January 5, 2003
CIVIL WAR:
Why Civility Matters: Contemporary confusion over the informal rules of social interaction goes to the heart of what it means to be a citizen in a free and open society. (Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders, Spring 2002, Policy)The Centre for Independent Studies has just started a new project on civility. From our review of an extensive academic literature, and from talking with ordinary Australians in focus groups,1 we would suggest that civility should be understood as being made up of three elements.1. Civility as respect for others
The first is that civility involves a demonstration of respect for others. At the age of 16, George Washington set down his '110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation'. His first rule was: 'Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.' This emphasis on respecting others is still central to the idea of civility today. Harvard law professor Stephen Carter, for example, defines civility as: 'An attitude of respect, even love, for our fellow citizens', and philosophy professor Cheshire Calhoun argues that civility involves communicating an attitude of respect towards others.
2. Civility as public behaviour
The second element of civility relates to public behaviour in the sense that it governs relations between people who may not know each other. American philosopher Michael Meyer notes that, 'Civility is primarily a stance taken towards strangers' and Carter says it 'equips us for everyday life with strangers . . . we need neither to love them nor hate them in order to be civil towards them'. [...]
3. Civility as self-regulation
The third element of civility is what Carter calls 'sacrifice', or what might less dramatically be referred to as self-regulation. Civility involves holding back in the pursuit of one's own immediate self-interest-we desist from doing what would be most pleasing to us for the sake of harmonious relations with strangers. Civility means doing the right thing [...]
These three elements of civility-respect, relations with strangers, and self-regulation-together lead us to a definition of what it is we are talking about. Civility is behaviour in public which demonstrates respect for others and which entails curtailing one's own immediate self-interest when appropriate. Defined in this way, civility is clearly a demanding public virtue. To be prepared to sacrifice one's own self-interest out of respect for people one has never met is a 'big ask'.
The decline of civility too should be seen as a function of the rise of the State and the decline of community. For once we have the State to take care of all our needs the question becomes: why bother being civil to anyone? If you don't need them and you don't owe them anything, the heck with them. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2003 11:23 AM
I think that Political Correctness was, in part, an attempt to bring civil discourse back to politics. As your post points out, civility requires rules, and mostly is concerned with discourse with people that we either don't know or don't like.
Unfortunately, anyone can now claim rudeness as a virtue by saying that they are just being "politically incorrect". Rudeness counts for political courage all too often.
The same denigration of meaning has happened with the concept of honesty. Any bozo (Jesse Ventura) can indulge in an orgy of ignorant slander against whole groups of people, and then retreat under the sanctimonious umbrella of "honesty".
I just flashed back to Hillary Clinton's college valedictory address in which she confronted Senator Ed Brooke of Mass. while he sat near her on the dais. Back in those days confrontation of those we didn't approve of was likewise considered heroism. I just heard of vandalism this past week where young self-righteous thugs spray painted "no blood for oil" on dozens of suvs in a suburb outside of Boston, I believe. I also love those who come up to complete strangers who are smoking and asking if they know those things are bad for you or throw paint on a fur coat as if they have never owned a leather belt. There is a lot of arrogant contempt and intolerance in public these days.
Posted by: jerry dodge at January 5, 2003 12:57 PMAs usual, I swing both ways. Has civility
really declined?
When was the last time you heard a
razzberry?
Or perhaps I should make a distinction
between civility and mere gentility, of
which we have a-plenty.
OJ
Your comment brings to mind the rude response of counter clerks to "customers" in the USSR and East Germany. This had to change with the advent of free markets ... and has. Free markets require civility
as a function of marketing to exist, and becomes habitual beyond the marketplace. Additionally, a democratic society requires civility to function with some degree of efficiency through consensus. As the proportion of society engaged outside of "business" grows, e.g. governmental employees, the need for civility in interactions declines.
Countering that, I must say in my
experience, in my small personal world, leads me to believe that civility has increased immensely and that it seems in the larger universe vulgarity has blossomed.
Genecis:
The tale is told, perhaps apochryphal, of Soviet citizens going to McDonalds, even though they couldn't afford to order anything, just to witness how polite the staff was.