Vol. 76 No. 3 — May/June 1995 —
The Duty of Civility
Download
PDF version
Civility means a great deal more than just
being nice to one another; it is the lubricant that keeps
a society running smoothly. So vital is it, in fact, that
some philosophers say that we have a duty to act civilly -
especially here in Canada, where we must live with diversity...
On first examination, a person would never guess how important
civility is to human affairs. One dictionary writes it off
as mere good manners. Another says that the word refers especially
to cold and formal politeness. Yet another suggests that it
is little more than acting in a way that is not outrightly
rude.
By these standards, one might conclude that civility is
best exemplified by the polished hypocrisy of a diplomat in
an unfriendly capital or the supercilious correctness of a
waiter in a pricey Paris restaurant. But when you consider
it in practice, you realize that the lexicographers have settled
for woefully incomplete definitions. It is as though they
had wrestled long and hard with the immense scope and weight
of the concept, and given up in their efforts to pin it down.
Instead of exploring the crucial role of civility in social
and political life, the lexicographers have concentrated on
how it carries less personal warmth than other social graces.
So it often does: but if civil men and women tend to be reserved,
it is because they scrupulously avoid intruding into or interfering
with other people's business. Another factor that tends to
render their manner less than familiar is that civility is
usually directed towards people one hardly knows or does not
know at all.
As we can see from looking at the first part of the word,
civility is a form of public, as opposed to private, behaviour.
The adjective "civil" refers to citizenship, so that civility,
or the lack of it, governs the approach of one citizen to
the rest of the citizenry. Its presence or absence has a profound
effect on the character of any society. It goes a long way
towards making the difference between a pleasant and a not-so-pleasant
place to live.
The difficulty in bringing it into focus seems to lie in
thinking of it as a single personal quality like politeness,
whereas it is actually an amalgam of several such qualities.
True, it begins with the inculcation and exercise of good
manners, but not just any kind of manners, certainly not the
snobbish kind designed to shut people out of one's own circle
or to assert one's presumed superiority. The best manners,
it has been said, are tailored to the occasion and the recipients.
The key to civility is in trying to make everyone you encounter
day-by-day feel at ease.
In any case, manners are only the most visible manifestation
of what is less of a code of conduct than a spirit. That spirit
encompasses consideration, tact, good humour, and respect
for others' feelings and rights. Perhaps the one word that
comes closest to summing it up is "obliging." It is a variation
on the golden rule, urging that you treat everyone as decently
and considerately as you would like to be treated yourself.
We may be better able to grasp what it is all about by putting
aside the dictionaries and turning to a fanciful example.
The celebrated 18th century English preacher Richard Cecil
told the story of two goats who met on a bridge which was
too narrow for either to pass or turn back. When one goat
lay down to let the other walk over him, civility was born.
Such self-effacement calls for self-restraint; and it is
at this point that we can see that the link between civility
and civilization is more than just etymological. People might
think of a civilized community as one in which there is a
refined culture. Not necessarily; first and foremost it is
one in which the mass of people subdue their selfish instincts
in favour of the common wellbeing.
Building an enviable nation on a foundation of civility
Think of it in the negative: in an uncivilized society,
the stronger and more cunning individuals pursue their own
impulses and desires to the limit, riding roughshod over their
weaker fellows. In contrast, civilized societies live by a
set of customs and laws which, imperfect though they may be,
are fundamentally designed to strike a rough balance between
the stronger and the weaker. The laws themselves, however,
are less important than a public disposition to obey them,
and this stems largely from the spirit of civility.
The democratic system presupposes civil conduct in our courts
and elected bodies. More generally, civility calls upon us
to make an effort to see the other person's point of view,
and to try to resolve differences democratically. It allows
us to engage in dialogues with those whose ideas we oppose
in a non-aggressive fashion. This leads to attempts to reconcile
disagreements by seeking and moving towards common ground.
That great expert on manners, Lord Chesterfield, once remarked
that "mutual complaisances, attentions, and sacrifices of
little conveniences" are at the heart of an "implied contract"
among civilized people. In a country like Canada, people on
the whole abide by a tacit agreement to hold back from doing
as they please if it is in opposition to what is deemed best
for the whole society.
"What I love about Canada is its civility," the famed American-born
urbanologist Jane Jacobs once said. "There's always a willingness
to talk things out with reasonable politeness." And indeed
Canadians have long been noted for their civil ways, to the
point where it has become something of a caricature. When
you step on a Canadian's toes, an American comedian once observed,
he apologizes. No doubt the public politeness of
Canadians is exaggerated in foreign eyes, but the fact remains
that it has helped them to make the compromises necessary
to build an enviable nation out of competing regional and
cultural interests with a minimum of rancour and strife.
The question is: is civility slipping away from us? In an
article in the University of Toronto Magazine based on his
book A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics
of Pluralism, Mark Kingwell, assistant professor of philosophy
at Scarborough College, described returning to Toronto after
a number of years abroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks,
brutal exchanges on the bus, people losing their cool in the
Eaton Centre." In his absence, Canadian politics had also
grown more rough and nasty, leading him to worry that "we
are in danger of losing our sense that civility matters. [
It] is an increasingly fragile aspect of our national life,
a virtue in danger of going out of style permanently."
If civility really is in danger of going out of style, it
is largely because of what is now in style in our
popular culture. In the name of personal freedom, people here
have long since accepted that anything goes, as long as it
is not clearly identified as a criminal offence. This is partly
a reaction to traditional social strictures which stifled
individual expression and helped to maintain the domination
of elites in our society. Be that as it may, the ethos of
"letting it all hang out" has dealt a heavy blow to civility,
because it is just the opposite of self- restraint.
When it started in the 1960s, one of the guiding notions
of the social liberation movement was that people should give
vent to their feelings. That in itself is good, but it seems
to have been misinterpreted by the entertainment media, which
can be expected to influence the attitude of the public at
large.
They seized upon it to confront the public with wild demonstrations
of rage, an emotion that makes for spectacular action in movies,
television and stage plays. In a typical scene, the hero of
a movie cannot get what he wants in a restaurant, so he overturns
the table and sends the plates and glasses flying. The audience
laughs indulgently. The underlying message is that it is all
right - even glamorous - to relieve your frustrations by smashing
things and generally raising hell.
Sheer rudeness, too, has acquired a certain chic. In recent
years the media have raised boorishness to an art form. The
hip heroes of movies today deliver gratuitous put-downs to
ridicule and belittle anyone who gets in their way. Bad manners,
apparently, make a saleable commodity. Television situation
comedies wallow in vulgarity, stand-up comedians base their
acts on insults to their audiences, and talk show hosts become
rich and famous by snarling at callers and hectoring guests.
It was a sad day for civility when a journalist first wrote
approvingly about somebody being "outspoken." Now everybody,
it seems, is speaking out vehemently on the premise that the
more stridently you shout, the more attention your cause will
receive. In public affairs, the rallying-cry of the times
seems to be "in your face!" TV news shows feature a steady
parade of advocates and demonstrators demanding whatever they
want, regardless of how their demands fit in with public priorities.
If extra-parliamentary politics is lacking in reason and grace,
do not look to parliaments for a better example. Telecasts
from our elected assemblies reveal the spectacle of members
bumptiously grinding their particular axes to a cacophony
of juvenile jeers.
The traditional admonition to "keep a civil tongue in your
head" appears already to be out of fashion. From the schoolyard
to the office, what used to be called bad language has become
standard form. Much of it is simple verbal laziness, using
expletives to avoid the search for words that precisely convey
what the speaker is thinking. But crude language has not entirely
lost its power to insult and intimidate. It remains a medium
of anger and scorn, and it is often used as a bludgeon to
beat down the expression of other people's views.
Are we losing 'moral virility' by being so darn polite?
The old civil virtue of minding one's own business has also
been taking a beating. Civility demands that you graciously
let others go their own way and refrain from sitting in judgment
on them. In recent years, many people have taken it upon themselves
to tell other people what they may or may not do, over and
above anything required by law or public decency. Civility
implies a kind of partnership in the business of getting along
in life; this behavioural bullying is not the act of a partner,
but of a superior.
As if all this were not enough of an assault on the Canadian
tradition of civility, intellectual commentators have advanced
the theory that it somehow saps our vital juices. To them,
our mild- mannered ways are a source of embarrassment in the
cultural capitals they admire. Our stereotypical niceness
contributes to another stereotype: that Canadians - English-speaking
Canadians, at least - are irredeemably dull and plodding.
Reserve and reticence, once considered admirable traits, are
now viewed as evidence that we are too deferential for our
own good.
A magazine columnist recently linked Canadian civility to
"a loss of moral virility." Canadians, she wrote, "show the
conviction of dead fish most of the time..." She made these
statements in aid of a particular point, but they were typical
of the school of thought that suggests that we need less civility
rather than more of it. The theory is that, under what she
called "yoke of civility," we have become rather gutless when
it comes to standing up for our rights.
Where there is civility, issues are not resolved by shouting others down
This is not quite true, any more than it is true that English-
speaking Canadians are insuperably lacking in verve and passion.
A look at the Canadian media on any given day will demonstrate
that we are actually a disputatious lot, not at all behind-hand
in debating political and social issues and making claims
on behalf of our various groups. As for our reputation for
sheep-like tameness, we might sometimes wish we were tamer.
Historically, we have had our share of civil disorder. In
recent years riots have erupted in Canadian cities for as
little reason as a local team losing - or winning - a sports
trophy.
For all that, as Mark Kingwell writes, "citizenship as civility
is a notion that actually exists in this country" - albeit
precariously. As Canadians pursue their experiment in ever-increasing
multiculturalism, that notion needs to be reinforced. According
to Kingwell, "civility is basic to political life in a pluralistic
society because it governs the continuing dialogue that makes
such a society possible.... Properly understood, civility
may provide us with the most coherent, and most progressive,
characterization of social cohesion that we are likely to
find."
So far in our history, civility has served us well. Injustices
and inequities have been steadily righted within its framework.
It is, however, an unfortunate fact of democratic life that
some injustices and inequities will always exist, if only
because new ones are likely to arise in the process of getting
rid of old ones; they are thrown up by the inevitable march
of change. It might be argued that we can get rid of them
more quickly if those affected by them were less patient and
accommodating, more willing to resort to confrontation. But
that runs the risk of civil disorder, which does no one any
good.
Civility does not preclude intense debate, nor does it lead
us to back down from principles that really matter. It only
means that we conduct our debates and defend our principles
in an atmosphere of reasonableness and courtesy. Where there
is civility in discourse, differences can be examined intelligently.
They are not resolved by the unfair criterion of which party
is able to shout the other down.
According to the modern American philosopher John Rawls,
civility is nothing less than a duty among citizens of a democracy.
The system is inherently made up of disparate groups with
their own interests to promote or protect. "Even with the
best of intentions their opinions of justice are bound to
clash," Rawls commented. Therefore the competing parties "must
make some concessions to one another to operate a constitutional
regime."
In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls stated that
citizens are obliged to act in good faith, and to assume good
faith on the part of others until clear proof emerges to the
contrary. They must recognize, in effect, that the system
cannot meet everybody's claims at once and accept that at
times they will be on the losing side.
Good manners can give a powerful boost
to practical success
He wrote: "... We have a natural duty of civility not to
invoke the faults of social arrangements as a too ready excuse
for not complying with them, nor to exploit inevitable loopholes
in the rules to advance our interest. The duty of civility
imposes a due acceptance of the defects of institutions and
a certain restraint in taking advantage of them. Without some
recognition of this duty mutual trust and confidence is liable
to break down."
The lofty level of constitutional democracy may seem a far
cry from the dinner table at home, where we train - or neglect
to train - our children in basic good manners. Manners can
only be adopted through example; they cannot be imposed. Parents
who are not in the habit of using polite expressions such
as please and excuse me cannot expect their children to suddenly
become paragons of decorum in outside company. A foul-mouthed
father or mother will develop foul-mouthed children. Adults
who are not willing to give a little to accommodate others
or accept their faults will find the same attitudes reflected
in their progeny.
To the German philosopher Johann Kaspar Spurzheim, the manners
taught to children should include "the whole circle of charities
which spring from the consciousness of what is due to their
fellow human beings." It all adds up to the old-fashioned
concept of "good breeding," which has been described as "benevolence
in trifles, and the preference of others to ourselves in the
daily occurrences of life."
Though there should be no incentive to train young people
in civility other than making them into good human beings,
the fact is that good breeding does have its practical benefits.
The worldly Lord Chesterfield called it "the result of much
good sense," in which a little self-denial is practised for
the sake of others " with a view to obtain the same indulgence
from them."
The crassest motive for civility is that it can be a powerful
aid to occupational success. Whether we are selling goods
or services or simply our own personalities, it pays to have
a winning manner. The leader in business or public service
today is the one who can make other people want to work for
him or her, and that requires the sort of consideration that
fosters good feelings on both sides.
But there is a deeper degree of success that comes from
being at peace with oneself. These days, many people's problems
are said to be due to a lack of self-esteem. Good manners
build self-confidence, because people who have them can be
reasonably sure that wherever they go, they will be accepted.
People who treat other people nicely stand to be treated nicely
by them. By making others feel good, they feel good about
themselves.
This exchange of pleasant feelings plays a large part in
making a community or a country a good place to live. While
civility is a bonding agent in societies everywhere, the Canadian
society, in its pluralism, needs it more than most. It is
nothing to be ashamed of. We should not be swayed by arguments
that we are not tough or assertive or abrasive enough for
this hard old world. If we have the reputation of being the
naïve boy scouts of the world, so be it. There are worse
reputations to have; boy scouts, after all, go about doing
good.
At the same time, we Canadians have nothing to be smug about.
In our laxity in maintaining our traditional standards of
polite behaviour, we have indeed become less civil - and thereby
less civilized. Canadian parents and others who have an influence
on the young should make conscious efforts to instil civility
in the emerging generation at a time when it is being bombarded
with bad examples. Far from being embarrassed by it, we should
nurture it as a feature of our national identity and indeed
a matter of national pride.
Published by RBC Financial Group. All editions from the RBC
Letter collection are available on our web site at www.rbc.com/responsibility/letter.
Our e-mail address is: rbcletter@rbc.com.
Publié aussi en francais.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
