Civility in An Uncivil World - Part II

    A group of porcupines huddling together close enough to stay warm, but not too close so as not to poke each other. That is how the Hall-of-Fame, British political philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, once described civil society. Well, now. Professor Oakeshott would be sorely disappointed in his American cousins, today. We seem to have neither the warmth, nor the distance from each other (thank you modern technology and social media), nor the thickness of skin to withstand, or to face head-on, the inevitable barbs that come with living together. Personally, I think a civil society is a particular kind of animal that presupposes ideological and practical bonds. It is not an extended family, nor is it a tribe or religious society. The bonds, as it were, are those of Civitas (Latin for civility)—life rooted in a common sense of citizenship. This common sense is understood in our laws and our judiciary; it is understood morally; and exercised in everyday, practical affairs. Our society is civil to the extent that we treat each other civilly, with the respect that presupposes and encourages participation in a common legal, material, and moral life. And I think we can all agree that Civitas is becoming less and less a part of our public, and yes, even our private lives. 

    I come to this, possibly boring topic for some of you, in a selfish way. You see, even as I think that I've matured over the years...well, at least these last few years...I find myself, recently, becoming a little "un-civil" with some people; especially friends and family when certain topics are broached. And we all know what those topics are; be they politics, religion, moronic television reality shows, or the intelligence of the weather-person on the local news. Now, I could blame my current descent into incivility on my recent focus at the two wars currently in the news, or other serious topics that I have written about. As you may have noticed, I tend to pick topics that I feel strongly about. 

    For instance, I have a profound hatred for, in no particular order, Vladimir Putin and Hamas. You could probably throw in the leadership of Iran and the nitwit who runs North Korea. I think those are four healthy hatreds. So when I hear someone toss the word "Hate" around (and really mean it) when they are discussing a sports team, or a local television personality who has never been accused of murder or sexual child abuse...then I sometimes get a little crazy at those people. But lately, your humble correspondent is getting all jacked up about stupid shit. 

    For example, I have had a sometimes funny, sometimes not so funny, running feud with a friend whom I've known since college. Now, to be fair, we sometimes get into it just to push each other's buttons because we're guys, and guys are dopes. But, and there's always a "But"; there are times when I think he's really serious. We're both music aficionados (and no, it's not Man About Town Chip Magee), and one night we're on the phone talking about favorite albums, groups, genres...whatever. Without further boring you with the whole conversation, let me just say that I lost it, and I mean...LOST IT, when he interrupted me at one point to say that he did not think Joni Mitchell belonged in the Hall-of-Fame. Wait, what? Huh?? Are you effing kidding me? Joni Mitchell is a legend! Anyway, when I realized he was not kidding...well, never mind. But that's what I'm talking about. I actually got idiotic, 61-years-old going on 8, Trump-like stupid! I almost wished I'd have been senile like Biden and could have forgotten the whole conversation. Anyway... So that's what I'm talking about. The uncivil mind, in an uncivil world. I don't want to be like that. So I got some help. 

    A few months ago, a woman by the name of Alexandra Hudson wrote/published a wonderful little book titled The Soul of Civility. It had been sitting on my shelf for a few weeks, waiting in line, as it were. Well, I had to move it up to the front. To paraphrase Spike Lee...I did the right thing!

    Right off the bat, after introducing how she came to the topic, Hudson begins by distinguishing between civility and politeness; politeness relying on the form of rules of behavior, while civility relies on the motivation and substance in relation to a notion of the good. To put it in terms that even a dope like me can understand; politeness is the outer self (don't say the wrong thing at the dinner table even though you think someone else is a moron, so you don't ruin the whole evening). And civility is your inner self that's really trying to figure things out and come to a consensus that listens and respects. 

    She also asks 3 interesting questions that I never would have thought of; a) Do we treat others as persons or things?; b) Do we temper the formal social rules with the informal norms that bend toward justice? and; c) Are our motivations morally grounded? After thinking about it, I realized that these questions matter if you really want to have good conversations about important topics. And these questions are the difference between politeness and civility. Because politeness is transactional, different to every conversation that just tends to paper over differences to get to the end of it. Civility is more of a moral undertaking that is more than just agreeing to disagree. Civility is a willingness to live and work together because we need to understand why we disagree, and are willing to talk frankly about what we believe without shooting each other! The conversation is not a contest (guilty, your honor!), but a place for mutual learning. Civility demands that we speak what we believe is the truth, while simultaneously recognizing that our interlocutor may be right (Really? Damn...); "that we have something to learn or understand more deeply, and that our interlocutor is a human being worthy of respect." 

    Hudson's anchors, both intellectual and moral, are broadly scriptural and theological, which is fair. But she also pairs the sacred, as she would see it, with various classical and Enlightenment traditions of what she calls "virtue ethics" mixed with classical liberalism. She refuses to focus on the tensions between what some might call the sacred and the secular, but instead finds and describes the common ground. She has literally surveyed thousands of years of literature, and while she pleads guilty to her roots being in the Western tradition (Aristotle, Montesquieu, Burke), she also highlights lesser known but equally important sources, such as the epic of Gilgamesh, The Teachings of Ptahhotep (yeah, I didn't know that one either), as well as Giovanni della Casa and Ibn Khaldun, and a host of others. For me, that was the coolest thing about this book. A whole new list of things to read!

    She also sets out sections of the book titled "Why Civility?" and "Civility in Practice." These are sprinkled with historical texts and examples from popular culture that talk to each other like mirrors, in order to, at least as I see it, emphasize the need both to understand and to practice civility. Additionally, Hudson closes each chapter with a list of useful suggestions—a precis (as she call it), informed by the chapter’s texts and examples, of how we might manage ourselves and our environments to be more civil to others. 

    Writing about civility is not an easy task, for civility as a disposition recognizes the messy gray areas of human sociability. Part philosophy and intellectual history, part social criticism and moral advice, Hudson’s book weaves and wanders across a vast landscape. Her approach is thematic, almost a kaleidoscope of textual references, impressions, anecdotes, cultural criticism, and moral guidance shifting and swirling alongside each other. The overall and individual elements are full of wisdom. Even the chapters on integrity, and then freedom and democracy, emphasize the need for civility and how it reinforces civilization. Because, like Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, Hudson reminds us that the “less we regulate our own impulses and appetites, the more likely it is that an external, despotic power will try to do so for us." I would add that the more we read, and read deeply, the less likely we are persuaded by the charlatans and the uncivil and juvenile demagogue-wannabes. 

    I am reminded that civility is the "social contract that supports the Social Contract. Without it, our way of life will cease to exist." And it is probably no coincidence that I am writing this on the eve of the day we celebrate the life and works of Martin Luther King, Jr. Hudson devotes a whole chapter to civil disobedience as a form of civility. Which reminds me and I hope reminds you to take the time to read a speech or two of Dr. King's. Maybe I'll try and help with that. Hudson relies on Socrates, Gandhi, and King, and surveys the ways in which unjust "incivility" needs to be challenged by non-violent "civility". She stresses how civility, rightly understood, reinforces moral and legal equality.   

    In the end, Hudson is an optimist. She manages to critique contemporary culture without being negative. She offers suggestions, honest assessment, and humility as if she were talking to a friend. She urges us to ignore the faults of others while striving not to fall short of ourselves. At times I found her optimism refreshing; at other times, maybe a little naive. But that's okay. 

    So what does it mean to practice civility in an uncivil world? As for me, I think that civility is not so much a thing, as it is a way of going about things…a disposition, or frame of mind, as it were. Genuine curiosity, listening, conversing, firm words but not mean or intemperate ones—these are some of the things, the "elements of creative imaginings" that lend themselves to the arts of living well together. And let me tell you, sometimes those things are tough! But like Oakeshott's porcupines, when they come closer to each other, yet still give each other the space to survive, civility is a dynamic process defined by a range of tolerance; to bend without breaking. A wise man once said that "to realize the relative validity of one's convictions and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilized man from a barbarian." The Soul of Civility is a call to civil thought and action, and to take a deep breath realizing that Civitas, properly understood, allows us strength and flexibility in navigating our current and sometimes very prickly, if not barbarous political and social landscape. Man, I've got a lot work to do!

write to Peter: magtour@icloud.com