rules can feel alienating. Autistic people may find eye contact overwhelming due to sensory processing differences, while those with ADHD might struggle to stay physically still without compromising focus. Yet rather than adapting, society often labels these natural responses as “rude” or “disruptive”. This raises ethical questions: why are neurotypical standards the default? Research shows that forcing compliance can heighten anxiety, undermining the very connection these rules claim to foster.

Power Dynamics and the Enforcement of Norms

Communication rules rarely emerge neutrally. Historically, dominant groups have imposed their norms as “correct”, marginalising others. Colonial powers, for instance, weaponised etiquette to assert cultural superiority, dismissing Indigenous practices as “uncivilised”. Similarly, corporate environments often equate stillness and eye contact with professionalism, disadvantaging those whose natural communication styles diverge. These dynamics perpetuate inequality, privileging certain bodies and behaviours while framing alternatives as deficits rather than differences.

Reimagining Communication in a Changing World

As societies grow more inclusive, rigid norms are being questioned. Schools are adopting trauma-informed practices that let students choose whether to make eye contact. Workplaces embrace “active listening” beyond physical cues, valuing substance over performative engagement. Meanwhile, digital communication—where eye contact is irrelevant—has normalised alternative interaction styles. The shift isn’t about discarding all traditions but recognising that respect can take myriad forms, many of which have been ignored or suppressed.

Practical Steps Toward Inclusive Communication

To move beyond one-size-fits-all expectations:

• Prioritise intent over aesthetics: Focus on whether someone is engaged, not how they “appear” to engage.
• Normalise preferences: Ask, “How do you communicate best?” in meetings or classrooms.
• Challenge assumptions: Recognise that fidgeting or averted eyes might signal focus, not disrespect.
• Educate widely: Share cultural and neurodivergent perspectives to broaden understanding.

Conclusion: Rewriting the Rules Together

The insistence on eye contact and stillness reflects deeply ingrained cultural habits, not universal truths. By examining their origins—rooted in power, tradition, and conformity—we uncover opportunities to foster richer, more inclusive dialogues. Whether through embracing neurodiversity, respecting cultural differences, or adapting to digital spaces, redefining “polite” communication starts with questioning who these rules serve—and who they silence. The future of connection lies not in rigid norms, but in flexible, empathetic understanding.