Civility is a Rational Idol
I realize that it is proper etiquette to respond to posts in the comments section, but I feel compelled to offer these thoughts on the vacuous nature of civility as a virtue. Basically I agree with Bob Schwartz who wrote in response to David’s post that civility is “subterfuge” used to coerce the other side to agreement. Essentially Obama is saying, “Come on Republicans, just be reasonable and pass the health care legislation.” While that is a very “civil” statement, it is far from an argument. It’s rhetoric parading as rationality.
The fact of the matter is that Washington has replaced proper passionate debate over what constitutes a just society with civil procedure. C-span gives you a perfectly soporific pageant of civil rhetorical presentation, which remains completely conventional even as it tries to sound blustery and full of pathos. Actual reasoned argument tries to dismantle the false presuppositions of the interlocutor to reveal the shaky ground on which her conclusion rests. It is, in fact, not about finding common ground, but it is about showing that somebody’s ground simply is not there.
For example, I can have a perfectly civil and “reasonable” discussion with a racist about human rights. I can establish that his conclusions follow from his premises and that it is perfectly reasonable that he holds the position he does. It’s just that at the end of the day he is wrong. It’s not that I think he’s wrong, I know with every fiber of my being that he’s wrong, and I will do what I need to do to make sure his false conclusions are not inflicted on the public. Now, of course, it would be nice if I could inspire a conversion of heart that would undo the years of socialization and life experience that have led him to have the basic view of the world that he does, but the demands of justice are often too urgent to wait on divine intervention.
Similarly, there are some in our polity who take it as fundamental that the poor are poor because of what they have or have not done, and that in the absence of constraints on their action, they have the basic ability to provide for their own welfare. Basically, there are those who don’t believe that there are institutional injustices, only personal failings. That is false and foundational. There is no common ground between that position and the idea that some social structures are intrinsically unjust. So, we can have a civil discussion in which we agree to disagree and do nothing, while congratulating one another on the relative lack of actual or metaphorical bloodshed in our exchange. Or, one of us can decide that there is actually an injustice going on, and that the other, while perfectly rational, is in fact wrong, and that people ought to be protected from the erroneous and disastrous conclusions of the other.
So, I submit, civility is completely vacuous as a measure of the quality of a political system. The real indicator is the level of concern for justice that is displayed. And by that measure Obama seems just as guilty as Bush of caring more about being perceived as rational and consensus minded than being just. And in that way, reason has become more enamoured with the beauty of its own machinations than it is with the Beauty toward which it should strive. Thus, this plea for civility is nothing more than turning means into ends by a kind of epistemological narcissism. That is how civility becomes an idol.
on February 5th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Who’s proposing civility as a measure of the quality of our system? I think Obama is noting that it’s a basic requirement of a functioning democratic system. Maybe you’re reading more into the definition of “civility” than I am, but it sounds to me like he’s saying, not “stop opposing my policies,” but “stop shouting nonsense and calling me names instead of debating my policies.” Hardly a philosophical point, but a pretty sound one.
on February 5th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
How about compromise and bipartisanship?
At least we don’t have canings, but civility is only as good as the polite discourse you can have – and in the blog world, lots of vitriol is posible; whereas, face to face the civility is much more about being gentlepersons.
Getting things done poltically is amtter of how folks work together.
on February 5th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
The problem is that Obama should not be wasting time debating the form that the argument is taking. He should be spending his time tearing down the false presuppostions of the other party. The problem with those who oppose health care reform is not that they are calling names or shouting nonsense, it is that they are wrong. Obama should be saying that. If that means that he needs to call them names, I think that sometimes that can be one of the forms that the work for justice takes. I don’t think that civility, as I take Obama and others to mean it (transparent rational discussion that relies solely on the “unforced force” of the better argument to win the assent of another), is really a basic requirement for a functioning democratic system or for dialogical reason itself. In fact, I think both require and deploy a certain level of coersion, discipline and manipulation to stave off anarchy. And, I think, denying that fact leads to a passive acceptance of or capitulation to the status quo.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Eric, if that’s the way you think, just shut the bleep up. (kidding)
Thanks for calling this out and expressing it so well. There are some issues on which common ground cannot be found, and on those issues, disagreement and attempts at persuasion must be considered the more righteous way forward.
There is such a thing as a verbal attack on a person, and the moral justification for something like this should be grave, I think. (In the old days, attacks on reputation were considered much more sinful than they apparently are now.) However, it seems to me that the distinction between such attacks and reasoned debate, in which one really tries to dismantle another’s false argument, should be mantained.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
He should be spending his time tearing down the false presuppostions of the other party.
Exactly what the other party would most like him to do. (Do you think they’ll run out of false presuppositions when he tears down the ones they’re pushing now?) Your take is colorful, but I still don’t see that it has much to do with what Obama actually said.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
“It’s just that at the end of the day he is wrong. It’s not that I think he’s wrong, I know with every fiber of my being that he’s wrong, and I will do what I need to do to make sure his false conclusions are not inflicted on the public. ”
As it happens, I would maintain that it is in situations like the ones described here with the racist that civility becomes critically important. It is when civility breaks down that abortion clinics are bombed or abortion providers shot down.
What is the etymology of “civility” and what is its relationship to “civilization”?
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Yes, Kathy, I agree that ad hominem attacks should be avoided, but the problem is that in our “civil” discourse, it seems to me that saying someone is wrong has actually become a kind of ad hominem attack. It has actually become very hard to say someone is wrong without it being interpreted as calling them irrational. Somehow we’ve decided that the only way to argue something is to immediately find the common ground and build from a shared set of first principles. The fact of the matter is that there are no completely overlapping sets of shared first principles, and sometimes you have to point at someone’s cornerstone and say, “That’s why your building is slanted.” Somewhere along the way, though, we have decided that cornerstones are sacrosanct.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Jim, there is a difference between violence and the neutralization of influence. I’m certainly not going to kill the racist, nor am I required to, but I’m not going to let him make public policy, and I will protest against him, if I have to. If all civility means is not killing people, then count me in, but my sense is that it means more to Obama and co. than that. It means something like avoiding attempts to shut someone out of the public debate by, for example, claiming that the issue has been decided. It seems to me that non-violence is perfectly compatible with epistemic or moral certainty. When abortion clincs are bombed, it’s something much more severe than civility that has broken down. It’s something like basic human empathy that’s been lost.
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Eric,
To spend too much time insisting on civility looks prissy and condescending, and of course no one should suggest it’s more important than justice (so far as I know, no one has). But civility is, nevertheless, a democratic virtue, and an important one, because it’s a condition of persuasion. Where there is no possibility of persuasion, democracy suffocates. Where every disagreement leads away from reasoned discourse toward animosity and insult, people stop talking and start fighting. You write: “So, we can have a civil discussion in which we agree to disagree and do nothing, while congratulating one another on the relative lack of actual or metaphorical bloodshed in our exchange.” As if the difference between actual and “metaphorical” bloodshed were a matter of indifference. It isn’t. The real alternative to civility isn’t rousing invective to mobilize your “base”; it’s assasination and civil war. Our history is full of examples of what happens when civility is scorned by true believers. That caning on the floor of the Senate may strike us a colorful anomaly, but it prefigured the larger violence of the Civil War. Good arguments don’t need the spice of incivility. Bad arguments often do. Get past the blinding vituperation, and there isn’t much left to the commentary of the hayseed mandarins at FOX News. So what’s wrong with recommending that they step out from behind their malicious rhetoric and start showing us some arguments that are responsive to the available information?
on February 5th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.”
Eric, this statement by Obama tells the story. Whether it is against Bush or Obama it is wrong.
We might learn more from, perhaps the greatest communicator in our times, Ted Hesburgh. Ted got to know Russian officials during the cold war and Southern officials during the civil rights war. He got such a great respectful, even loving, from both groups which he used to stop the cold war and bring civil rights to the South.
Ted Hesburgh is our model.
on February 5th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
During the Vatican Council, Paul VI issued his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam. A major topic in it is dialogue, esp. how the Church is to conduct dialogue with others. He proposes four characteristics of dialogue: clarity, meekness, confidence in the good will of others, and pedagogical prudence.
These things do not translate immediately from ecclesiastical to political discourse, but much of what the pope says is relevant. In particular, confidence in the good will of others is important. Not that we must agree on everything, but that we must be able to trust one another when we speak. In an atmosphere where the citizenship of the president is questioned, distrust will sour virtually any discussion.
One reason I raise this old document is to evoke the dialogue, or lack of it, that existed in the church before Vatican II. Discussions were practically forbidden with those with whom we disagreed, ie Lutherans. It is possible now to talk with them and to try and understand one another better, without giving up fundamental points of disagreement. I can think of few things as horrifying as the thought of reinstating those sharp dividing lines, whether in the Church or in political life.
Politics, relations within the polis, should bear some relationship to civility, relations within the civitas, since these words name the same reality, the city, in different languages. There are nuances, of course, but fundamentally we are talking about how people get along with one another. We can insist on our pov, and refuse discussion if there is no agreement; or we can accept a common commitment within “the city” to the city’s good, and talk to one another. The latter seems like the only way a democracy can work imo.
on February 5th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
“The real indicator is the level of concern for justice that is displayed.”
By this measure suicide bombers have an admirable concern for justice while the non-violent and those calling for civility become dangerous villains.
Unfortunately this view is popular on the academic left. It’s reminiscent of the tracts about “repressive tolerance” from Herbert Marcuse and the Romantic Left of the Sixties, and even more so of Nietzsche and his condemnation of “slave” morality. It’s a doctrine to which the “educated” are apparently highly susceptible, especially if it justifies, as this post attempts to do, a quest for “Beauty.”
on February 5th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Civility ensures staying power. Civility gives way to endurance, and endurance “gets things done.” I think of the classroom, the microcosm of the public. Civility and endurance ensure the transmission of education. These qualities have preserved our democracy for 234 years.
on February 5th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
In a real sense, Eric’s post is quite relevant. We cannot let civility mar our quest for local justice. Sometimes we do have to make others feel uncomfortable if they are not considering the poor and downtrodden. After all else has failed. The Christian way, however, is markedly different from that the terrorist. The Christian gives up her life for others and never kills anyone. At the same time if we play the prophetic role we have to realize that some will condemn us and hate us for that. Justice is not a popularity contest.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Eric Bugyis: There are times when i suspect that you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is one of them. You need an editor!
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Matt,
Thanks for your comments, and I think that you caught me writing an unclear and uncareful sentence. What I was trying to say is that I think that we tend to over-stress the importance of civility because we think the only alternative is war. So, as long as the discussion doesn’t “get out of hand” we consider it a moral victory even if we actually didn’t say anything. I actually think that the continuity you set up as moving from reasoned discourse to animosity to war is problematic. I find violence to be extremely discontinuous with reason, whereas persuasion through nondiscursive means and emotional appeal may be part of what is required to get one to change deep-seated beliefs. For example, the civil rights movement had to demonstrate and march in order to coerce and cajole people to see the injustice going on. I think liberals have now decided that demonstrations are for crazy “tea partiers” who would just as soon go to war, and we rational political animals give well-crafted speeches appealing to peoples’ more refined instincts. I think that the biggest problem with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers is not their rhetoric, but the fact that they are wrong. Obama needs to realize that propaganda has its place, and that not all propaganda is “war propaganda.” So I do not think that the end of conversation signals the beginning of war, sometimes it just means that someone has decided this is what needs to be done.
on February 5th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Margaret, I’m sure if you were more specific, Eric would be glad to clarify his statements.
on February 5th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
There’s an out of place apostrophe in the antepenultimate line. Could that be the issue? Other than that, I’d say it reads fine.
on February 6th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Eric, I think you misread Obama’s talk. The thrust of it is about striving for the common good. Civility. in the sense of rationale and human discourse, is merely and means to that end. Your concern about the superficiality is justified; I just think you need to go deeper than that.
on February 6th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Eric –
I think you confuse civility and “niceness” or pleasantness. No, they aren’t the same. Courtroom communpication isn’t pleasant, but judges require civility to keep the adversaries away from each others’ throats. And judges require thatt the focus remain on provable facts, not on irrelevant motives. Hence name-calling and ugly insinuations are out of order. They only make opponents angry and cut down the possibility of rational thinking.
Insults do not persuade.
on February 6th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Eric–
I think what really bothers people is not that you had a mild criticism of Obama, but that you agree with Bob Schwartz.
on February 6th, 2010 at 8:55 am
As Ann suggests, distinctions need to be made. What is civility? Where do its norms come from?
Two books: Stephen Carter’s Civility, and John Murray Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility.
Carter attempts to address the question of civility v. niceness, and Cuddihy, Eric, will give you more ammunition–civility is internalized WASPdom.
on February 6th, 2010 at 10:08 am
I was not referring to the writing but the thinking, as several posts above confirm.
on February 6th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Perhaps it would be reasonable to expect more specific criticisms.
on February 6th, 2010 at 11:09 am
On the current scene, America has an editorial “Dysfunctiona;l” pointing the gun at congress and its filibuster rule, not the president, with the standard brands argumentative comments thereafter.
Glad to see Stephen Carter referenced – he cetainly argues for folks to get out their bubbles some time back and, even as this thread proves, it’s gotten worse.
on February 6th, 2010 at 11:45 am
I think the distinction between civility and agreeabilty (or niceness) is an important one. Civility should always be a goal, but not because a cilvil argument is a more reasonable one, but because civility promotes discussion.
However, I agree with the post that the call for “civility” is typically used as a bludgeon, but not so much to coerce the other side to agree, but to get them to shut up and therefore control the discussion. Civility can’t mean, your idea offends me.
Also, people need to be more realistic. When exactly was this golden age of civility in public discourse?
on February 6th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Okay, here are some details:
EB: “Essentially Obama is saying, “Come on Republicans, just be reasonable and pass the health care legislation.” While that is a very “civil” statement, it is far from an argument. It’s rhetoric parading as rationality.”
MOS: Obama has said many other things besides “Come on Republicans…”; he has asked them to consider the needs of the American people, he has pointed out the consequences of doing nothing about health care, and he has urged Democrats and Republicans to work out a compromise on health care. Those who have watched the travails of the legislative process may wish that Obama laid down the Law! But what law would that be, except demagogueing the Republicans. That may yet come, and we’ll see what civility and incivility is really all about. Obama seems to be genuinely urging any outliers among the Republicans to take another look at the consequences of failure.
EB: very next paragraph: “The fact of the matter is that Washington has replaced proper passionate debate over what constitutes a just society with civil procedure.” MOS: So segue from Obama to an anonymous Washington (who what where?). Then to C-span, which seems to have the mission of simply showing what is going on Publicly (a lot of peacock posturing), not behind the scenes. EB: “C-span gives you a perfectly soporific pageant of civil rhetorical presentation, which remains completely conventional even as it tries to sound blustery and full of pathos.” They video, you watch, you decide….
EB: “Actual reasoned argument tries to dismantle the false presuppositions of the interlocutor to reveal the shaky ground on which her conclusion rests. It depends on your goal. It is, in fact, not about finding common ground, but it is about showing that somebody’s ground simply is not there.” MOS: It depends on what you’re after: compromise, one more vote, winning someone to your point of view. Going after someone’s ground is the tactic most likely to mean you’ll never win. You’ve simply destroyed them. Civility?
Hope that clarifies my original comment.
on February 6th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Here is a good example where we can lose civility, stay non-violent and really militate for the children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/world/asia/06maid.html?ref=todayspaper
on February 6th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
To enter the political arena throwing punches, only to find that your opponent hits you back even harder, and then to whine about incivility is a sign of immaturity, and distinctly unpresidential.
Which political party claimed “politics ain’t beanbag” and “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”?
on February 6th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Margaret–I’m glad you took the time to critique some of Eric’s statements. The C-Span comment is true. They are just reporters. The truism about civility is that it takes time, patience, persistance, and finesse. And in the end, it takes a lot of hard work, if you want to get your point across nationally. Obama mis-calculated the work involved in passing legistation. And the problems are bigger and more complicated than anyone thought, and exaggerated by the economy. Healthcare is massively complicated. My husband was just commenting on the for-profit hospitals being a large part of the problem, even beyond the insurance companies.
on February 6th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Speaking of hospitals as Denise Phillips has, the travails of Saint Vincents in NYC appear about to end–in bankruptcy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/nyregion/06vincents.html?ref=nyregion
on February 6th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
We might think about it in terms of basic recognition of reality as well as civility.
If two people are authentically trying to communicate, they both are looking at a common reality and attempting to communicate about that reality. Reality is the context and common denominator and arbiter of the conversation, so communication demands a mutual, respectful exploration of reality.
“To perceive, as much as possible, all things are they really are and to act according to this truth … society as such is sustained by the truth publicly proclaimed and upheld … The natural habitat of truth is found in interpersonal communication. Truth lives in dialog, in discussion, in conversation; it resides, therefore in language. A language is well ordered when its words express reality with as little distortion and as little omission as possible.” (Jospf Pieper, Abuse of Language)
Power relationships avoid reality; it is the only way they can be maintained. There is no shared reference to reality, no requirement to explore it and therefore no need for evidence and reason. There is just the use of language as a tool to either dominate or be dominated.
“The relationship based on mere power, and thus the most miserable decay of human interaction, stands in direct proportion to the most devastating breakdown in orientation toward reality.” (Pieper)
“Then we are faced, in short, with the threat that communication as such decays, that public discourse becomes detached from the notions of truth and reality.” (Pieper)
“Instead of genuine communication, there will exist something for which domination is too benign a term. On one side there will be a sham authority, unsupported by any intellectual superiority, and on the other a state of dependency.”
on February 6th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I hope the outlook for political discourse is not as bleak as Jeanne paints it. But could the frustration felt by our populace be coming out in the form of the Teapartiers? If too many people believe “Civility has become an idol” as Eric suggests, then alternate answers may pop up at the grassroots level.
on February 7th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Margaret
Some of your comments are examples of why genuine dialogue never happens.
Just look at the health care mess. Saying things like “he has asked them to consider the needs of the American people” assumes that the other side isn’t considering the needs of the people. They are, they just think that theirs is a better way to do it. And as for “doing nothing” it’s not that they are for doing nothing, it’s just that , from their perspective, it might be better to let the fire burn than to throw gasoline on it.
The debate would be more productive if it was about how best to accomplish the goal rather than accusing the other side of not wanting to do good. When we can actually address the merits of an idea rather than the motives of the parties we’ll start getting somewhere.
on February 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Sean, all I can add to your comment is this:
“Some of your comments are examples of why genuine dialogue never happens.
“Just look at the health care mess. Saying things like “he has asked them to consider the needs of the American people” assumes that the other side isn’t considering the needs of the people. They are, they just think that theirs is a better way to do it. And as for “doing nothing” it’s not that they are for doing nothing, it’s just that , from their perspective, it might be better to let the fire burn than to throw gasoline on it.
“The debate would be more productive if it was about how best to accomplish the goal rather than accusing the other side of not wanting to do good. When we can actually address the merits of an idea rather than the motives of the parties we’ll start getting somewhere.”
on February 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Margaret
Then it is your position that the GOP members of congress simply don’t care about the welfare of the American people?
on February 7th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I guess my point is that the rhetoric is not helpful if instead of saying that the other side’s ideas will not work or will cause problems, one simply says they don’t care or are just lining the pockets of their supporters. If that is the approach then there is no need to listen to them.
on February 7th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Cathy –
Your question “what is civility?” is like the “obscenity” question. I don’t even know where to begin to define it. But I’m surr that it is, as Kant might put it, a condition of even the *possibility* of a democracy.
So what ust describes, if not defines it? Here’s my take.
Civility:
* Recognizes that one can be wrong about one’s opponents and also about oneself
* Is respectful, even of opponents, even of most enemies
* Never presumes to know the motives of strangers
* Rarely presumes to know the motives of non-strangers
* Does not insult others even by insinuation
* Persuades with evidence and non-emotive argument
* Listens attentively to others
* Cherishes truth
* Admits one’s errors gracefully.
on February 7th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Sean: I assume that the GOP members of Congress have an interest in the people who vote for them. But like the Democratic members of Congress, I assume they care mostly about their own personal welfare in getting re-elected (and I offer my two Senators, Schumer and Gillebrand as prime examples).
Not sure what your post at 10:52 refers to. I am perfectly willing to read and even agree with Eric Bugyis if he took the time to think through and make his point with care. Rhetoric that runs off the rails gets us nowhere. As I said above somewhere, maybe he should get an editor who would point out any lapses in his argument. Maybe a friend or relative should be asked to take a look before he posts. (I also posted above my critique of his first two paragraphs @2/06:11:58–though I am not volunteering to be his editor! Maybe you should step up to the plate.)
on February 7th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Ann,
I would almost entirely agree with your list, though I think there is a place for emotive arguments.
I wonder if there should be a special rule outlawing the “you need an editor” kind of insult. However, egregiously condescending though that is, it’s probably covered by several of your guidelines.
on February 7th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I think by Mrs. Claus comparison was a bit off.
on February 8th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Cathy –
You’re probably right about the rhetoric. Ther are times when outrage is morally called for, and emotive appeals might be called for in some of them. But I would view them as weapons of last resort.
As to “insult”, that’s another hard word to define. Are some justified? Well, many are true, and some are certainly *deserved*, but when should they be used? I’d say hardly ever, tempting as they are.
It seems to me we need to make a distinction between using insults to shame people, to urge them to change their behavior, and trying to use them to get people to change their minds. ISTM insults simply do not persuade anyone to change their minds. They might change *behavior* when the insulted knows the insultor speaks the truth, but otherwise? Hmm. I doubt it.
I am sure that many people don’t even realize they are being insulting when they shouldn’t be. They seem to think that telling the truth removes all culpability, that speaking the truth is always virtuous. I don’t think it is.
on February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“You need an editor” is not an insult. We all need editors, and to suggest so is to suggest that one’s thought is worthy of clarity and consistency. This is to acknowledge the idea that readers might be persuaded of an argument if it is well conceived and well stated. One of the problems with blogdom is that there are too few editors among friends and relatives to whom we can turn. Nonetheless, we should seek one out, and we should consider their advice.
on February 13th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Ann Olivier: I like your list, and the exchange with Kathy about the list is thought provoking. Truth needs to be tempered by using that list–but not tampered with. Good exchanges!