The Mind of my Peace: In Praise of Civility

No doubt about it, the elections of 2006 are over, and the race to the new Congress and its new-found power has begun! The last few days have seen some interesting dialogues here, have they not? True to form, members of this community engage others in the discussion of serious matters: Patriotism, the Presidency, Israel and Palestine, Iraq, health care, poverty, drug policy... and many more! In all these topics earnest comments often appear - alas, also true to form - in less than civil guise. Could any of this be due to the fact that some prominent posters assure us that civility is overrated?

Let's discuss this further. Civilly, if you would be so kind.

Let me be clear
I am no civility nut. I do not even care about civility. And I can tell you that in my own kncokdwon drag outs with [-], we have called ourselves many names, publicly and privately. We knew that didn't matter.

But the most important thing we did was actually ADDRESS each other's arguments with substance.

This comment implies that one can argue content absent civility and that it all really doesn't matter as long as the argument contains substance. Undoubtedly, at the most basic level this is very true. But is it necessary? And in the long run, when attempting to discuss good public policy within a group, is it the best method?

We all know the prickly personalities, the charming eccentrics, the wilfully obtuse. Since toddlerhood, we have all known that some are easier to get along with than others. That's always an issue in interpersonal relationships, but these are not the conflicts I am talking about here.

Maybe some of the conflict we see here comes from a sort of way of looking at life while blogging. For want of a better term, let me call it "The Beethoven Syndrome." The Romantic notion of the artist/blogger, alone in a garret, typing up a storm and railing against fate and the cruelty of the masses not ready for the message or the messenger... well it does have a certain appeal (though it bears no reflection on the real Beethoven, of course). The danger in this situation is that at least Beethoven was aware that he was deaf. This allowed him to become much more acutely aware of the plight of others and to speak to all humanity. He might be boorish from time to time on a personal level, but in his public statements, he expressed his conflicts in the most sublime fashion he could manage.

Controversial, challenging writers

have a harder time now, I think. When the dominant voices were people who had been here for a while, who all knew one another, and who had spent months discussing, arguing, fighting, agreeing with each other, there was a much higher level of respect. And a more real civility because it was born out of respect.

I like this comment very much, though I have an issue with the last part. Civility comes before respect. It takes very little effort to think of historical instances where the fighting came first, respect came second and civility came last of all, if ever. The question is, could the long process possibly have been shortened had civility come first?

I have felt that lately,

an ideal of "niceness" has arisen in some quarters that essentially requires an absence of challenge or depth.  That everyone is very nice to each other, and always conspicuously supportive, but that there's very little there there.  And one effect of this is that, as you say, the demanding, confrontational, but talented voices are dismissed as merely rude, without the dismissive reader feeling any duty to consider whether there are genuine points being made.

I think you are right that civility born out of true respect (and a respect that actually seeks to understand the other's view) is more real.

I tend to agree a bit with this comment, too. The problem is the equivalence of civility with niceness. They are not at all the same. Civility is a method of discourse, an attempt to speak with others. It involves listening, a critical element missing in niceness for niceness' sake. Indeed, Guy and Heidi Burgess of the University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium have written an excellent paper on civil discourse. In it, they outline some of the items they have found to assist in something they call "constructive confrontation."

To commend the paper more to your attention, I list only the most salient points relevant to my point here:

1. Separating people from the problem [!]

2. Obtain available technical facts (most here seem to do well on that one)

3. Limit interpersonal misunderstandings

Right. you say. And how does one do that? Well, it helps to attempt to restate the other person's argument in as good a light as you can to see if you understood it. They may have written it poorly, but that is not necessarily evidence of poor thought.

5. (I skipped 4, as it does not apply here) Limit escalation.

9. (some of the other points are for another diary) Keep trying to persuade and allow yourself to be persuaded.

10. More persuasion, more exchange, less force.

I have said it before, I'll say it again... if we cannot even discuss policy civilly with relatively like-minded individuals, how do we ever plan to address the gulf between us and others who view the world very differently? Contempt is the easy way out of a discussion, but it never persuades. It only validates those who already held the opinion stated, while alienating those who might have been open to the argument.

Tips, Please.

Even you folks who still think - wrongly - that this is silly, or "not the right time", or "divisive" - whatever your personal but outdated belief should recimmed [?] and support reform.

Don't get me wrong - I support YOUR right to stay uninformed and stuck in the past: I myslef still listen to music from the early 70's and continue to enjoy it.

How many people in the end were won over by that comment? Out of context from its diary, can anyone doubt its intent to stifle, not encourage, discussion?

When all is said and done, you need not take my word for it. I appeal to a superior politician. George Washington had copied his Rules for Civility before he was sixteen and seems to have lived by them ever after. I quote a few here that are relevant. Note the first rule!

1st Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.
23d When you see a Crime punished, you may be inwardly Pleased; but always shew Pity to the Suffering Offender.
40th Strive not with your Superiers in argument, but always Submit your Judgment to others with Modesty.
41st Undertake not to Teach your equal in the art himself Proffesses; it Savours of arrogancy.
44th When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it.
45th Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in publick or in Private; presently, or at Some other time in what terms to do it & in reproving Shew no Sign of Cholar but do it with all Sweetness and Mildness.
46th Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given but afterwards not being culpable take a Time & Place convenient to let him him know it that gave them.
58th Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for 'tis a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.
89th Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust.
110th Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience.

For more civility in public policy, I refer you to these sites:

The National Civility Center
P. M. Forni's site at Johns Hopkins University

and, in some ways most interesting:

a forum for dialogue in Arab societies

I hope you enjoy this moment of civility in your day. Whether you agree or disagree with the necessity of civility in discourse here - or even in general - I welcome your comments. As with the majority of Americans, those who speak to me with respect are most likely to gain hearing.

Thank you for your time!