Civility
and Moral Being
Being uncivil is not a cause of conflict—incivility
and the contention associated with it are symptoms of something else. That
something else is a way of being with others that assumes incivility is
regrettable, but often necessary and justified. To justify bad or destructive
behavior is to make ethically defensible that which is typically
unethical. Civility is not merely being polite or controlling negative
emotions. Nor is being polite necessarily being moral. When civility
is a utilitarian adoption of behaviors whose purpose is to get one’s way or to
avoid disagreements, the words and smiles designed to keep the interaction from
getting out of hand are more hypocritical than polite. If being uncivil is
merely a breakdown of our abilities to control nasty feelings or impulses, they
invite hand-wringing about the human condition, and disconnect civil attitudes
and behaviors from their moral root. It is not the human condition of being
imperfect that fuels modern incivility—it is the assumption that civility is
impossible to experience precisely because of the human condition.
Stephen Carter’s task
in his book titled, Civility (1998) was to restore to society
the recognition that a civil society cannot be maintained without its moral
foundation. He documents how the very idea of being civil to one another has
eroded from the 19th century definition that intertwined
etiquette with moral content, to at least two aberrations in later centuries.
One is to define politeness and manners as a means to an end. Carter notes,
“Rules of behavior . . . moved from the realm of morality to the realm of
pragmatics: they were encouraged not because they were independently good, but
because they seemed to produce good results” (p. 12). If I am polite or kind to
someone as a utilitarian technique, I am hardly interested in their well-being,
because I am only committed to my own. The other person becomes a means to my
ends, and if being friendly and kind does the trick, I have succeeded. But my
behavior has not been civil, has not been an expression of moral concern for
the other as well as myself. It only has been necessary for the nature of
relationship transactions.
A second definition
of civility undermines not only the moral grounds for treating each other well,
but dismisses the value of civility altogether. Narrative designed to explain
the “why” of incivility often invokes the idea that people simply “lose
control” and what else can we expect, given that all of us are “only human”?
Imperfect humans simply get to the point where they are forced to be uncivil
towards one another. Most people seem to explain their uncivil behavior by some
adult version of the childhood cry of, “He/She started it!” Such begins the
justification for the bad behavior. Disagreement is assumed inevitably to
generate incivility and subsequent contention, which is not only
understandable, but necessary. Some even view being civil when clashing value
systems are in play as a form of hypocrisy. If we disagree, we cannot help but
be uncivil, and it is actually helpful so to be.
For example, “with
all due respect” is an overused phrase in TV melodramas and in actual
interaction among people who disagree—and disagree contentiously. Curiously, it
seems most often to be uttered prior to a disrespectful verbal onslaught. For
example, “With all due respect, your honor, that ruling is the most ridiculous
of these proceedings thus far.” Or, “With all due respect, Senator, your
argument reveals your 19th century morality and doesn’t apply
to the realities of modern life.” If one were to stay on task in these
situations, the phrase “with all due respect”—perhaps is designed to justify
the disrespect that follows. If one were truly to be respectful in the situation,
the phrase could be dropped altogether. The attorney’s comment would attend to
describing the legal grounds to be adhered to lest the proceedings become
ridiculous, not because the judge is a moron, but because to go a certain
direction would mean the proceedings would not be in alignment with the law.
Similarly, it would be more respectful to identify what it is about the
realities of modern life that disqualify the moral grounds for a given position
that one’s opponent has taken.
Carter counters the drift
towards incivility as necessary when value systems are at stake with the a
fundamental aspect of the human condition that may often be ignored or
forgotten: “Alone of God’s creation, we humans are able to apply the test of
morality to our actions, and civility calls us to do so. For democracy without
civility is like dieting without discipline” (1998, p. 24).
Consider the
possibility that one can pursue dialogue in a democratic and civil society in
one of two ways: civilly, or uncivilly. Carter draws on contrasting
philosophies in the Civil Rights movement:
“The true genius of
Martin Luther King, Jr., was not in his ability to articulate the pain of an
oppressed people . . .—but in his ability to inspire those very people to be
loving and civil in their dissent. This was the antithesis of hypocrisy: It was
an act of high principle. . . . For those who believe in [civil] dialogue,
then, hypocrisy lies in the pretense that we can discuss our differences
seriously without the aid of civility (p. 24).”
Consider then, that
civility is not only possible because of the human condition, but necessary if
a culture of democracy and freedom is to be maintained. When we live true to
our moral sense of how to treat others, irrespective of the circumstances and
disagreements, our civility comes from the heart—from realizing that in a
community, we can engage compassionately, and without rancor. When we
become uncivil, it may be that until we look at how we help
author divisiveness, we have little to offer to those who are being uncivil
towards us.
References:
Carter, Stephen L.
(1998). Civility: Manners, morals and the etiquette of democracy. New York:
Basic Books.