Incivility matters, so let's fix it

I forgot to add - The three sets of three seem like a bit of overkill  I would consolidate the first two - in a single statement of standards.

Posted Jul 16, 2012

I agree, Rob. My colleagues Daryl Rowland and Noelle Celeste have both pointed out the same thing. Nobody wants to be the civility police. Much as Politifact will laud politicians for their adherence to the truth and facts, we should celebrate civility and effective dialogue when it takes place. 

Posted Jul 18, 2012

Good morning Bill,

Participants in this discussion can read Dr. Walker's essay here, hear it read here and watch an interview with Dr. Walker here.

Do all you can to make today a good day,

Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write

Posted Jul 29, 2012

Good points Bill. As you know, I am interested in that moment when somebody decides to "go off" and become incivil, wondering what can be so important to allow such conduct. Looking back 240 years, you can see why our founding fathers were so mean to the king, but we are far removed from the subtleties of the day that might muddy the issue a lot. It would be interesting -- but impossible -- to know what our public discourse will look like from the perspective of the future.

Posted Aug 03, 2012

If that's true then all of us in the media are in trouble because we are taught from Day One to get to the point right away. As I study this more, I am constantly made aware that a lot of the practices of the media are seen as uncivil. I would contend that many of them are necessary, but it's sobering to know how many people take offense with the methods we use. For example, we can listen to a lengthy speech and pick up on the most controvercial aspect, discarding the routine stuff. The result can be to set people apart. The logic/reason is that a story must deal with the most important aspects and that's usually the parts that are controvercial. I'd be interested to know how other people feel.

Posted Aug 06, 2012

Lol! I love that the Civic Commons  language nanny doesn't allow me to type the first name of a Vice President of the United States because his name is a euphenism for penis.

Posted Aug 12, 2012

Interesting observation.  That had not occurred to me - likely because I recognize the image from a very angry confrontation that was in the news about a week before this conversation started.

But you're right - as small as the image is, withouth the context of (then) recent news I can see the impression it could have.

Posted Aug 28, 2012

Randall - in my experience, four letter words seem best used to emphasize or punctuate a sentiment or emotion or the strength of an opinion as felt by the speaker. But when used in a constant, regular stream, I don't interpret it as a lack of being at a doctoral level of discourse. Rather. I interpret it as meaning that the speaker might be lacking specific reasons for why they feel the way they do. It's not just that such language might be viewed as uncivil - it's that the language doesn't tell you anything that can help you understand the speaker's opinion other than that it might be really strong. Honestly, I also think using four letter words instead of explanations about why someone believes what they believe or why they feel the way they do is also lazy. I don't let people get away with just telling me something is complicated, rather than explaining it to me. When someone tells me something was fun or something was bad, I want to know why. One syllable words can do the explaining - but profanity? Name-calling? Not so much.

Posted Sep 15, 2012

You are asking good questions.  I have spent a fair amount of time talking about these questions, particularly about the question of language, in the last year or so.  Let me split my response into two categories - since I treat different categories of colorful language differently.

7-dirty-words type

As background, so you know where I'm coming from, I almost never use four-letter words.  I used one this week, and I remember the circumstances of the last time I used one around a year ago.  If I had to guess, the time before that would have been ~ 2004/5.  It is that rare for me. 

So here is the view from someone toward the language prude end of the spectrum.  The occasional 4-letter word doesn't keep me from hearing what someone is saying.  But there have been a few times when the language was so pervasive, and so randomly inserted into the conversation, that I have been unable to focus on substance of the conversation because I couldn't shut out the language. 

On the other hand, I also know that when I ask people to back off from using 4-letter words, it forces them focus on the words they are using rather than the thoughts they want to convey.  So people who pepper their speech with the occasional, or even frequent, 4-letter words around me mostly have no clue it makes me uncomfortable.

But my listening tolerance is pretty high, and I would rather be slightly uncomfortable rather than throw up a barrier for the speaker.  There may be other listeners who reach the shut-off point much sooner.  So if the point is to have conversations with each other, it is probably a good idea to reach a happy medium where the speaker is not running every word s/he says thorugh the equivalent of a net nanny - but also one which is respectful of the impact of vulgar language on the listener's ability to hear the substance of what the speaker is saying.

Words that hurt

There are words which have unfortunately become part of popular conversation which are hurtful to individuals or groups of individuals.  Those fall into a different category for me.

One of the most extreme examples of the kind of words I am talking about is the "N" word - which should be clearly recognizable as a word which hurts, in almost all circumstances.  But there are many more that are much more subtle.  A common playground insult these days is she/he/that is "so gay."  I doubt anyone hurling that insult thinks much about what it means or why it is insulting - but the insult only "works" if being gay is a negative thing.  The put down uses a group of people (gay people) as an insult.  In most instances, the speaker probably hasn't even thought about why the phrase is insulting - after all everyone is saying it.  It's just part of the background noise these days.  But for many gay children, hearing that word is the aural equivalent of neon flashing lights, and the gay child who hears it used as an insult feels its sting.  One more brick in the "if they really knew who I was, they would hate me" wall that separates that child from fully accepting him or herself.  (Although I used the playground setting for this example, the impact really doesn't change a whole lot based on age.)

Because of the real hurt that results from using these kinds of words, I think it is good thing to stop the substantive conversation and have a chat about language when they are being used - even at the cost of at least temporarily focusing the speaker on words rather than substance.

My rule of thumb is that if anyone tells me that words I am using hurt them because of who they are, I should probably stop using those words.  Even if it doesn't hurt everyone in that category.  Even if I wasn't aiming at the person raising the concern.  I also try very hard when I am speaking to think about whether something I am saying uses a group of people as an insult.  As a listener, I also try to notice and point out when I recognize hurtful language even if I am not a member of the targeted group because sometimes those who are being used as a battering ram don't feel they can risk exposing themselves, lest they become the next target of the battering ram.

So what makes a difference to me isn't the reading level of the conversation, or the formality, but whether the language that is being used becomes a barrier to communication. 

Posted Sep 15, 2012

Randall--

Thanks for your post.  I sometimes wonder (and if this is not what you meant, I apologize, but it is what I heard) if civility is the wrong solution, based on a misdiagnosis of the problem.  Yes, elite political ads and speeches are often personal attacks that make us uncomfortable.  And, yes, incivility can be an obstacle to communication.  But when I observe our situation today, I do not see these as the same thing.  

If we assume they are the same, then the solution is some sort of grammar police and the image in my mind is one of my grade school nuns beating the heck of me for speaking my mind in a way that annoyed her.

If, however, we separate these and focus on the most immediate problems associated with elite ads...I am not sure the most important thing for us to address in these is civility.  

It seems much more important to hold them accountable for repeatedly misleading, and sometimes outright lying, to us...and to see that as incivility on steroids.  That is, they hold their audience is such low regard, that they feel free to act in ways that are fundamentally disrepectful and dismissive... far more damaging that any passionate statement from a regular citizen that might include a well-chosen curse word or two...this is the kind of incivility that is undermining political communication today.

So, I appreciate your defense of the importance of citizens speaking with passion and I support what I heard you saying...that we should avoid using civility as a way to distract us from focusing on holding those accountable for actually creating the problem and acting as if the problem is regular citizens using language most of hear every day.  It is possible this was not what you were thinking, but your post sparked this in my head.  

Posted Sep 16, 2012

I've been known to say on multiple occasions that one downside to how civility may be defined or get enforced is that it absolutely has been used, as a concept, to suppress voices (it's not something a lady would say, or the aspersion of saying someone is being uppity, and so on) and under no circumstances do I approve of that kind of use. However, I do think most of us have it in ourselves to say what we want to say in a way that can be heard by most people, even if they don't want to hear it.

Posted Sep 16, 2012

Matt, I like how you frame that. I think you're probably right, but it's aasset of factors and influences that are very hidden. I'm hopeful Dave Scott of the ABJ has seen your comment, as it might be a fruitful vein for reporting.  

Posted Sep 20, 2012

There is a difference between government censorship (which would be unconstitutional if applied to uncivil speech) and creating a climate in which uncivil speech is perceived as negative (rather than the current climate in which it is perceived as either a necessary evil, or actually a good thing).

A tool that is routinely applied in an even handed manner (as the fact check tools are increasingly applied) would be a good start.  An initial challenge, as you point out,  will be convincing the public that it is not political.  Rather than trying to equally target ads from both parties, I would focus on creating a panel of politically diverse people who are trusted by members of both major parties to be unbiased in using the tool.

Beyond that, the owners of the ads should be routinely made aware of the civility rating - not only by the rating panel, but by supporters of the candidate or issue being promoted by the ad, along with praise for high civility ratings or a call to change strategies which employ advertisements with lower civility ratings.  I think it will be important to encourage these ratings to be used as a tool by supporters of a candidate or issue, rather than primarily as a weapon to be used by opponents (which might be a bit uncivil in and of itself).

Posted Jul 20, 2012

You’re right, Dave, nasty, fact-free ads play a major role in setting a tone of incivility. This is, to a great degree, inevitable because TV ads are traditionally built to play on emotion rather than reason.

No candidate wants to pay for time to lay out fine points of public policy. We can pressure political campaigns to watch their facts and not be wildly misleading, but ads, like pop music, will always be aimed at the heart. I think that media going after both sides of the aisle with equal rigor can get beyond accusations of political bias by remaining truly even-handed over time. As for free speech issues, we are talking about scrutiny and pressure not legislation or coercion, so there is no real conflict.

The biggest problem, however, is that ads can deliver a high level of frequency that commentators and bloggers cannot. For every moment of tough analysis, there are hundreds of repetitions of an ad itself. So in terms of impact, the misleading ad always wins. Dave, do you think there any way to tilt the scales for greater balance?

Posted Jul 21, 2012

Good morning David,

Welcome to the conversation.

Gov. Romney's core message was that President Obama's economic policies are bad.

If you were a writer working for Gov. Romney, how would have suggested he phrase that statement with civility?

Do all you can to make today a good day,

Jeff

Posted Aug 15, 2012

David,

I picked up a requested book from the library this morning – Ken Bain’s What The Best College Students Do – and opened the book to page 77 where I found:

“Myside Bias: People tend to think from their own perspective, something scientists call myside bias, or sometimes confirmation bias. If I gave statements by politicians who contradicted themselves, for example, research suggests you’d easily spot those hypocrites—as long as they come from a party you don’t support. When they come from your side of the political fence, however, you probably wouldn’t see the inconsistency at all.”

Intercourse with myside bias is debate, without myside bias is converation.

The former is decptively easy, the latter devilishly hard.

Jeff

Posted Aug 16, 2012

Good Morning Jim,

Is it possible that you're melding debate and conversation here?

Debate is all about the win. Whether you play by debate/forensic or street rules is a matter of choice, but the win remains paramount.

Conversation, however, is focused on increasing understanding, on teasing out precisely what each party understands and first seeking mutual agreement on what is true (not generally an easy activity) and then exploring areas where each party can rethink, modify and learn their own appreciation of the ideas and questions surrounding that topic.

My standard opening at our monthly Socrates Café is that the purpose of the discussion is not to reach any conclusions, but rather to invest 90 minutes in exploring the participants' thinking on the question for the evening, to consider how that thinking differs from your own and learn from the experience.

In that vein, I am following this conversation because I want to know why people believe incivility exists, whether or not incivility is wrong and, perhaps most importantly, what might be the societal results of eliminating incivility.

Do all you can to make today a good day,

Jeff
Have Coffee Will Write

Posted Jul 21, 2012

I would like to see such debates become the norm.  It would be great to see the classic standards applied to all debate in congress and at all public hearings at the statehouse. Our elected officials who are meant to be leaders must behave civily to encourage civility.

Posted Jul 21, 2012

Good Morning Jim,

Is it possible that you're melding debate and conversation here?
Debate is all about the win. Whether you play by debate/forensic or street rules is a matter of choice, but the win remains paramount.

Conversation, however, is focused on increasing understanding, on teasing out precisely what each party understands and first seeking mutual agreement on what is true (not generally an easy activity) and then exploring areas where each party can rethink, modify and learn their own appreciation of the ideas and questions surrounding that topic.

My standard opening at our monthly Socrates Café is that the purpose of the discussion is not to reach any conclusions, but rather to invest 90 minutes in exploring the participants thinking on the question for the evening, to consider how that thinking differs from your own and learn from the experience.

In that vein, I following this conversation because I want to know why people believe incivility exists, whether or not incivility is wrong and, perhaps most importantly, what might be the societal results of eliminating incivility?

Do all you can to make today a good day,
Jeff
Have Coffee Will Write

Posted Jul 21, 2012

In an era when political candidates offer less and less substantial interraction with the media and sometimes even demand AND GET approval for quotes, it might be a little too much to expect the media to demand anything, let alone more substantial debates. Personally, I would flatly refuse to allow quotes to be screened and face the consequences of possibly not getting the story, but obviously that is not a universal position. Anyway, it only demonstrates how toothless the media have become. I attribute much of that to the influx of wannabes who can call themselves journalists simply by setting up a website and venting their spleen.

Posted Aug 03, 2012

Yes.  And offering politicians and their surrogates an opportunity to garner publicity and praise for their civility may yield better results.  Rewards are often more effective than punishment.

Posted Jul 29, 2012

Good thoughts.  One place to start might be the Alternatives to Violence curriculum.  It has been years since I was involved with them, but one of the primary goals of the project is to teach the non-violent skills needed to respond to conflicts (ranging from verbal to physical).

Posted Aug 22, 2012

Very thoughtful and productive, Nancy.  First, grounding in a good study helps a lot.  One threat to civility resides in how easily we conflate our individual perception (or the views of our party or race or gender or era) with the truth...and speak without enough humility or respect for the others who will bring alternative perspectives to the same question. 

Not sure a code can address this, but strong support for education might be a start...seems what is needed is a cultural shift toward rejecting public statements that are contrary to the best available data, thought in this case there is lots of gray area, as you point out, so that same standard would expect differences to be worked out or clarified based on the best available data...as a starting point...as you did.

Second, since most of the most blatant incivility (so far) in the presidential campaign comes from putatively unaffiliated superpacs I wonder if a code that explicitly prohibits us from challenging the motives of a speaker will advance civility?  In other words, the level of civility for the two candidates may not be the best question, at least not this year.

When a surrogate like Trump uses his high profile status to spread clearly false accusations (about the president's birth certificate) isn't the important question here...what is his motivation?

Why would he want to use his influence and power to misinform citizens?  Would we not advance incivility--encouraging more like him to do the same--by failing to challenge his motives...since simply challening the factual accuracy has already been done, over and over again, and has not slowed his ongoing efforts to misinform citizens?

It is possible that I am completely off base here, but given your thoughtful comments throughout this forum, I wondered what you thought?   Thanks, Bill

Posted Aug 01, 2012

It's more than a perception, or even a bias. It's an observation. Obama attacks and demonizes his opponents and perceived enemies (often cartoon-like straw men) viciously and publicly. He is rude and insulting, as when he treated the Prime Minister of Israel badly by keeping him cooling his heels while he ate his dinner. He is harsh, critical and a rabble-rousing scold. I'm sure he feels justified in being that way, and you may agree with him, but he is uncivil.

From the sound of things, you probably haven't watched Mitt Romney speak much. He's perhaps not as captivating as Obama, but he doesn't demonize and vilify people who don't agree with him, and he doesn't wag his finger and scold us. He doesn't create straw men enemies and then demolish them. He doesn't rabble rouse. His tone of voice is mild and agreeable. You may not like him personally or agree with his views but he is civil.

Posted Aug 01, 2012