Civility, Sincerity, and Ambiguity

By Nick Jones, philosophy professor, University of Alabama-Huntsville
*Winner of the 2011 Whetstone-Seaman Faculty Development Award

1

We live in a pluralistic society. Persistent disagreement is inevitable. The source of this disagreement is an abundance of fundamentally different evaluative perspectives. Each perspective reflecting a unique history, culture, and tradition, prioritizes values and guides our actions toward realizing those values in ways that diverge, often with dramatic effect, from the priorities and guidance of competing perspectives. Absence of common purpose manifests itself as absence of consensus. Authenticity and integrity, put into action, further erode communal coherence. Standing up for what we believe, in the face of persistent disagreement, requires that others stand down or resist. But this erosion stops short of outright fissure, for what continues to unite all parties is their common condition. Despite our disagreements, despite the fundamental irreconcilability of our most treasured convictions and priorities, we must, for reasons of geography if nothing else, live out our lives in a fragmented society.

It is difficult to associate with those who reject our fundamental values, who hold values that we find insignificant or corrupt and advocate actions that we find misguided or repugnant. It is difficult to feel comfortable in their presence, to know how to interact with them, to want to interact at all (Bogard 2006). But these interactions are inevitable, if not in our everyday lives, then at least in our political ones, where the bonds of our common union ensure, through the mutual influence of part upon whole and whole upon part, that what affects one affects all others.

The Courage of Civility: Taming Public Discourse and Ourselves in the 21st Century

By Dr. Clifford Gentry Lee, assistant professor of philosophy, Troy University
*Runner-up for the 2011 Whetstone-Seaman Faculty Development Award

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. —President Obama.[1]

It is the easiest thing in the world to slide imperceptibly into vulgarity.  —Epictetus.[2]

In his comments at the memorial service for the victims of January’s senseless killing spree in Arizona, President Obama urged us to strive for a greater level of civility in our dealings with one another.  Especially urgent, he conveyed, is the need to counteract the hostility dominating the arena of public, that is, political discourse.  Yet, we need not look beyond our daily encounters with one another, whether it be within the corporate office, the college classroom, or the shopping aisles of the local supermarket, to find callous behavior present and tolerated as a norm.  Unapologetic and self-concerned, emotionally unregulated and thus quick to both take and offer offense when none is intended nor warranted, entrenched within a narrow perspective that insists at all costs on its correctness, experiencing criticism as opposition—if these are at all accurate descriptions of the citizens our social and educational institutions are producing, then we can only expect to see the tragic eruptions of senseless violence in our schools, streets and military bases continue to grow.  This divisive social reality feeds off itself as it is reflected back to us, legitimized through a corporate media seemingly unconcerned with informing the public responsibly and undeniably skillful at transforming what would be substantive material for rational discussion into mind numbing entertainment.  Children are often thrilled when a fight erupts on the playground during recess, sports fans, too, when the rules of sportsmanship are transgressed and the figurative battle on the field becomes an unrestrained brawl; likewise, the citizenry of our country are most transfixed before their televisions when what presents itself as a forum for discussion of the state of health care, the economy, immigration, and any of the other challenging issues our society faces in the present, quickly slips into an incendiary battle of ad hominems, shouting matches having more in common with the politics of the playground than the productive and informative debate of responsible adults they present themselves to be.

Civility as Manifest Respect

By Matthew Fitzsimmons, University of North Alabama

The focus of this paper is to demonstrate the normative nature of civility within certain public contexts.  Specifically, I explore civility as a manifestation of a specific type of moral respect.  As such an expression, I argue that civility should be understood as more than mere politeness; rather it is a moral obligation of respect due to another person, by virtue of that person’s autonomy (i.e.  having the capacity for rational decision-making).  In conjunction with this, I will also argue that this civil moral respect serves as a necessary condition for the possibility of self-actualization.  This latter claim will entail demonstrating that the realization of authentic subjectivity must be located within defined social contexts (the public sphere) in which one’s participation as citizen is made possible.

I begin with an exploration of Axel Honneth’s neo-Hegelian analysis of intersubjectivity in order to show how an authentic account of respect is dependent on social recognition.  Honneth’s theory of recognition then is used to understand the injurious forms of disrespect and to shed light on the problems of incivility. Once the theoretical move has been made to establish respect and citizenship as intersubjectively situated and contextually located, the analysis of the moral injury of incivility can take place.  I will argue that this occurs in two ways.  First, incivility within the public sphere impedes the achievement of self-actualization by preventing individuals from authentic participation in democratic decision-making.  As such, it precludes individuals from their realization as citizen.  Secondly, incivility facilitates moral injury in so far as it negates the identity of a person as an equal.  In other words, to experience disrespect via incivility places one in a position of inferiority in relation to the offender; that is, one is not to be considered a person deserving of respect and thus not on equal terms with those who are.  To be disrespected is thus, implicitly, to be categorized as “Other.”

The Virtue of Civility

By Matthew Carey Jordan, assistant professor of philosophy, Auburn Montgomery

One need not be an especially close observer of contemporary American society to have noticed that, though our public discourse may be described in many ways, ‘civil’ is probably not the most apt of the terms one might choose. From elected officials to sports talk radio hosts, vitriol seems to be the order of the day. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a more timely question than the one we have been asked to address here: what does civility mean in the twenty-first century debate? What does it mean for us to be genuinely civil—and to promote civility—in the years to come?

In what follows, I hope to take a step toward answering these questions. My view is that the meaning of civility is not something that changes radically from one century to the next, though each generation may need to be reminded afresh of what civility is and why it matters. The obstacles to civility are another matter. These may vary widely from culture to culture, and may come from unexpected places. In the first part of this essay, I will offer an account of the nature of civility as a social virtue, which is of particular importance in pluralistic democratic societies. I will argue that all of us have good reason to value and promote civility, both for its own sake and for our benefit. In the second part of the paper, I will identify a number of prominent threats to civility in our present social context. Some of these threats are posed by mainstream American culture; others, perhaps surprisingly, find their home in the American academy. My hope is that a keener awareness of these threats may enable us to stand against them in defense of civility and to be increasingly civil ourselves.

21st Century Civility in the Wake of the Obama Presidency: A New Perspective—the Same Old Story

By Dr. Michelle Bachelor Robinson, assistant professor, University of Alabama

As a scholar whose primary focus has been anchored in 19th-century rhetoric and literacy, I found writing about civility in the 21st century a challenge, and when considering what it might mean, I found myself being able to define it only by what it should NOT mean. It should not mean campaigning for office by exploiting your opponents deficiencies in order to highlight your capabilities. It should not mean employing all methods of propaganda to forward personal agendas. It should not mean sabotaging legitimate efforts toward growth and change simply because someone else thought of them first. Nevertheless, when my cursory glance at civility in the public sphere had settled, like a noble archivist and scholar of language, I returned to my rhetorical roots—classical rhetoric. As Plato accounts at length in The Republic, Socrates offers extensive instruction about the various characters of man and how those characters influence our perspectives on our moral and civic responsibilities (Book 8). Ultimately, the more civic responsibility is left in the hands of the people, the more anarchy and chaos will result. I imagine that political scientists and rhetoricians alike might find themselves arguing on either side of this divide, but what comes to mind as the most profound portion of Socrates’ argument is the assertion that in a democracy, citizens “[pay] no attention to what kind of life someone led before he entered political life! All anyone has to do to win favour is say he is a friend of the people” (270). He goes on to say that “These and related qualities will be the ones possessed by democracy. You’d expect it to be an enjoyable kind of regime—anarchic, colourful, and granting equality of a sort to equals and unequals alike” (270). He also facetiously refers to democracy as a “heaven-sent way of life” and as a “civilised” city where people do what they want when they want (269). Given the historical origin of the discussion of the polis which ultimately evolves into later discussions of civilitas with Cicero, Tacitus, Sallust, Plutarch, and Livy, I would argue that even though our democracy is more of a republic and fundamentally different from that which Socrates describes, civility in the 21st Century looks exactly as it should—anarchical, chaotic, and unruly.

Civility: What Does Civility Mean in the 21st Century Debate?

By W. Jason Wallace, Ph.D., Samford University

“Civility,” wrote New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks after the January 2011 Tucson, Arizona shooting, “is a tree with deep roots, and without the roots, it can’t last. So what are those roots?  They are failure, sin, weakness and ignorance.”  If Brooks is correct, the roots of civility are hard to uncover in the 21^st century.  They are hard to uncover, at least, if we agree that civility involves limitations on human nature; that it cannot thrive in an environment of indulgence, narcissism, license, and immodesty.  Civility, according to Brooks, is the opposite of self love, and the problem over the past 40 years or so is that “we have gone from a culture that reminds people of their own limitations to a culture that encourages people to think highly of themselves . . . over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness.” Brooks’ interpretation could, perhaps, be dismissed as a relic of Augustinian conservatism.  In fact, he closes his observations by quoting the most Augustinian of 20^th century Neo-Orthodox theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr: “Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love.  No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint.  Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.”  Augustinian, indeed.  Yet, even if one disagrees with Brooks’ theological analysis, it should be acknowledged that he, with help from Niebuhr, locates the loss civility where few public intellectuals dare to tread.  He views civility as an analogue of human nature best understood through an organic metaphor.  Human behavior has “deep roots,” and the health of these roots determines how durable the practice of civility.[1]

Coming soon: The winning papers of the Whetstone-Seaman Faculty Development Award

The Whetstone-Seaman Faculty Development Award is an AHF initiative meant to offer Alabama junior scholars professional development opportunities. Deans of arts and sciences at accredited institutions across Alabama were invited to nominate the most promising junior humanities scholar to participate in an essay contest. The topic of this year’s contest was “Civility: What Does Civility Mean in the 21^st Century Debate?”

A selection committee composed of humanities scholars reviewed the papers blindly and selected the top six for publication in the Alabama Humanities Review. The winner of the contest will also receive a $3,000 development grant and is invited to present his/her paper at the upcoming civility forum. This event will be held at the Alabama Department of Archives and History (Alabama Power Auditorium) in Montgomery on March 25 at 9:30 a.m. The forum is sponsored by AHF and the David Matthews Center for Civic Life.

The presentation will be followed by responses from five Alabamians, including noteworthy Alabama historian and Anniston Star columnist Dr. Harvey H. Jackson; media personality Tim Lennox; Birmingham entrepreneur and author Shelley Stewart; Central High School (Phenix City) gifted education teacher Barbara Romey; and David Mathews Center for Civic Life intern/Auburn University student Alexandria Smith. Christopher McCauley of the David Mathews Center will moderate discussion.

There is no cost to attend and refreshments will be served beginning at 9:00 a.m. For more information, contact the Mathews Center at (205) 665-9005 or AHF at (205) 558-3993.

About the Alabama Humanities Foundation

The purpose of the Alabama Humanities Foundation is to create and foster opportunities to explore human values and meanings through the humanities. AHF is a nonprofit organization funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (of which AHF is the state affiliate), as well as by corporate and individual donors. AHF conducts its own statewide programs, such as the Road Scholars Speakers Bureau, SUPER teacher institutes and SUPER Emerging Scholars for students, and awards grants, on a competitive basis, to nonprofit organizations for humanities projects. For more information on AHF and its programs, please visit ahf.net or call (205) 558-3980.

About the David Mathews Center for Civic Life

The David Mathews Center for Civic Life is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. The Center’s purpose is to foster infrastructure, habits, and capacities for more effective civic engagement and innovative public decision-making. The Mathews Center is focused on how citizens create political will and sustain public policy through community decisions. For more information on the Mathews Center, please visit mathewscenter.org or call (205) 665-9005.