Eleven Theses on Civility
https://socialtextjournal.org/eleven-theses-on-civility/
The above is a link to Tavia Nyong'o and Kyla Wazana Tompkins' "Eleven Theses on Civility". A short read, well worth reading. Some highlights:
Some commentary: First, I like this because it acknowledges that there is politics to civility. That is, civility isn't some 'neutral' position that merely concerns 'style' while the substance of political argument is elsewhere. Rather, the demand for civility is political from the get-go: it says, only these claims are worth entertaining, while these others are not. Couple this with the fact that 'civility' is always the privilege of those who are not affected by issues - or at least are comfortable with them - it basically puts the ball in their court and keeps it there. Moreover, as Nyong'o and Tompkins put it, the equation of incivility with, say, actual violence, is absurd, and only serves to protect actual violence ("you can't critique violence unless you're nice about it").
Second, it strikes me that for most liberals, civility just is the entire content of their politics. That is, politics, rather than being about making lives better, or undoing injustice, simply amounts to 'being nice to each other'. For the liberal, the best slaveowner would be the slaveowner who is nice to their slave and treats them well. The fact that there is a slave relation at all, or that people might feel outraged at the existence of that social relation, takes second place to whether or not we can discuss slavery in a civil manner. Ditto any modern day injustice. This is what Nyong'o and Tompkins means when they say that "liberals individuate; radicals collectivize" - liberals make political problems individual problems, problems of mere behavioral expression and psychological disposition. Yet for obvious reasons, this changes nothing. Hence: "The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization".
For liberals, politics is exhausted by Michelle Obama's "They go low, we go high". Never mind that her husband was instrumental in entrenching structural inequality in America. None of this means that we ought to be 'uncivil' at all times and at all places. Nor is it a license just to be a dick. But recognizing the limits and primacy of 'civility' talk is something all the more important insofar the general lack of political education in society usually leaves people grasping for 'civility' as some kind of minimal requirement of discussion, at all times, in all places. It is not.
The above is a link to Tavia Nyong'o and Kyla Wazana Tompkins' "Eleven Theses on Civility". A short read, well worth reading. Some highlights:
- "Civility discourse enforces a false equation between incivility and violence that works to mask everyday violence as a civic norm. The violence that is polite is thrice as damaging as the direct attack because it gaslights as it wounds".
- "Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity... When they tell us to be more civil, we need to go bigger, ask for more, come back harder".
- "Civility is a political aesthetic that obscures its politicity by asserting that it is “only” an aesthetic or a style. It is thus an aesthetic that is served by the assertion that aesthetics and politics are separate realms".
Some commentary: First, I like this because it acknowledges that there is politics to civility. That is, civility isn't some 'neutral' position that merely concerns 'style' while the substance of political argument is elsewhere. Rather, the demand for civility is political from the get-go: it says, only these claims are worth entertaining, while these others are not. Couple this with the fact that 'civility' is always the privilege of those who are not affected by issues - or at least are comfortable with them - it basically puts the ball in their court and keeps it there. Moreover, as Nyong'o and Tompkins put it, the equation of incivility with, say, actual violence, is absurd, and only serves to protect actual violence ("you can't critique violence unless you're nice about it").
Second, it strikes me that for most liberals, civility just is the entire content of their politics. That is, politics, rather than being about making lives better, or undoing injustice, simply amounts to 'being nice to each other'. For the liberal, the best slaveowner would be the slaveowner who is nice to their slave and treats them well. The fact that there is a slave relation at all, or that people might feel outraged at the existence of that social relation, takes second place to whether or not we can discuss slavery in a civil manner. Ditto any modern day injustice. This is what Nyong'o and Tompkins means when they say that "liberals individuate; radicals collectivize" - liberals make political problems individual problems, problems of mere behavioral expression and psychological disposition. Yet for obvious reasons, this changes nothing. Hence: "The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization".
For liberals, politics is exhausted by Michelle Obama's "They go low, we go high". Never mind that her husband was instrumental in entrenching structural inequality in America. None of this means that we ought to be 'uncivil' at all times and at all places. Nor is it a license just to be a dick. But recognizing the limits and primacy of 'civility' talk is something all the more important insofar the general lack of political education in society usually leaves people grasping for 'civility' as some kind of minimal requirement of discussion, at all times, in all places. It is not.
Comments (90)
Political civility is gaslighting.
However,that said,political groups and so called "rebels" will only use this article as an excuse to be dicks.
A good opportunity for clarification though, so I thank you for that.
The responses "misses the point" only if the person agrees with you in regard to your last points -- the points you made about Israel and Rumsfeld. If I fully agreed with you there I wouldn't be condemning you for incivility I'd say you were just stating a fact.
I know from a psychological standpoint that it makes no sense to engage an opponent who's not going to be civil. I'm not going to waste my time.
How so? A disagreement would normally occasion an attempt to refute the claim. Whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant to, well, the irrelevancy of tone policing.
But, if you'd rather not waste time, then thanks for your posts they have been wonderful :)
Not cherrypicking, but wanted to follow up on this. I’ve never heard anyone respond with a demand for civility or niceness to those points, usually its an uncivil response in return.
Who says that?
My thoughts as well. Nobody asks for civility. Civility is a matter of natural selection.
Refuting the claim would be very cumbersome and we wouldn't even be able to make it through the claim. For example, let's start with your first example: "Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land" if I were to seriously try to engage this I would stop you at the word "apartheid" and we would begin a detail comparison of both the apartheid system in South Africa and the current state of racial affairs in Israel. You and I also just disagree on what being a racist means.
Quoting StreetlightX
I do not agree with this.
"Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land"
If you are correct, this is a very important fact and you're doing good by trying to spread it. If this is incorrect then it's very defamatory.
Quoting StreetlightX
Are you being serious right now? :chin:
Well people ask for civility but in my experience not in topics like that.
What do you mean by natural selection?
People try to remain civil to preserve the foundation and utility of speech. Where a lack of civility rules, it's just a verbal cesspool.
So people who can't manage civility deselect themselves from serious proceedings.
Makes sense.
You would indeed find out that Israel is far worse than anything remotely achieved by apartheid South Africa, as reported by Nelson Mandela's grandson, say. But that's neither here nor there. Just a random example. The point is that when dealing with such claims, the immediate pearl clutching involved in an appeal to civility is a power play through and through - one that aims to disable political claims by diverting the issues into personal or psychological ones. Which, happily, you did not do in your response to my genocidal Israel example.
Well...
If "incivility is anger directed at unjust civil ordering" it's difficult to object to incivility, and urge civility, isn't it? On the other hand, if it's merely rudeness, offensiveness or insolence (as "incivility" is typically defined) then the "Eleven Theses" don't seem so compelling.
I wonder if the invocation of Luther is deliberate. If so, let's be thankful there aren't 95 of them in this case.
Let's credit the authors of the piece with knowing how "incivility" is commonly defined, and the understanding that they're engaged in an exercise in rhetoric. In fact, "anger directed at unjust civil ordering" is appropriate. Regardless, though, that isn't to say that "incivility" is, or that "civility" is in some sense protective of or promotes "unjust civil ordering." Incivility, as commonly defined, is (I think) characteristic of many of the right-wing. It's also characteristic of bigots, and those who sexually harass in the workplace, and of other disagreeable folk. It may be that civility is inappropriate in some cases. I think that can be established without redefining words for rhetorical purposes, though.
If we want to address Israel then before we address that we need to address our conflicting conceptions of genocide and racism. I find your conception of genocide too broad. My objection is that, if I remember your definition correctly, it allowed for one to make the jump from 'X [assuming X is the stronger power] implements policies that undermine social institutions of Y [weaker] group' to 'X is essentially committing genocide against Y.' I find this conclusions carries absurd implications.
Many topics in political discourse for the left are of great moral importance and strong emotional views and expression are natural and justified.
The first component I see, of incivility in the left, comes from the circumstances surrounding the moral implications of their claims. Claims of racism, sexism, oppression, inequality, anti-LGBT, corruption and the list goes on. Directed at the system and individuals, for saying, supporting, or even just not doing anything to stop, any of these things. Where it's justified to drop civility because an uncivil response to racism or sexism is justified, one can be forceful without being rude but if there's a time to be rude, it's when one is dealing with things like these. Of course, I don't agree with how someone like you sees these things even remotely, but I'm not in a position to dictate how others feel.
The second component is addressing the system and structure of society and expressing one's discontent with strong language. Criticising capitalism, for example, and the counterarguments of capitalist culture, and risking offending people affected or potentially even implicated with your criticism. And for this one, again, I think it's justified, People are justified in expressing their moral outrage and disapproval in a way that feels natural to them, especially because it's a topic of moral importance. Calls for civility can deny and attempt to invalidate the outrage which is warranted by the nature of the criticism and often of what is being criticised. Calls of civility in this context say that this topic is not a topic where that kind of strong feeling is justified and puts the critic on trial for their (warranted?) anger.
However, civility towards others should be the basis of most people's politics, the recognition that it's guaranteed that people don't think the same should lead people to the conclusion that treating people who think differently from you rudely can only lead to its prevalence in discourse. Rudeness towards others fosters tribalism, close-mindedness, ignorance and activates nearly every psychological barrier to listening to or understanding others. Incivility towards structures needs to be earned and incivility towards people needs to be earned. But again I don't get to dictate for others, when it is or isn't earned.
Since the radical left's ideology based around postmodernism orientates itself around issues to do with race, gender, LGBT, oppression, inequality and so on, every political issue is an issue which warrants outrage and is an issue which can't be compromised on. And so with you and many others, the fair exception for incivility is just the new norm. How you are uncivil is the totality of how you communicate your political ideas.
The issues are always high-stakes and anything less than the strongest criticism for apologists or offenders is an unpleasant compromise. If you truly think someone is defending something you believe that absolutely must be stopped then what kind of speech isn't justified? What if a substantial percentage of people are part of the problem?
There are so many different contexts, and ways of being uncivil, different intentions and what else accompanies it, there's no way to address them all. When I call for civility, it's because I don't think the level of incivility has been earned and that's the issue. I'll treat someone I think of as racist harshly and that's justified but if you call someone racist, I'm unlikely to buy that and when you treat that person bad with aggression. I feel like you're being unreasonable and disruptive, I want that person to be able to have a seat at the table but I wouldn't feel that way about someone I thought was a racist. I wouldn't have asked for civility if I thought they didn't deserve it.
Then yeah, your conclusion follows from the logic: If you correctly, 100% understand the reality of the situation and all those stupid wrong people that keep insisting on civility when there's genocide and racism everywhere then they're pieces of shit and they need to shut up and get in line.
But I could do the same right back at you: Every government in the world is committing genocide against its minority populations and you need to STFU and get in line. I better not hear dissent. Burn everything down.
I feel like I could make the case for this one under your definition of genocide.
I agree with the OP I was just trying to take the discussion a little further.
One can be aggressive toward powers that be while being fully civil (reasonable and not rude). Tree huggers and water protectors, as only two examples, do it all the time. Aggression and civility are not mutually exclusive, especially when the aggression is defensive. Where propaganda enters is when tree huggers and water protectors are deemed uncivil strictly on grounds that they violate the prevailing status quo.
And that leads us to deeming war-mongers civil and pacifists uncivil. Only here do your three highlights begin to make sense.
The movements started by Gandhi or MLK, both of which violated the prevailing authoritarian norms of the day, would have gone nowhere in the absence of their civility.
I think the text perhaps suffers from not differentiating between different aspects of civility. The historical connection between the rules of "civil discourse" and the maintenance of structures of power seems clear to me. The English language remains a particularly striking example of this. But non-adherence to the rules of civility as established by the privileged is indeed frequently used as a method to minimise the influence of the marginalized.
Yet any kind of conversation does need some standard of civility to allow ideas to be exchanged effectively. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the ad-hoc civility of a conversation and cultural standards of civility?
Quoting Judaka
Perhaps we could call this "emotional civility", based on the respect for others as humans, rather than the performative civility of not using certain words etc.
Dismissing content of what others say in favour of dismissal is a pretty common human tendency, especially in politics. What you said in the OP seems like an example of that but nothing particularly insightful. What an I missing?
I think this is really wrong-headed. When I say "hello" to someone on the street, when I open the door for someone, when I speak calmly about important issues, when I say "thank you" when I buy something, I am setting the stage. I am expressing my understanding that we are all here together as a community and that I intend to treat others with respect. It's an act of recognition.
Is courtesy often used hypocritically or cynically as a rhetorical weapon? Yes, of course. Is it ever ok to raise your voice and yell out your anger? Yes, of course it is.
Criticizing the words and actions of Donald Rumsfeld and recognizing the consequences of those actions is not the same thing as gloating over his death. The problem with hatred, anger, and vitriol is that, in most cases, it doesn't lead to the best solution to the problem at hand. You see that now in the US. The hatred and resentment have taken over and become more important than the issues that generated them.
Your post makes a good case.
I would like to point to two types of ‘radicalized’ or collectivized thinking. The first hews closer to Marx than to Foucault and even maintains remnants of Christian moralism. It does so by seeing power as held by certain collectives. Foucault, instead, sees only differentials of force that flow though , form and reform subjectiviities as a social process, but are never merely possessed by individuals or collectives. Why is this difference important for the political understanding of incivility? I think the Marxist-inspired radicalism relies on a blameful finger-pointing moralism. If power can be invested i. groups , then those groups can be seems morally culpable band treated as such. This is the condemnation and accusation that those accused of injustice perceive as incivility.
An example of the non-moralizing radical alternative that comes to mind is Ken Gergen’s socialconstructivist approach.
In 1999 he penned an article about identity politics:.
“By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent). In western culture we essentially inherit two conversational responses to such forms of chastisement - incorporation or antagonism. The incorporative mode ("Yes, now I see the error of my ways") requires an extended forestructure of understandings (i.e. a history which legitimates the critic's authority and judgment, and which renders the target of critique answerable). However, because in the case of identity politics, there is no preestablished context to situate the target in just these ways, the invited response to critique is more typically one of hostility, defense and counter-charge.
In its critical moment, social constructionism is a means of bracketing or suspending any pronouncement of the real, the reasonable, or the right. In its generative moment, constructionism offers an orientation toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation. Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? As we find, then, social constructionism is a two edged sword in the political arena, potentially as damaging to the wielding hand as to the opposition.”(Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics)
“For are we not all, in a Bakhtinian sense, akin to polyphonic novels, speaking in multiple voices, reflecting multiple traditions? If we inherit a pluralism of moral intelligibilities, on what grounds could we select among them - save from the standpoint of yet another inherited intelligibility? And, finally, if moral deliberation is inherently cultural, then in what sense are we justified in holding individuals responsible for the humane society? Isn't individual blame thus a mystification of our condition of interdependence?
“If we do envision the impulse toward action as a byproduct of relational engagement, we may also refigure the institutions of blame and responsibility. For if we hold single individuals responsible for their actions, we again position ourselves symbolically as God - here the supreme judge of good and evil. And in our godlike form, we effectively deny our participation in the culture, treating ourselves as the overseeing eye, suspended above the acts of mortals. In contrast, if we envision action as a relational outcome, our sensibilities are horizontally recast. Specifically, a stance of relational responsibility is invited, one in which we approach heinous and egregious action with a curiosity of context. That is, we broaden the network of participation, to consider how the relationships in which the erring individual was involved (personal, mediated, and environmental) have brought about such an end. And, as we broaden the relational context so as to include multiple others, so should we consider their relationships and how they impinge on the actions in question. And if our concern is sufficiently great, we may eventually reach the point in which we realize our own complicity in the action. Blame and responsibility are thus distributed within the community, and indeed the culture. We are all invited thereby to join together in actions that would establish more promising future. (Here, for example, we might consider our own participation in the problem of drugs, rape, homicide, and joblessness).”(Relational Humanism)
I'm not certain what you mean by "civil discourse." Certainly words used, accent, the use of slang, are taken by some as determinative of status. That may be particularly the case with the English language (or at least the English); I don't know. Napoleon famously called Talleyrand "shit in a silk stocking" (in French, presumably) and was thought by Talleyrand to have bad manners ("A pity so great a man should have such bad manners" or words to that effect).
Do the rules of "civil discourse" prohibit the use of insults? If so, how does that "minimise the influence of the marginalized"?
of unknowingly being in thrall to dominating powers
You think there's a civil way to talk to the person robbing or raping you?
And that if they remind you that you ought to be civil to them, they are fully justified to do so, and you, as a proponent of civility, should oblige?
Well, certainly that's what he means by "I think of civility as akin to table manners" you gibbering, drooling, fatuous, miserable, pompous, self-righteous, preening, inane cretin. What else would he mean?
Upvote for best use of a thesaurus, although I'm sure you didn't need one.
Don't get civil on me, now.
Civility is a standard for behaviour that generates a particular type of discourse that can be valued in itself. It prevents situations from breaking down into avoidable conflict, it's a practical consideration as well as the extension of moral tenets like treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself. In politics, civility is giving someone the benefit of the doubt or acting like you are, that they came to their opinion without some major character deficit nor to make their opinion a major character deficit. Thus, yes, some words can't be considered civil, they unleash the full brunt of your discontent and invite conflict. I don't see the value of your distinction.
I am rarely interested in coming to a conclusion on somebody else's intelligence or goodness. I hold a relativistic outlook, and I see my positions as being products of my psychology, personality, experiences, education, culture and so on. So I am more interested in understanding how someone came to a conclusion, and why I didn't come to that conclusion, which helps me to learn about myself and others. I also value the product of an idea in relation to its impact on a person, rather than thinking ideas have intrinsic merit. But I do think we draw a line, that regardless of experiences or product, certain things are not okay. I think where the radical left is militant is that where they draw a line is incredibly assertive and disruptive. Which they take pride in. I absolutely will go in on somebody for being overtly racist in my presence, I go from wanting an interesting dialogue to fulfilling a moral obligation if that makes sense. I sympathise with that element of the radical left, I just think sometimes it's ridiculous how little it takes. Simply hearing someone supports Trump is enough to deserve disdain and disgust on a level that truly shocks me, one dumb comment on Twitter sends people into a frenzy, it's too much. There's no mitigation either, it doesn't matter if someone has a good heart and good intentions, I don't agree with that. I end up asking for civility because I don't agree with why they say civility is no longer appropriate.
Quoting Judaka
As I suggested earlier in this thread, I suspect that it may not be possible to locate the way in which incivility is being intended in the op unless one connects it with a series of discourses that run through neo-Marxism, critical theory and post-structuralist writing. Put differently, it would be a question of differentiating between your brand of relativism and understanding of the role of social influence , and what I suspect is a more radical shift away from individualism toward a thoroughgoing socially constructed notion of subjectivity that the op is pointing to.
Translation: it pisses people off when their good intentions are being attacked and condemned on the basis of accusations of agendas of hegemony , privilege, domination and bias that is supposedly hidden and implicit in the idea of individualistic civility.
Agree 100% and I want to re-post this for visibility.
Quoting Judaka
It's interesting you say that - I always try to gauge these things from people. I just won't engage someone in conversation seriously if I judge them to be low intelligence.
I also find goodness important to gauge and my judgment on someone's core decency will affect how I interact with them.
In the article, incivility is firstly defined as anger, as an act of outrage. https://socialtextjournal.org/eleven-theses-on-civility/
"Incivility is anger directed at unjust civil ordering. It is a rage directed at political structures that triggers a negating response that labels it “personal.” But incivility is radically different from the disinhibited expression of anger and the incitement of violence in the service of a white settler order, such as we daily experience around us. Left incivility is the strategic outward direction of rage–out-rage. If you aren’t outraged, you haven’t been paying attention. If you are outraged, we need your anger as an energy. Don’t be fooled or misdirected. a radical incivility makes space for the fullness of the presence of pain and anger, as well as a diversity of styles through which both pain and anger emerge to be heard as objections to the crisis ordinary. Far from giving in to individuation, radical incivility turns us from individual pain to structural analysis; it is a with-ness that turns us toward each other. In this sense we understand radical to be a term that undoes the arkhe of subjectivity."
The incivility is represented as the response to the urgent situation of a crisis, the means of collective mobilization and action-in-concert. It is well known that crowd-like collective subjectivity can be created and remained united just for a short time. The discursive and ideological constitutive components are less important than the affective factors, such as anger or rage. Also, crowd subjectivity is critically dependent on the people’s physical proximity. It is an emergent, evolving, singular and unpredictable event. By contrast, the contemporary leftist solidarity depends less on a direct and first-handed communal experience. The collective affective mobilizing constituents are continuously maintained and reinforced by the arrangements of digital and ideological apparatuses.
Yes, some of us have gone on a riff about etiquette.
I guess a key point for me in this from the third theses:
Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity. We do not need to debate civility; we need to clarify, expand, and intensify our demands.
I'd like some more examples from mainstream political discourse.
Where do you think blame and moralism fit into this act of ‘outrage’ against ‘ injustice’?
Specifically , do you think it is what Ken Gergen is critiquing as the moralistic blamefulness and indignation of identity politics? Would anger, outrage and condemnation apply if one throughly rejects the ethical foundationalism on which rightness and justice are grounded?
Why can’t we follow Gergen’s lead and jettison the outrage in favor of a throughly relativistic approach to societal transformation?
“By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent). In western culture we essentially inherit two conversational responses to such forms of chastisement - incorporation or antagonism. The incorporative mode ("Yes, now I see the error of my ways") requires an extended forestructure of understandings (i.e. a history which legitimates the critic's authority and judgment, and which renders the target of critique answerable). However, because in the case of identity politics, there is no preestablished context to situate the target in just these ways, the invited response to critique is more typically one of hostility, defense and counter-charge.
In its critical moment, social constructionism is a means of bracketing or suspending any pronouncement of the real, the reasonable, or the right. In its generative moment, constructionism offers an orientation toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation. Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? As we find, then, social constructionism is a two edged sword in the political arena, potentially as damaging to the wielding hand as to the opposition.”(Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics)
Upvote for providing the translation and for it's content.
Here’s my take. There are two routes to follow in countering this ‘incivility as radicalism’ thinking. The first is to reject it and simply stick with traditional individualism. I don’t think this is a good choice for two reasons. First, there are certain valuable insights about the limits of individualism imbedded within wokeness perspectives. Second, it is not going to go away by itself and will instead eventually become assimilated widely within the culture. The best way to counter it is to go beyond it , to take what is valuable in it and move further.
It is still too closely tied to the Marxist critique of individualist moralism , which manages to replicate it by substituting for it a collectivist moralism( implicit bias, privilege, etc). To move beyond it is to no longer accept either individualist imperialism or the tyranny of dominating (economic) social structures. Instead one can recognize that we all are shaped by social structures but interpret these influences via a point of view.
What I see from the radical left is an urgency and importance that creates impatience and frustration and that's where the anger and incivility come from. There are civil ways of conveying radical leftist ideas and quite a few posters on this forum demonstrate it. Some of us take offence to the insinuations of how their race, class, gender, experience have implications on them that undermine their individuality, which colour their actions or imbue them with often insidious meaning. But there is a way to convey it which minimises the offence but many such as streetlightx don't ever go for it. I think that's because, as I said, the line for unacceptable behaviour is aggressive, to the extent that honest interpretation or inaction are tantamount to supporting inherently racist or sexist structures and defend unequal structures and oppression.
The second thing is uncharitable perceptions and an interpretative emphasis on insidious, hidden motivations. Such as a white person voting for Trump, no matter their reasons, the thought of possible underlying racist motivations is is often way beyond what I could ever consider reasonable. The singular voter for Trump carries the weight of all Trump's sins, the obstacle to morally paramount social, economic and environmental changes. Which is very characteristic of their brand of identity politics, and ideas of group responsibility.
The article says the opposite of civility is militancy and I think that sums up my views as well. A zero-tolerance policy, take-no-prisoners, maximum accountability for offenders, aggressive attitude that goes against what it means to be civil in discourse. This could be done with any non-mainstream view, the alt-right could do this, theoretically. Probably you're right and OP is talking about incivility as opinions with unpleasant consequences but at least, I think the political polarisation comes down to the culture of political expression as much as it is the views themselves. Which is impacted by internet anonymity, for example, which just makes people less civil period. The diversification of news media sources, the influence of social media, the ability for fewer people to project a louder voice. Cultural and technological factors have helped to make things less civil, but politics gets all the blame. I see the exact same thing with anti-SJW, anti-radical left approach of insults, mockery, condemnation, memes etc. Probably liberals like myself unwittingly bemoan changes caused by technological advances that can't be reversed, like conservatives doomed to be dissatisfied. We call for civility but it's futile. Everyone will have to adapt.
However understandable an angry rejection of civility may be, the real issue is effectiveness. Black Lives Matter and other similar movements will not achieve their desired results by insulting and demeaning almost half of all Americans. Whether they like it or not, they need the support of those people to get what they want. Left wing activists and traditional liberals by themselves cannot make this a hospitable country for black people, hispanics, or gay and transgender people. They need to get the other guys on board too. In order to do that, they need to show some respect. That's what civility is about - showing respect.
No, they need their compliance. Until black lives do actually matter as much as white lives, there is no civility because civility is a mutual relation.
Quoting T Clark
You cannot show respect to someone who shows you no respect; it is meaningless. Not civility, but mere servility.
For better or worse, that's not how it works, no matter how many times you say it before you stomp your feet and hold your breath.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, you're right. That fool Martin Luther King got it all wrong.
I'm not crazy about head-butting with people who disagree on profound cultural matters. You get a headache and people tend to increase in their vehemence, almost as a defensive strategy.
It doesn't work at all. But look perhaps at the women's suffrage movement as another example. Polite society would have it that it was unladylike for a woman to even want a vote, let alone demand one. Show some respect to the men who deny you the vote? It didn't work like that. It never works like that. It's always the squeaky wheel that gets some grease.
Clearly you don't see the foolishness of white society demanding respect from the movement demanding basic equal treatment for black folks. If only they were like us, everything would be alright.
Apologies for speaking on TC's behalf, but I don't think this is the point he made. The point is that in talking to people who would oppose a progressive cause, let's say trans rights, it isn't helpful to be overly confrontational or abusive, as the goal is to incrementally build support not further disenfranchise the naysayers.
Everyone seems to be taking this thread into different areas - all quite interesting in their own way.
Again, for me it's all about effectiveness. We can argue whether I'm right about that, but I think any other discussion on this issue is pointless.
Martin Luther King was a pretty squeaky wheel. [gratuitously provocative] I also don't remember that the suffragettes burned down any buildings[/gratuitously provocative].
Quoting unenlightened
I don't "demand respect." I only claim that the social justice warrior's approach won't work.
Civility, as an obligation, is completely redundant if it amounts to nothing more than how you'd prefer to behave in any case. If we only act civilly to those to whom we're inclined already to so act, then it's no longer an obligation, it becomes meaningless, just a description of everyday behaviour.
The point of civility as a duty is to act that way even when initially disinclined to do so. Far from being redundant, it only matters when you feel someone has broken that mutual social relation and you no longer feel inclined to treat them civilly as a consequence, then you fall back on your duty to do so despite such an initial disinclination.
MLK’s political movement was based on enlightenment individualistic liberalism, which assumed that one must appeal to the reason of each individual, rather than assuming a socially based shaping of subjective views. But this appeal to reason only went so far. Specifically, it preached mostly to the choir and those on the fence , convincing those already inclined to be sympathetic to such values. Note that it did not convince most who were opposed to the civil rights movement , which is why it took the ‘incivility’ of the national guard to end segregation. I suppose the incivil wokists would point to this hypocrisy , appealing to individualist reason but using miltancy to enforce it.
If the success of MLK’s movement is to be judged by its popularity, then by that standard blm and crt are wildly successful , given that only 30 years ago a tiny handful of scholars were advocating its theoretical foundations and now it has become standard rhetoric in most universities and in many large corporations . I don’t think its languaged of incivility will persuade the opposition any more than MLK’s appeal to reason , but like that prior movement , it will grow. of its own accord among the like-minded. You may despise it, but your children will likely be more disposed toward it. Why? Because despite its excesses , it captures truths missing from MLK’s approach.
I agree, and that's why I didn't say anything about inclinations.My inclination is to be civil to you even though you are making a straw man argument, because I am just a sweet little wimp at heart, but it is my duty to resist your bullshit.
Quoting T Clark
They certainly smashed a few windows.
Quoting Tom Storm
Obviously, if it was helpful, it wouldn't be overly confrontational. But again, notice that the issue is the confrontational abuse of the other side. When you don't have the vote, you don't have justice, you don't have freedom, and those that have it are complaining that YOU are uncivil, that is manipulative bullshit in action. The incivility, confrontation and abuse starts with the oppressive society, not with those who resist it.
I've tried to be clear, I think the correct measure by which King or BLM should be judged is effectiveness. I'm saying BLM's methods won't work in the only way that matters - by making the US a safer and more secure place for black people. Apparently you disagree. Or maybe you don't care. Many BLM supporters just want to vent their rage and resentment against white people. Knock yourselves out.
Absofuckinlutely, you go for it! And when your incivility has finally worn down those unknown people on the internet who just don't happen to 100% agree with you about the approach to improving the lives of our community, you can move on to that guy down the pub who reckoned Blonde on Blonde was better than Blood on the Tracks; when he's been thoroughly insulted there's still that guy with whom you disagreed about the proper pronounciation of Joaquin Phoenix.
Maybe when we're all on our own private islands standing at the edges spitting invective at each other over every disagreement we won't care so much that children are fucking dying every second of completely preventable causes 'cause we'd have those morons who thought we ought to fund the Red Cross bang to rights (when any idiot knows the solution is to fund the Red Crescent - fucking morons).
I'd post the 'People's Front of Judea' scene here, if I could. You'll just have to imagine it.
Then riddle me this:
Our new neighbors built a house right below us, on a slope, they cut deep into the slope. There was and still is a danger of a landslide that can destroy our house. Back when the excavation works were being done, we protested, but we were dismissed. When I pointed out to the engineer on site that digging into the slope like they intended to could cause our house to collapse, she said "Your safety is not my problem" and when I objected, she simply cut me short and said that she "isn't going to argue with me".
Now who here broke that mutual social relation? I'm sure that for the new neighbors and the engineer, it was us, because we were the ones interfering with their work.
And just so you know, the terrain is slowly sliding, it's evident.
You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. And the town engineer and building inspector.
I'm certain they don't feel disenfranchized. what a strange idea. Do you know (of) anyone who opposes a "progressive cause" who feels disenfranchized?
Sure, they'll often play the victim, but I think this is a strategy on their part, rather than feeling disenfranchized.
I think though that there are situations where the one in the lesser position of power loses out, no matter what they do, regardless of whether they are civil or not. If one isn't civil, those in power will refuse one on account of not being civil ("The manner of your objection can nullify your grievance"). If one is civil, those in power will ignore one.
Fairy tales.
They do not respond. Maybe we were too civil.
And so you know: it's not actually possible to get a second opinion on your own. We tried that, but suddenly, they were all too busy. The moment they hear you want them for a second opinion, they don't want to have anything to do with you, or they insist that it's the other party who needs to provide such an analysis.
3. Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity. We do not need to debate civility; we need to clarify, expand, and intensify our demands.
This is where they're vulnerable, and wrong: they demand. You're not going to get anything much by demanding, and whatever you do get, will be given grudgingly and aspired to be taken away as soon as possible. You're also not going to get much from someone who you believe has done you wrong. They've done you wrong the first time around, so why on earth would they not do it a second time?!
A civil engineer of course.
Of course.
I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns."
So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.
It's the same here in the US and I'm sure elsewhere. Good post.
Quoting Tom Storm
Exactly right.
Exactly. The question here is that gender neutral pronouns fix a problem which causes psychological harm to people and it's a simple fix. So why the resistance among former left-wing groups? I think it's precisely because of the attention it takes away from the real difficult to fix problems which cause a considerable degree more psychological harm. The issue of gender neutral pronouns is a nothing issue; a few people would feel better if we changed our pronouns, they start to be used more and more, gradually things will change as language always does when new generations of language users replace the older ones. That should be an end to it. That it's a big political talking point is ridiculous when people are actually starving.
But 'jobs and housing' is tired and old - it's like flares, or good music - seemingly out of fashion. Because it's been talked about and campaigned for before there's no means by which a person can stand out, declare their clique via such worn out issues.
How this relates to the OP is that the anger is so often manufactured to justify the incivility for this purpose. Incivility becomes the measure of the degree to which one is impassioned by an issue and the more one is impassioned by it, the further up the social hierarchy one is placed within these new groups.
Quoting Tom Storm
Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?
As an example - The extensiveness of the berdache is contested, but if true, the concept (and numerous others like it) give a strong indication of a link between more egalitarian communities and greater tolerance.
I still believe these must be tackled, perhaps in bold new ways. It's not likely to be readily achievable for a range of reasons. The corporate sector and their media has done a good job of using identity politics against reform movements or the Left and helped to further alienate the Left's traditional supporters. Of course, the more cynical we are about politics and change, the less likely change will happen. It greatly suits the status quo for us to think it's all hopeless.
Quoting Isaac
That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols.
When you said "people who would oppose a progressive cause" I thought only of conservatives of the right-wing variety. And they are certainly not disenfranchized.
Also, in Europe, political correctness is a thing of the right-wingers, not lefties.
But why would such change need to be facilitated? Seriously, can you explain?
One the one hand, we are force-fed the theory of evolution, and with it, the ideas that life is a struggle for survival and that only the fittest survive. But on the other hand, we're supposed to make numerous exceptions to it?!
Under democracy, there are multiple, competing ideas of what counts as "just" or "good". Under democracy, the problem can never be solved.
But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society?
Do you believe that such disparities are not justified?
I agree. But various approaches predominate at different times. Some worse than others.
I am not a theorist or have a vision. I hold a mix of conservative and reform based views which involve dealing with poverty, drug law reform and housing.
If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything?
Quoting Tom Storm
Various approaches? Then how can anything be accomplished?
I don't think something like justification applies to circumstances with such complex origins. I think the word applies to actions or beliefs so making such a state of affairs would not be justified, but the existence of the state of affairs is not the sort of thing that the word 'justified' meaningfully applies to.
I'd rather minimise such disparities.
In principle, our perception of the social and political realities, and the facts used in acute political debates are not directly related to our first-handed communal experience. We identify ourselves with images that in-form our reality and that simulate what is true or right. The images (in Bergson’s sense) are not primarily representative or informative. They exist in-themselves and for-themselves in the digital medium and generate what we perceive as politics. They contract, integrate, and simulate ‘all what we ever believed, valued, or fought for’; their semantic and semiotic levels are enacted and amplified by the redundancies of our affective involvements. The evolving event of the images self - regeneration and enactment is the system that continuously actualizes the construction of our social reality. As Gerden noted, identity politics contains opposite forms and dichotomy figures: incorporation and repulsion (marginalization), a victim and a persecutor, and so on. They are coexisting and working together through the synthesizing image of a savior, rescuer, expressing the primary Western ( Christian) archetype. In fact, before appearing as an anger, an act of outrage, or rhetoric of blame and moralism, the incivility is the system of images, operating the core regime of construction and re-construction of our social reality. We affectively invest images that simulate outrage based on the ethical fundamentalism. That is why identity politics is so effective and successful: it fits perfectly to the digital medium of social control.Therefore, I do not think that Ken Gerden's critique is effective. One can throughly reject the ethical foundationalism on which rightness and justice are grounded, and simultaneously and unconsciously enact identity politics on a micro-level..
Quoting Joshs
20 years ago, Gerden wrote: “As many propose, identity politics is reaching an impasse. No longer does it seem an effective means of securing voice, dignity and equality. More positively, however, I see significant signs of transformation in both identity politics and in social constructionism.” He wrote it 20 years ago, but identity politics is now doing better than ever, being interwoven with the processes of contemporary societal transformation.
People generally believe in the just-world hypothesis, and there is evidence suggesting that such belief correlates positively with mental health.
By this hypothesis, disparities exist among people simply because the people with less income, lower education, lower socio-economic status aren't trying hard enough. In this view, solely the less successful person is to blame, and there's nothing that other people can or should do about it.
Also, it seems that most people believe that disparity is normal, a given, and not something to take any action against.
It's not clear what the motivation for reducing disparity is or should be. Do you have any ideas?
I identified three areas. It is not necessary to be a theorist to make practical changes and I have seen many improvements here over the decades. But I am not willing to explore examples from my work. And, as I alluded, improvements can also be undone.
Do you have references for this? It's not something I've read any research on.
Quoting baker
Likewise for this.
Quoting baker
Well, not if your references are true, no. Most papers I've read on the subject (and more importantly my personal experience) have concluded that the more egalitarian societies are happier, and that people are generally happier around other happy people, so that would be a reason. But if it turns out that actually people are happiest when they watch others suffer in the just knowledge that they deserve everything they get then, we might as bring on the apocalypse, it should be quite the show.
Quoting Tom Storm
What more would be needed, what more could possibly be achieved, beyond addressing "disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth?" That is the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but the problem. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying.
Not sure if you're asking me or Tom, but what I meant by it was directly in response to the talk about preferred pronouns. The idea being that there's a category of need which is covered by "education, resources, opportunity and wealth" (though I'd dispute 'education', but that's another story) which is universal and foundational, quite distinct from the category of basic politeness, comfort, aesthetics etc. which may be nice to have but are so tightly tied to the former that they simply follow from them (absent if the former are absent, present if the former are present).
Preferred pronouns are in the latter category. Not worth an inch of column space whilst children are starving.
Yes. I agree. I also think if you take care of financial, security, and opportunity issues, the rest will take care of itself.
Indeed, it betrays quite an ugly view of human nature to think otherwise really.
I believe that's correct.