> Furthermore, it would be argued that holding a door open for someone may *not* be quite the favor people think it is. It can imply not only (physical) weakness on the part of the holdee, but also grants authority to the door-holder.
> Consider:
>
> --a teacher opens door for students to enter, not the other way around
> --a doctor/nurse/medical technician ushers patient into treatment room first, then follows
> --parents shepherd children through the door in front of them
> --observe behavior at business meetings--who goes in first?--the subordinate, followed by the supervisor.
>
> You can take this last example to the extreme and find it still holds pretty true in principle, if not in (literal) particulars--who enters first when the President addresses Congress, or when the Queen opens Parliment? The subordinates are in first, waiting for the authority figure, right?
>
> koala"a lot of gamesmanship just to get through a door"mom

Having thought about this a while, I think you're wrong - it's traditional for the authority figure to be in front (the focus of attention) and the subordinates behind. Certainly, when the Queen opens Parliament, she is the second person through, followed by a big crowd of attendees. The fisrt person is Black Rod, who is simultaniously granting her the authority to be in the House of Commons in the first place and a symbol of her authority; a standard-bearer, if you will.

There is also a tradition of the autority figure being in the center of his subordinates, but that is in deference to security more than anything else.

Certainly there are cases where the pattern you describe holds true, but I think they are for different reasons. In the case of a teacher or parent, I think it may well be to keep an eye on the students /children, though I have *never* seen a teacher hold a door open for pupils. A doctor way well be deferring to his patient as most doctors tend to be polite (bedside manner, I assume).

winter"I still see holding a door for someone as an act of politeness"mute