Friday 8 April 2011

The Loss of Civility (& its Consequences)

Photo credit: Alan Porritt (AAP)
Does civility matter? I think it does, but sadly, the signs are evident in Australia that it isn't valued as highly as it once was.  By civility I am not talking just about good manners (though they are important), but rather about the behaviour between members of society that leads to a social code and foundational principles for how a civilized society functions. This historically has been a major focus of political philosophers and has included concern with principles of justice, liberty, rights, freedoms, the law and the duties of citizens to government. The recent Carbon Tax protests in Canberra set new low standards for public political debate. It made me wonder whether we should we be concerned when we have public protests of the type we witnessed? And is public civility important?

The consideration of civic virtues is not new, two of the world's oldest republics, Athens and Rome, gave much time and energy in seeking to define civic virtues. Socrates and Plato were central in the debate concerning Athenian polis.  Civic virtue was also a matter of interest in the Renaissance, during the Enlightenment and as part of republican revolutions during the 18th century.  This of course has been played out with different priorities, purposes and social agendas. With the rise of Humanism and institutionalised education in the 18th and 19th centuries, some believed that society could be save from itself by the development of virtuous children through education. Biblical Christianity of course would suggest that man's sin and rebellion against God makes this hope of the goodness of humanity rather tenuous. We live together in our imperfection and fallenness.

When people talk of civility today, they might well mean the cultivation of character traits and virtues that are consistent with their own cultural and social practices. These at times simply reflect one's social class rather than well thought out ideas of civil society.  The distinction between practices that some see as demonstrating civility and others that are uncivilised, can be based on the most tenuous of justifications.

Roman Forum,  Centre of Public Life
Attempting to move beyond subjective debates about manners requires us to return to the root of the word, that is the opposite of civil. The word 'uncivil' comes from the Latin word incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen." To be civil, is to play one's part as a citizen in building a civil society. What any society needs to guard against is behaviour that runs counter to the well being of a society; that is, behaviour that strikes at the very structure and foundation of one's civil society. In the recent decades, many western democracies have seen the topic of civic virtue gaining attention. This has been particularly the case in relation to the good practices of government and the participation of citizens in relation to government.

In countries like Australia, France, Canada, Britain and the USA, political parties seem to be at war with each other rather than setting debating and agreeing on policies that will help to shape nations for the common good.  Political parties spend millions of dollars to tear policies and each other apart. Issues are rarely debated with transparency and civility, lies are told, tricks played and voters deceived. What such behaviour can unwittingly encourage is extreme responses by minority groups in any society that is fuelled by the behaviour of our leaders as they provide simplistic messages designed to raise fear and incite anger, rather than opening up reasoned civil discussion.

In the 'The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends On It', well-known Christian Os Guinness argues that civility needs to be rebuilt in western societies like the USA if they are to survive:
"Civility must truly be restored. It is not to be confused with niceness and mere etiquette or dismissed as squeamishness about differences. It is a tough, robust, substantive concept… and a manner of conduct that will be decisive for the future of the American republic" (p. 3).
Os Guinness's book proposes that the restoration of civility in America could well have an influence around the world. He points to the threat of minority groups like the Religious Right and the secular Left, arguing that there is a need to avoid privileging one interest group over another, including religious groups. But equally, in the case of religion, we must avoid gagging public debate and making all public professions of faith illegal. He argues that the United States is uniquely placed to demonstrate how this can be done for the benefit of the world. In doing so, any nation should avoid two false responses to the challenges of a secular society where cultural and class wars eat away at civil society.  First, we need to avoid any notion of a “sacred public square", where one religion has a position of privilege that denies religious expression by others. Second, we need to avoid what he calls the “naked public square", where public life leaves no place for religion.

Guinness presents an alternative to both these problematic public squares, what he calls a “civil public square”. This is one where everyone is free to be part of and engage in public life with or without a faith, and in accordance with reason and conscience.  He sees the Constitution as a starting point in the USA, supported by an agreed covenant or civic vision for the common good.

Such a civil society, that is able to demonstrate a "civil public square", may well avoid the type of false tolerance that we have witnessed in Australia in recent times as diverse political parties have attempted to maintain a government where no party has a clear majority. A mature civil society will need to enable minority groups to have a voice, but they must not be allowed to seek to establish their position by yelling the loudest or the longest. Guinness reminds us that in a democracy all have a right to believe anything, but this does not mean, "anything anyone believes is right". We need to expect differences of opinion in a civil society and also to work out ways to discuss them and reach consensus for the common good. Christians have a part to play in such public discourse, participating openly as people of faith with godliness, humility and respect for the rights of others to participate as well.

6 comments:

Timaahy said...

Hi Trevor,

An interesting post... I have two comments.

1
"First, we need to avoid any notion of a 'sacred public square', where one religion has a position of privilege that denies religious expression by others."

Unfortuately, this is the reality in today's United States. Movements like the Tea Party, and increasingly even "mainstream" Republicans, are attempting to rewrite history, misinterpret the Constititution, and characterise America as a Christian nation. If Christians like Guinness are opposed to this, then that is all to the good. Sadly, however, he is in a vast minority.

2
Civility is one of those things that is commendable in principle, but problematic in practice. Yes, it would be lovely if we could all sit down and discuss our differences in a calm and rational manner. But the sad truth is that (a) some opposing views are so antithetical that they will never be reconciled, (b) some opinions are simply beyond the reach of reason, and (c) the public good is constantly hampered by an ignorant populice misled by the media.

How are American secularists to be civil with the Christians who want creationism taught in schools? How can Christians and humanists reach a compromise on abortion, or euthanasia, or same-sex marriage?
What is the appropriate response to the continued, willful ignorance of those who deny climate change?

Should we endlessly attempt civil discourse with those whose resistance is the very definition of incivility?

Civility is extremely important in personal relationships. But when personal views invade the public arena and affect the lives of all of us, civility should take a backseat to truth. When discussing issues that affect our entire society, country, or planet, what we say is a lot more important than how we say it.

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I was aware of movements like the 'Tea Party' in the USA, and couldn't help but see some parallels between the opposition to the Carbon Tax and some of the US protests. While some religious groups have taken part in the activities of the 'Tea Party' movement, they actually endorse a wide range of conservative and libertarian issues like reducing national debt, government spending, taxation, the national debt etc. So I suspect that there are plenty of atheists involved as well.

In relation to your second point, like Guinness, I agree that it's hard for groups holding different views to talk openly and with civility, but I don't think we have an option but to try. You ask a number of good questions and suggest that the positions are irreconcilable, but in a democracy we must debate issues then elect governments to represent us then respect their authority until we have a chance to vote against them. And to be honest, it is no harder for "American secularists to be civil with the Christians who want creationism taught in schools" than it is for Christians to be civil to atheists who want the teaching of Scripture to be stopped in schools.

One final thing, incivility isn't simply presenting a view that another group disagrees with. As I said above, incivility is "behaviour that runs counter to the well being of a society; that is, behaviour that strikes at the very structure and foundation of one's civil society." The behaviour of some of the opponents of a Carbon Tax who gathered that day in Canberra (as shown in the photo) demonstrated a high level of incivility.

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

"While some religious groups have taken part in the activities of the 'Tea Party' movement... I suspect that there are plenty of atheists involved as well."

While there are bound to be atheists scattered across the entire political spectrum, the vast majority of Tea Partiers are Christian. And once you take into account that the most prominent people endorsed by the Tea Party movement are fundamentalist Christians (Glenn Beck,Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell), I find it highly unlikely that you will find "plenty" of atheists within the Tea Party movement.

"And to be honest, it is no harder for 'American secularists to be civil with the Christians who want creationism taught in schools' than it is for Christians to be civil to atheists who want the teaching of Scripture to be stopped in schools."

Well, no. Not only is the separation of Church and State enshrined in the US Constitution, but creationism is simply wrong.

"Incivility isn't simply presenting a view that another group disagrees with."

No, of course not.

"The behaviour of some of the opponents of a Carbon Tax who gathered that day in Canberra (as shown in the photo) demonstrated a high level of incivility."

I wholeheartedly agree. My point was merely that, the "bitch" placard aside, their incivility would be lessened if they were actually right.

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

Good point about the US separation of church and state but the Creation Scientists (and I'm not one) would argue that they are proposing an alternative explanation of how this world was created. They'd argue that it is science not just theology. The approach here must be to argue against the science which many Christians have done.

In relation to who's right and wrong, let me say that matters of public policy are rarely about simply being right or wrong. The carbon tax debate is about citizens expressing views concerning one of the most significant environmental matters of our time. There are varied views on the science and even if we all agreed on the science, there would be varied views on what policy directions to take in response. There are a number of options to be considered and varied forms that even the carbon tax legislation could take. But the opponents are so certain that they're right and others are wrong that they are setting on a path to bring down a government if they don't get their way. All this before we even know what form the carbon tax will take.

The same approach to public policy is looming with the poker machine reforms with major rallies in varied places already. Who would you say is right and wrong on this one?

Cheers,

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

"They'd argue that it is science not just theology."

Haha, yes, they certainly do. Albeit extremely unsuccessfully (e.g. Ken Ham's ridiculous creation "museum").

"There are varied views on [climate] science."

No, there really aren't. Climate scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement. It's public figures like Alan Jones and George Pell who muddy the waters by spreading misinformation.

"There [are] be varied views on what policy directions to take in response."

Absolutely... but, unfortunately, instead of discussing how best to deal with it, we're stuck in a debate about whether climate change is even happening!

I haven't really been keeping track of the poker machine reforms... so I can't comment on specifics. What is being proposed...?

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Yes, I'm depressed that we're still arguing about the science of climate change, the evidence is overwhelming.

The poker machine issue is the idea raised by the independent politician Andrew Wilkie during the election campaign. The agreement by Labor to introduce new measures to help reduce gambling addiction is the basis of his support of the government. There was a Productivity Commission report into the impact of poker machines on gambling addictions and recommendations made to introduce a range of measures to reduce the number of problem gamblers. The measures include the use of a pre-commitment system where people decide before using the machines to limit their losses to (say) $100. The licensed clubs launched a $20mill advertising campaign today oppose the measures - they have labelled it in their first radio advertisement as 'un-Australian'. The government hasn't yet outlined exactly how the new scheme will work but already it is being characterised inaccurately.

Trevor