Civility, Sincerity, and Ambiguity
Nicholaos Jones
University of Alabama in Huntsville
nick[dot]jonesat]uah[dot]edu
Author Posting. (c) 2011.
This is a longer version of work published in Alabama Humanities Review (2011).
http://alahumanitiesreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/civility-sincerity-and-ambiguity/
Abstract
Civility in a social context is the virtue of respecting other people's conflicting
perspectives and communicating that respect to those people. Civility thus
conceived is something applicable to all moral perspectives equally, something
about which there is extensive social consensus and thereby safeguards the
possibility of a common social life in the face of radical moral disagreement.
Societies lacking civility, accordingly, risk fragmentation and turmoil; its
members harbor contempt and resentment, and those toward whom incivility is
directed risk becoming alienated or excluded from political projects that affect
everyone. If we want people to be more civil toward each other, we should
encourage people to be more civil to themselves. Civility in a personal context
involves both respecting our conflicting attitudes and, somehow, communicating
that respect to ourselves. Civility thus conceived produces emotional coherence
among incommensurable attitudes and ambiguous priorities When we are civil
to ourselves, we respect the plurality within ourselves in a sincere way. This
enables us to imagine similar plurality in others and, by extension, in society at
large.
|1
Civility, Sincerity, and Ambiguity
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.1 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 virtue most often mentioned as fostering harmony when present and
permitting discord when absent is civility. According to a survey by the Center for
Political Participation at Allegheny College, 95% of Americans believe that
political civility is important to a healthy democracy. 2 CivilityProject.org,
launched in January 2009 to "alter the increasingly uncivil tone in our country in
general and politics in particular," encourages all citizens, and especially our
political representatives, to take a Civility Pledge, promising to "be civil in my
1
T.S. Bogard, The Importance of Civility (AuthorHouse: 2006).
Susan Page, "Poll: USA Fed Up with Political Incivility," USA Today 4.22.2010. Margin of error:
2.8%.
2
|2
public discourse and behavior," "be respectful of others whether or not I agree
with them," and "stand against incivility when I see it."
As of January 2011, only three members of Congress had signed the pledge.3 The
explanation for this is not clear. Perhaps they were unaware of it. Then again,
perhaps they see civility as a sign of weakness, hampering their ability to defend
against political attacks, hindering their advocacy of policies for which, in their
opinion, compromise means defeat, and decreasing their chances of gaining or
retaining political majorities.4
There is some reason to accept this second explanation. In March 2010,
members of the Democratic National Committee asked their counterparts in the
Republican National Committee to co-sign a statement calling for "elected
officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our
citizenry" and for all Americans
to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of
intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric
that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such
behavior.5
Republicans treated the request as a political power play: refusing to sign would
allow the Democrats to claim that Republicans endorse uncivil behavior;
consenting to sign, however, would give Democrats a tool to wield against them
later. Rather than signing, Republicans maintained that they already condemn
incivility. Democrats responded as expected, accusing Republicans of refusing to
take responsibility for their actions and of drifting away from civil discourse
toward extremism.6 Both parties seem to agree, though, that their political
opponents merely give lip-service to civility, desiring its appearance but not its
substance.
Civility sounds good. But when society's fragmentation means that exercises of
political power favor some values at the expense of others, when the very fate of
our country seems to hang in the balance, obstinacy and integrity sound good,
too. We are left to wonder: Is civility a good thing, or is only the appearance of
3
L. Goodstein, "Founder of 'Civility Project' Calls It Quits," The New York Times 1.12.2011.
Josephine Heard, "Civility Caucus? No Way!" Politico 6.6.2007.
5
Christina Bellantoni, "Steele Declines to Sign DNC 'Joint Civility Statement," TPMDC 3.26.2010.
6
Andy Barr, "RNC Rejects Joint 'Civility' Statement," Politico 3.26.2010.
4
|3
civility what matters? In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy maintained
that "civility is not a sign of weakness." 85% of Americans think that civil
behavior is no hindrance to gaining or maintaining political office.7 But even if
this were true, even if civility reaps the same rewards as incivility, doubting
cynicism does not seem to be entirely misplaced.
JFK went on to say that "sincerity is always subject to proof." Presumably he
meant to draw our attention to the possibility of declaring civility a virtue while
yet behaving uncivilly. Many politicians seem to act despicably until someone
takes offence, whereupon they backtrack, insist upon being quoted out of
context or misunderstood, and even, in some cases, charge their accusers of
being uncivil in leveling accusations. Many of these same politicians retain
power, and in some cases gain it, at the expense of their more civil peers.
Idealism says that civility is worth it, that "civility is an essential component of a
healthy, vibrant democracy that encourages civic engagement."8 But perhaps
this idealism is naïve. In 2008 a group of influential Catholics, fearing that calls
for more civility were designed to silence pro-life anti-abortion movements,
urged other Catholics to ignore those calls when it comes to what they call, in
their words, "morally repugnant practices that are counter to the common good
a d that should e u wel o e i a just … so iet ." 9 When fundamentally
divergent moral perspectives clash, when the good for some appears absurd or
abominable to others, and when political winners steer the country's moral
course, civility seems insignificant. Why engage opposing points of view, rather
than disenfranchise them, when more involvement means more compromise?
Why favor civility over obstinate integrity? Any attempt to understand what
civility means in the 21st century needs to address these questions.
2
CivilityProject.org's Civility Pledge embodies common sense wisdom about
civility, indicating that civil behavior involves being "respectful of others whether
or not [one] agree[s] with them." Let's take this as at least a partial truth about
civility and try to imagine ways in which a society might foster this kind of
respect. This will give us some perspective on what civility looks like at a societal
7
Page, op.cit.
Eric Vernon, "Civility is Not a Sign of Weakness," CJC Blog 8.12.2010.
9
"Catholic Laymen in the Public Square: A Catholic Response to the 'Call for Civility.'" [PDF]
8
|4
level, by helping us to fill out features of civility that common sense tends to
overlook.
The most obvious social mechanism for fostering respect among persons is the
law. Laws are publicly accessible rules that regulate our interactions with others.
Some of these laws, moreover, regulate interactions in ways that encourage us
to respect others. Think here of equal employment opportunity laws, laws
against segregation and discrimination, and laws protecting fundamental human
rights.
Let us imagine, then, a Society of Civil Laws, where civility is a matter of obeying
laws meant to foster respect among persons. Let's imagine this society to be
pluralistic like ours, but where disagreements are deep and persistent and where
consensus is an impossible ideal. Would this society be civil?
To some extent, yes. People will respect others by virtue of obeying the laws.
This is a good thing. But, no matter how extensive the laws may be, there
inevitably will be large swathes of behavior regulated by no law at all. Moreover,
people in the Society of Civil Laws can be uncivil by respecting the laws without
respecting people. This incivility might be overt. For example, in October 2010,
Houston Votes, a voter registration organization in Texas, received a series of
emails. Here is one:
Citizens from all over Texas will be coming to Houston to watch you
fraudulent Marxist pigs. Be forewarned, you will be watched at every
turn, and your corrupt Marxist organization will be targeted!10
Even if these emails are legal, they are not respectful. But not all examples of
law-abiding incivility need be so blatant. For example, in August 2007,
Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid withdrew a major defense from
the [Senate] floor when he didn't prevail on an amendment relating to
Iraq. He then rudely refused to yield to Republican Members to speak on
routine unanimous consent requests.11
10
R.J. Reilly, "Voter Registration Group Targeted by TX Tea Party Group Received Threats,"
TPMMuckraker 10.20.2010.
11
D. Wolfensberger, "Civility, Society, and Politics: Is There a Problem?" Remarks at Drake
University (Iowa) 9.19.2007.
|5
Reid broke no procedural rule. Yet his refusal to yield the floor was "a denial of
common courtesy." He followed the rules, but only grudgingly, and only in a way
that worked to his perceived advantage. A more commonplace example makes
the same point. Imagine that the Society of Civil Laws has housing laws that
prohibit discriminating on the basis of race. And imagine a landlord renting to
someone of a different race but going out of his way to make the tenant
uncomfortable by hurling insults whenever the opportunity arises or
intentionally making necessary repairs at inconvenient hours. The landlord
violates no law. But his behavior is far from civil.
The lesson of the Society of Civil Laws is that civility involves more than obeying
laws meant to foster respect among persons. The most obvious way to imagine a
more civil society is to imagine one in which people not only obey laws meant to
foster civility but also obey social norms meant to do so. These norms will tend
to be unspoken rules about how to be respectful of others. They regulate
behavior that escapes the reach of law, provide extra-legalistic resources for
reprimanding behaviors that foster discord, and offer guidance for when and
how to assert legal rights. These norms might lead people to not make a fuss
about people's disabilities, to not be hostile or threatening toward others in
public spaces, and so on.
This Society of Civil Norms would be more civil than the Society of Civil Laws.
Politicians would show common courtesies to each other; citizens would not
accost each other with threatening emails or name-calling; landlords would be
respectful hosts rather than harassing tyrants. But even the Society of Civil
Norms will contain plenty of opportunity for incivility. Even if its members obey
all the rules, explicit and implicit, for respecting others, they can do so with
disrespectful attitudes and thereby undermine the spirit, but not the letter, of
the rules. Obeying rules for respecting other people is compatible with not
communicating attitudes of respect toward those people.
For example, had Reid yielded the Senate floor to Republicans but, in doing so,
remarked that he was yielding only out of respect for precedent and not because
he thought the Republicans deserved the floor or had anything worthwhile to
say, he would have violated no law or norm for being civil. But he also would not
have communicated an attitude of respect toward his fellow Senators. Likewise,
an adulterer might respect to his wife by concealing his affair rather than
|6
flaunting it, but the nature of infidelity precludes his communicating this respect
to his wife.12
More interestingly, consider situations in which people obey rules for respecting
others while simultaneously communicating attitudes of disrespect. Imagine a
person who is careful not to intrude upon his neighbor's property when doing
yard work but who goes out of his way to remind the neighbor that he is not
happy about this, sarcastically declaring to the neighbor, "Don't worry, I won't
step on your precious land." Or think of a business owner in a society with an
affirmative action law, hiring a minority employee in obedience to the law only
to remind the new employee, each day at work, that he was hired because of his
minority status.13
A polity lacking full-bodied civility, such as the Society of Civil Laws or the Society
of Civil Norms, incurs several harms. Its population flirts with fragmentation and
turmoil; its members harbor contempt and resentment.14 Each uncivil
interaction allows displays of dominance by some to widen their distance from
others, and those toward whom incivility is directed risk becoming alienated or
excluded from political projects that affect everyone. Moreover, those unwilling
to engage civilly with competing evaluative perspectives tend to avoid engaging
with competing epistemic perspectives. Not communicating with those who
have different beliefs, or communicating with them only to dismiss their
opinions as irrational or nefariously ideological, is not an effective way to
discover truths about how personal choices and political policies influence
people's lives. When incivility encourages epistemic closure by silencing or
distorting disagreements, when the standard of legitimate belief in others is
conformity to one's personal beliefs, when intolerance breeds misinformation
and misunderstanding, platitudes and propaganda replace genuine, truthdirected discussions about how to flourish in a pluralistic society.
In order to imagine a society that embodies civility in both letter and spirit, we
must imagine one in which people do not merely obey laws and conform to
social norms, but do so in ways that communicate to others the kind of respect
such codes are meant to encourage. This is more a matter of sincerity than
substance. It concerns not so much what people do as the authenticity with
12
C. Calhoun, "The Virtue of Civility," Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (2000).
Ibid.
14
See also L. Meckler, J. Weisman, and A. Morse, "Obama Calls for a More Civil Nation," The Wall
Street Journal 1.14.2011.
13
|7
which they do it. The fact of the matter is that the employer who hires a minority
and the neighbor who avoids trespassing on the adjacent lawn violate no law or
custom; but they are not genuinely civil unless they communicate respect for
these rules and respect for their fellow citizens. This requires behaving in ways
that reflect a genuine appreciation of others' values and priorities, even in the
face of radical and persistent disagreements.
Communicating respect is a way to acknowledge the moral value of others and
include them as co-participants in a community rather than isolate them as
enemies or impostors. We do this by observing both the letter and the spirit of
social conventions that allow us to disagree without being disagreeable, and that
allow us to claim and care for our "identity, needs, and beliefs without degrading
someone else in the process."15 This can be a tricky thing. Certainly "it's hard to
formulate a coherent set of standards" for civil behavior.16 But this is only
because it's hard to put into words the myriad customs and traditions, grown
organically over time, that constitute the norms of civil interaction for any
society. A physicist can know how to identify subatomic particles from highenergy collision photographs without being able to explain the procedures she
follows; and the Olympic gymnast can know how to jump gracefully on the
balance beam without being able to write down the rules she makes her body
follow. So, too, can we observe rules of civility without being able to state what
those rules are.
3
Displaying respect can be a tricky thing, not because formulating standards of
civility is difficult, but because, in a morally imperfect society like ours, the
conventions for being civil can preclude our displaying other virtues. For
example, old-fashioned norms of civility preclude men from offering to help a
hostess clean up after dinner; but a socially critical moral point of view might,
instead, demand that men help, and this point of view would not interpret male
assistance as especially considerate.17
This tension between civility and morality typically goes unnoticed, so much so
that one might wonder whether we have failed to imagine an even more civil
15
Institute for Civility in Government.
J. Chait, "Tone Down the Mushfulness in Punditry," The New Republic 4.12.2010.
17
Calhoun, op.cit; M. Frye, "Oppression," in Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (Crossing
Press: 1983).
16
|8
society, one in which people not only obey laws, follow social norms, and
communicate respect for others in appropriate ways, but also guide these
displays with morality rather than mere social convention. Certainly we have not
imagined that the rules in the Society of Civil Norms have any particular
connection to morality. In a morally perfect society, perhaps they would. But to
be realistic we need to imagine civility in a morally imperfect society such as
ours, where there is fundamental and persistent disagreement about which
behaviors are ethical and which are not.
There are two ways to imagine this. The first, as we've done already, is to
imagine that civility is entirely a matter of following the letter and spirit of social
conventions for displaying respect toward others, regardless of whether those
conventions themselves are ethical. The second is to imagine that displays of
civility are tempered by a concern for morality. This second possibility allows
that, sometimes, people display civility in ways that are at odds with social
conventions for doing so, and that, sometimes, they do not display civility
toward morally repugnant behaviors. This society attempts to ameliorate the
tension between civility and morality. But it cannot do this in a pluralistic society,
where there is persistent disagreement about what morality requires of us,
based upon fundamentally incompatible moral perspectives. Civility is the
referee that, among other things, regulates discussions of controversial topics,
so that conversations continue rather than break off. But in order for this
regulation to happen, guidance for the displays of civility cannot be set by any
particular morality. For then, rather than helping conversations to continue,
civility would allow conversations to end when there are disputes grounded in
divergent moral principles. And this is when civility is most needed.18
The only guide for when and how to be civil is something applicable to all moral
perspectives equally, something about which there is extensive social consensus,
something that encourages displays of respect when clashes of morality
encourage displays of disrespect. The only guide that does this, that safeguards
the possibility of a common social life in the face of radical moral disagreement,
is social convention considered without regard for morality. Civility thus
conceived produces a kind of social coherence that preserves differences among
conversational participants without seeking conformity from them. This kind of
civility has a "watery fidelity" that, "being independent of both rivalry and
18
Ibid.
|9
te der, … a su sist where o e is prese t or the other absent" and thereby
enable mutual association in the absence of communal solidarity.19
4
Civility is "something which a good many people are inclined to promote, even
though they may not be entirely sure what they are promoting." 20 This is where
thought experiments, imagining life in different kinds of societies, can help.
These experiments show that promoting civility involves not only promoting
respect for others but also promoting sincere displays of that respect. They also
show that being civil is difficult, not because the rules of civility are hard to
formulate but, instead, because civility requires practice in balancing the
demands of morality and the demands of social convention.
There is, of course, a "general agreement that something called 'civility' is a good
thi g … e ause it ri gs a out the o ditio s that sustai the e iste e of a
'civil society.'"21 This is akin to saying that justice is good because it promotes a
just society, or that laws are good because they promote a lawful society. These
claims might be true, but they are not informative: they do not indicate why
civility, or justice, or lawfulness is valuable. More can be said. Societies which
lack civility risk fragmenting into conflicting factions, their members stressed and
alienated from each other and thereby in danger of losing the ability to view
those with whom they disagree as having moral value.22 The presence of civility,
in contrast, preserves social coherence in the absence of uniform perspectives,
safeguarding the possibility of a common social life in the face of radical moral
disagreement.
But how can we improve the level of civility in our society? How can we get
beyond rhetoric exhorting others to display respect toward opposing
perspectives, to honor the fundamental worth of those with whom they
disagree, to temper the urge for political victory with a concern for social
cohesion? Asking people to sign civility pledges is one way to go. College- and
secondary-level courses on civility are another, and in fact seem to be taking off
19
M. Oakeshott, On Human Conduct (Oxford University Press: 1975).
J. Schmidt, "Is Civility a Virtue?" in Civility, ed. L. Rounder (University of Notre Dame Press:
2000). [PDF]
21
Ibid.
22
See also D. Fields, "Rudeness is a Neurotoxin," The Huffington Post 1.5.2011.
20
| 10
across the country within the past year.23 And then there are forums like this,
which give people a chance to listen to and reflect upon the meaning of civility.
These are all fine ideas. Yet they all treat the fostering of civility as something
that originates from an external source, as if getting people to be more civil is
akin to installing a new program on a computer. The flaw in these approaches is
that the program won't take if the hardware isn't ready: Apple software just
won't run on Dell hardware without some special preparation.24 A Buddhist joke
makes a similar point:
Once upon a time, a man asked a Buddhist hotdog vendor to make him
one with everything. So the vendor gave the man a hotdog topped with
mustard, ketchup, relish, chili, and so on, declaring "That'll be $2.50." The
man gave the vendor $5 and, after a pause, asked, "Where's my change?"
The vendor replied, "Change comes from within my friend."
The point generalizes. Incivility is nothing new in our political discourse, nor are
calls to restore civility to society.25 For example, Benjamin Barber, a professor of
political science at Rutgers University, remarked in 1997 that America had
reached a new level of incivility, where
[d]ivisive rhetoric has become not only disagreement between parties
but a rejection of the legitimacy of the other side, validating a position
that your opponents are immoral, un-American and possibly worthy of
being subjected to violence.26
He cited as evidence abortion clinic bombings, radical militia movements, and
the Oklahoma City bombing. When concerned citizens order up some civility by
adding special programming to people's everyday lives and then ask, "Where's
the change?," the answer must be "Change comes from within, my friend."
23
S. Lanman, "Choosing Civility in the Face of Rudeness," Rutgers FOCUS 3.2010; J. Jacks, "Civility
Class Teaches Students to Mind Their P's and Q's," George Mason University University News
11.1.2010.
24
See also D. Brooks, "Tree of Failure," The New York Times 1.13.2011.
25
C. Coloroso, "Political Incivility: Fleeting Trend or Enduring American Tradition?" The
Georgetown Public Policy Review Online 12.14.2009.
26
G. James, "The Venerable History of Incivility," The New York Times 1.16.1997.
| 11
If we want people to be more civil toward each other, we should encourage
people to be more civil to themselves. This is, admittedly, an odd suggestion.
Admonitions to be civil generally aim to stimulate changes in the ways we treat
others rather than changes in the way we treat ourselves. Lamentations about
the withering of civility tend to stem from observations about the mood of our
political culture rather than the state of our individual characters. Civility is not
something we are wont to think of as affecting a person alone. But people being
civil to themselves is a precondition for the civility of any society which those
persons compose.
5
Each of us has a self that is "decentered, distributed, and multiplex," "the sum
total of its narratives, [including] within itself all the equivocations,
contradictions, struggles, and hidden messages that find expression in personal
life."27 We often possess, as part of our very being, a plurality of fundamentally
incommensurable attitudes. Some of us struggle with over-eating, finding it hard
to resist rich desserts while at the same time yearning to be free of food
addictions and have self-control with respect to food consumption. Some of us
feel family obligations pulling us to persist unhappily in our jobs, but also
resilient youthful ambitions pulling us to find our bliss. These conflicts appear as
struggles at self-interpretation, and how we resolve them, in order to create
coherent life narratives, helps to shape our identities.28
The plurality of attitudes within each of us resembles the plurality of
perspectives in our society. This is no superficial analogy. Just as we must live out
our lives within a fragmented society, we must live out our identities with
fragmented personalities. The meaning of our life, like the meaning of our
society, is informed by multiple perspectives, many of which have some claim to
our allegiance, none of which eliminates the possibility of change through fresh
insight. Moreover, just as it is difficult to associate with those who reject our
fundamental values, to know how to interact with them, and even to want to
interact with them, it is difficult to acknowledge our conflicting attitudes, to
know what to do with them, or even to want to do anything with them. Our
desire to be someone urges us to reconcile fundamental conflicts of our
27
S. Gallagher, "Philosophical Conceptions of the Self: Implications for Cognitive Science," Trends
in Cognitive Science (2000).
28
C. Taylor, "What is Human Agency?" in Philosophical Papers 1: Human Agency and Language
(Cambridge University Press: 1985).
| 12
attitudes; our desire for freedom, to avoid committing ourselves irrevocably to a
particular way of being no matter its costs.29 What's a person to do?
If civility in a social context involves not only respecting other people's conflicting
perspectives but also communicating that respect to those people, we might
imagine that civility in a personal context involves both respecting our conflicting
attitudes and, somehow, communicating that respect to ourselves. This
communication likely takes the form of endorsing the presence of our conflicting
attitudes in a way that fosters emotional coherence.30 Perhaps a good way to see
the benefit of such civility in a more concrete way is to briefly consider what
happens when it is absent.
If we are civil to ourselves by respecting our conflicting attitudes and approving
the presence of those attitudes despite their incommensurability, then one way
we can fail to be civil to ourselves is by respecting our attitudes without
approving their presence. This is a subtle form of intra-personal incivility. It
appears in the homosexual who has "come out" but secretly loathes his sexual
preferences; in the drug addict who finds staying clean so difficult that he
convinces himself, even while he values recovery, that he does not deserve it
and therefore does not really want it; and in the abused spouse who loves her
partner, wants to leave, but convinces herself that a hostile home is preferable
to the unknown. The product of this kind of incivility is shame, guilt,
embarrassment, self-contempt, microcosmic parallels to, say, the feelings
minorities have when told their accomplishments are due entirely to affirmative
action.
Not all intra-personal incivility is this subtle. There are more straightforward
cases in which people simply fail to respect some of their conflicting attitudes.
Consider the father who desires to be a good father but, disapproving of his
daughter's homosexuality, convinces himself that "tough love" requires shunning
her for perceived immorality; the Catholic who is pro-life but also a fervent
supporter of the death penalty; the retiree who, while railing against those who
use welfare programs, gladly receives Medicare and social security benefits far
exceeding his lifetime contributions. The common ingredient among these kinds
of incivility is an inability to acknowledge conflicts among attitudes and
29
S. de Beauvior, The Ethics of Ambiguity (Citadel Press: 1976).
See B. Sahdra and P.R. Thagard, "Self-Deception and Emotional Coherence," Minds and
Machines (2003). [PDF]
30
| 13
consequent estrangement from some of them. The father mistakes espousing
love for practicing it; the Catholic confuses valuing life in name for valuing life in
fact; and the retiree condemns entitlements in name but not entitlements in
fact. The result is hypocrisy. Those who fail to respect their conflicting attitudes
risk becoming strangers to themselves, the authenticity of their lives endangered
by a self-imposed alienation from their values, the clarity of their moral
judgments obscured by a weakness of character that disposes them to react to
challenging situations with fear and anxiety rather than acknowledge uncertainty
and ambiguity.
Those who are civil toward themselves are neither hypocritical nor self-loathing.
Though their attitudes are not uniform, they do not deceive themselves in order
to mask or ignore attitudinal conflicts. Knowing when not to be too obsessed
with virtue,31 they endure a perpetual ambiguity among their attitudes, failing to
resolve their inner conflicts, acknowledging that failure while yet affirming the
worth of their competing values. This is a level of authenticity unavailable to
those who suppose that integrity requires fixing priorities among their attitudes
once and for all, and who thereby isolate themselves from fresh and creative
perspectives.
Civility, then, in a personal context, is good by virtue of producing emotional
coherence among incommensurable attitudes and ambiguous priorities. This
good is unavailable to those who pretend to be civil to themselves, and it
remains good even if unacknowledged by others. More to the point, however,
civility within a person is a precondition for the person being civil to others. It is
the fertilizer that makes the soil ready to produce a bountiful crop, the primer
that allows walls to take on brilliant new colors, the software update that allows
a computer to run multiple programs without crashing.
When we are civil to ourselves, we respect the plurality within ourselves in a
sincere way. This enables us to imagine similar plurality in others and, by
extension, in society at large. For the difficulty in genuinely respecting ambiguity
in ourselves is realizing that our priorities are not clear-cut, and from this it is but
a small leap to recognizing that those who prioritize their values in other ways
are not so different from us as we initially might believe. In contrast, when we
are not civil to ourselves, when we cannot recognize the fundamental
ambiguities of our identities, we lack a basis from which to imagine that others
31
Schmidt (2000).
| 14
might not only be grappling with similar ambiguities but also resolving those
ambiguities to the best of their abilities in ways other than we would choose.
6
Supposing that civility in society requires civility within members of that society,
pragmatists will want to know how we can develop this virtue in ourselves. If
prioritizing some attitudes over others in acting resembles allowing some people
rather than others to pass through a crowded doorway, perhaps being civil to
ourselves resembles giving way to others with equal right to pass through the
door, and being uncivil to ourselves resembles shoving others aside or
pretending they don't exist in the first place. But how shall we decide which
persons pass, which attitudes prevail?
There is probably not much advice to be given by way of rules, since civility is a
virtue and practicing virtue demands attention to context in ways that rules
cannot handle. Nor is there time to say much on the topic. Rilke, however, in his
correspondence with a young military cadet, gives some advice that might point
in the right direction:
Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the
questions themselves, as if they were locked rooms or books written in a
very foreign language. Do not seek the answers, which could not be given
to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is,
to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then
gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the
answer.32
As a virtue, civility is a good to be lived rather than possessed. It is learned as all
virtues are learned and sustained as all virtues are sustained, through practice,
amidst uncertainty, patiently and unrelentingly.
32
R.M. Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet.