Civility

March 9, 2003

". . .Civility, in its root meaning, has less to do with being polite than it does with being a citizen, participating in the political process. This would suggest that if politeness is part of civility, it is such not for its own sake, but for the purpose of facilitating citizen participation."

-Suzanne R. Spencer

In the United States, we might be able to agree that the ends sought by civility are freedom, justice, and equality. Or, as the Pledge of Allegiance has it, "liberty and justice for all." In order to maximize these ideals, it is desirable, but not inevitable, that any debate about them should be carried on in what we might call "a civil manner." While, as we know, or should know, that polite behavior is a must in the smooth running of a group where everyone knows everyone else, and even within our own families, how much more important it becomes when we are dealing with strangers: those whom we don't know as well, those who are different from us, or those who disagree with us.

Civility, then, is about politeness only insofar as it enables conversation and debate about issues which are, or should be, of concern to us all. It is not about agreement, though I suspect it is usually, or often, about reaching compromise. At its deepest level, civility is about our duty to practice good citizenship through constructive participation in the political process and in the local community.

I am not a philosopher or a logician. But I think that I have learned a few things over the years about the benefits of decency and courtesy. I have observed first hand how a well-timed apology can defuse a volatile situation, and how a willingness to listen to others can calm a difficult situation and make reconciliation, if not agreement, possible.

You may be discouraged to learn, then, as I was, about the latest "shock jock" to hit the television airwaves. Michael Savage, and his program "The Savage Nation," will soon be joining the "O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" in the race to see who can create the most mean-spirited pseudo-news programming on TV.

According to Savage, people who oppose a war with Iraq are "morons." South Africa's Nelson Mandela is "a terrorist." The American Civil Liberties Union is "a foreign organization . . . a bunch of seditious creeps." Joseph McCarthy was "100 percent right." In Savage's view, America's "borders, language, and culture [have] to be defended against those who assault it," which apparently includes just about everyone. In his work in talk radio in San Francisco, Savage has been out Rushing Rush Limbaugh, and his popularity has soared as a result.

Despite Savage's claim that entertainment industry leaders are "worthless garbage," they seem more than willing, in the quest for higher ratings, to put him on the air, and he seems to have no qualms about letting them.

Perhaps I am naive, or perhaps it is just because I am overly sensitive to liberal bashing, but I personally will not greet Mr. Savage's program with much enthusiasm. Such mean-spiritedness makes me sad, and I believe it gives conservatism a bad name. As many others who have spent years trying to build community, I find it disturbing when those who wish to spread ill-will and divisiveness are given a free rein to do so. In the wrong hands, say in the hands of a Timothy McVeigh, that free rein sometimes becomes dangerous.

While genuine disagreement obviously has a place in a free society, the way in which that disagreement is aired does, it seems to me, make a difference in how constructive the debate about it will be. One-sided argument, and argument ad hominem, have never been particularly effective tools of debate, in this time or in any other.

Of course, the lack of civility in our time has many other manifestations: road rage, in which we rail at our fellow drivers, and they at us, and worse; racial and religious invective; and poor sportsmanship at sporting events by both players and fans, and by parents of players. I well remember a basketball game I attended several years ago in a community not to be mentioned where the talented but diminutive point guard of our local high school junior varsity team was greeted by cries of "kill him" from adults in the opposite stands.

We, and they, need to get a grip.

Despite the fact that we talk glibly about the "global village," our new proximity to one another has done little to improve our manners. If anything, we seem to know each other even less than we did before, when the world was a larger place than we know it to be today. Perhaps because we don't really know who our neighbors are, it is easier to curse them when they cut us off, or to participate in rabid shows of partisanship at local sporting events. It is easier to complain about what we don't understand than it is to find out the truth about it. It is easier to tune in only to what we want to hear than to listen to something which challenges our own prejudices, in whatever direction those prejudices run.

I am willing to concede that some incivility may be a result of fear, and of some people's legitimate perception of being marginalized or excluded from the seats of power. But to incite people's fears is, I believe, both unconscionable and dangerous.

Good citizenship takes constant effort. Dissent is actually a legitimate and necessary aspect of civil society. Democracy depends on the constructive airing of differences. The truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle, between our most dearly held convictions and those of our opponents. But we must be willing to participate in the process.

Incivility at home reminds me of the ethnic tensions I have observed in places like Romania: neither side truly listens to the other; both sides perpetuate false histories in which each is innocent victim; the other, who of necessity remains a stranger because no conversation is really taking place (often because there is no shared language), must never be allowed to have more, to be more, to get any kind of advantage whatsoever. The result is an endless cycle of distrust and often violence, where nothing is resolved and no progress is ever made.

A similar stalemate has characterized the abortion debate in this country during the last thirty years. Following the murder of two clinic workers in Brookline by John Salvi Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote about the importance of civility, asking, "Is it only the survivors of violence, the large concentric circle of those who are touched by loss, who come to value the ability to hold our tongues, to speak civilly to opponents, to live together with differences?" We must hope that it is not so, and that we can learn to care for each other and to live together in spite of our differences.

Some questions arise: what are the long term dangers of incivility, meaning not just poor manners, but the lack of citizen participation and real debate? Must all discourse be heard in a free society, even when the intention is to incite hate? How much incivility is the result of legitimate fear, and are we doing enough to alleviate the fears of people in different and sometimes excluded groups in our society?

In his book entitled Civility, ethicist Stephen Carter defines civility as "the sum of the many sacrifices we are called [upon] to make for the sake of living together." Have we become unwilling to make those sacrifices any longer? Carter suggests that in a civil society the common good must be placed above one's own self interest, but that the cry for "individual rights" in our day has superceded civility. In other words, he is suggesting that individual rights may need to be abrogated in order for a civil society to exist.

Getting back to the practice of civility may mean a return to the notion of the golden rule and to the idea of neighborliness as it comes from the Jewish and Christian tradition. For as Carter says, "[Civility's] foundation is in the heart and in our love and respect for our fellow human beings." If we think of our neighbors, and of those who disagree with us, as "morons" and "scum of the earth," it is not likely that we will make much progress, if any, toward a truly civil society.

Against this contemporary background, it is interesting to consider the "110 maxims for good conduct" which George Washington copied into his notebook before he was sixteen years old. They became a guide to his later character. Along with those suggesting good manners, such as "When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered," and "Kill no vermin as fleas, lice, ticks &c in the sight of others," and "At meat, scratch not, neither spit, cough, or blow your nose except there's a necessity for it," Washington included others which we might consider as still legitimate and necessary rules of civility:

• Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present
• Shew not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy
• Undertake not to teach your equal in the art himself proffesses; it savors of arrogancy
• When a man does all he can though it succeeds not, blame not him that did it
• Use no reproachfull language against anyone, neither curse nor revile
• Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any
• 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
• Be not forward but friendly and courteous; the first to salute, hear and answer. . .
• Reprehend not the imperfections of others. . .
• When you deliver a matter do it without passion & with discretion, however mean the person be you do it to
• In disputes, be not so desirous to overcome as not to give liberty to each one to deliver his opinion and submit to the judgement of the major part especially if they are judges of the dispute
• Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust
• Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

Let us think upon this, and strive to work toward a church and a world where differences are respected, where opinions are heard, where ideas are shared, where good ends do not justify unjust and unkind means, where each of us takes responsibility for creating the beloved community we dream of, where all are welcomed and all are cherished for who they really are. So may it be. Amen.

The Rev. Harold E. Babcock