Is civility a sham? | Teresa Bejan

The Importance of Civility in Politics

Introduction to Civility

• The speaker introduces the topic of civility, mentioning their book on the subject and its relevance during the 2016 American presidential election.

• Initially skeptical about civility, the speaker reflects on their journey from viewing it as "bullshit" to recognizing its essential role in tolerant societies.

Disagreement and Its Implications

• The speaker discusses how disagreement is inherently offensive, referencing Thomas Hobbes' perspective that disagreement implies an insult to intelligence.

• Fundamental disagreements often revolve around identity-defining issues like religion and politics, which people avoid discussing in social settings due to their contentious nature.

Historical Context of Tolerance

• Tolerant societies are not necessarily harmonious; they often require individuals to coexist despite mutual contempt.

• Civility is identified as a virtue that enables this coexistence by making disagreements tolerable.

Misconceptions About Civility

• The speaker critiques contemporary discussions about civility, suggesting they often promote disengagement rather than genuine engagement with opponents.

• Incivility is frequently perceived as a fault of others while individuals justify their own behavior based on perceived provocations.

Defining Civility

• There’s confusion surrounding what civility entails; it's often equated with respect or politeness but carries deeper implications regarding engagement.

• Accusations of incivility serve to marginalize opponents, indicating they are unworthy of engagement.

The Crisis of Civility

Historical Perspective on Civility

• Politicians have long warned about a crisis in civility, attributing it to technological advancements like social media and cable TV.

• The speaker argues that the first modern crisis began 500 years ago with Martin Luther's use of the printing press during the Protestant Reformation.

Strategies for Silencing Dissent

• Historical calls for civility were used by religious establishments to suppress dissenters while maintaining moral superiority over them.

• This tactic allowed those in power to label dissenters as uncivil without engaging in substantive arguments against them.

Understanding Mere Civility

Characteristics of Mere Civility

• Mere civility allows for basic interactions even among those who disagree fundamentally; it serves as a low bar for engagement.

• While much talk about civility may seem disingenuous or counterproductive, historical context reveals its potential value in fostering tolerance.

Courage and Engagement

• Mere civility requires courage—being willing to engage with those we disagree with while maintaining our positions respectfully.

• It involves expressing disagreement openly but also preserving relationships for future dialogue.

Conclusion: Rethinking Civil Discourse

Final Thoughts on Civil Engagement

• True civil discourse should not be an escape from argumentation but rather an opportunity for meaningful exchange across differences.