Some Civility Definitions
Compiled by Joy Marsella
Oxford English Dictionary
“Behavior proper to the intercourse of civilized people; ordinary courtesy or politeness, as opposed to rudeness of behavior; decent respect, consideration… Historical sense - connected with citizenship and civil polity… ." (Polity refers to civil order or organization; administration of a state, a process of civil government or constitution.)”
The Institute for Civility in Government
“Civility is claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.” Thomas Spath and Cassandra Dahnke, Founders, Institute for Civility in Government
“Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeing common ground as a starting point for dialogue about difference, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. It is political in that it is a necessary prerequisite for civic action. But it is political too, in the sense that it is about negotiating interpersonal power such that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s is ignored.
And civility begins with us.”
The Ohio Civility Project, Report and Recommendations
Civility is displaying the respect and courtesy toward other citizens in public discourse that is necessary for constructive public debate about solving public problems… On the one hand, civility is not just politeness or expression of goodwill— as welcome as such things may be in public discourse. Rather, civility is conduct with broader public purposes of constructive debate in mind… [C]ivility does not preclude substantive disagreement, vigorous advocacy of point of view, or cogent criticism of alternative perspective. After all, such things are essential for constructive public debate as well.”
From Civility Scholars
A review of the dozen definitions below gives a good idea of the issues involved in civility and a sampling of eminent scholars who have shaped society’s understanding of their complexity; therefore, the definitions themselves move toward the theoretical and will be substantial. I include a representative sampling here.
Jeffrey Alexander. The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford UP, 2006.
“Despite its worldly flaws and contradictions… solidarity and the project of civil discourse remain our best hope: the antidote to every divisive institution, every unfair distribution, every abuse and dominating hierarchy.” From back cover of book.
Quotations below from opening paragraphs of the introductory chapter.
“The premise of Civil Sphere is that societies are not governed by power alone and are not fueled only by the pursuit of self-interest. Feelings for others matter, and they are structured by the boundaries of solidarity. How solidarity is structured, how far it extends, what it’s composed of— these are critical issues for every social order, and especially for orders that aim at the good life. Solidarity is possible because people are oriented not only to the here and now but to the ideal, to the transcendent, to what they hope will be everlasting…
…We need a new concept of civil society as a civil sphere, a world of values, and institutions that generates the capacity of social criticism and democratic institutions at the same time… I introduce the idea of democracy as a way of life… It has ‘its own’ ethics and institutions. But the civil sphere is not separated and ideal; it must exist in the real world. It must be located in time and space. As civil society settles down into everyday social systems, its contradictions become apparent. Real civil societies are created by social actors at a particular time and in a particular place…
Oxford English Dictionary
“Behavior proper to the intercourse of civilized people; ordinary courtesy or politeness, as opposed to rudeness of behavior; decent respect, consideration… Historical sense - connected with citizenship and civil polity… ." (Polity refers to civil order or organization; administration of a state, a process of civil government or constitution.)”
The Institute for Civility in Government
“Civility is claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.” Thomas Spath and Cassandra Dahnke, Founders, Institute for Civility in Government
“Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeing common ground as a starting point for dialogue about difference, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. It is political in that it is a necessary prerequisite for civic action. But it is political too, in the sense that it is about negotiating interpersonal power such that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s is ignored.
And civility begins with us.”
The Ohio Civility Project, Report and Recommendations
Civility is displaying the respect and courtesy toward other citizens in public discourse that is necessary for constructive public debate about solving public problems… On the one hand, civility is not just politeness or expression of goodwill— as welcome as such things may be in public discourse. Rather, civility is conduct with broader public purposes of constructive debate in mind… [C]ivility does not preclude substantive disagreement, vigorous advocacy of point of view, or cogent criticism of alternative perspective. After all, such things are essential for constructive public debate as well.”
From Civility Scholars
A review of the dozen definitions below gives a good idea of the issues involved in civility and a sampling of eminent scholars who have shaped society’s understanding of their complexity; therefore, the definitions themselves move toward the theoretical and will be substantial. I include a representative sampling here.
Jeffrey Alexander. The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford UP, 2006.
“Despite its worldly flaws and contradictions… solidarity and the project of civil discourse remain our best hope: the antidote to every divisive institution, every unfair distribution, every abuse and dominating hierarchy.” From back cover of book.
Quotations below from opening paragraphs of the introductory chapter.
“The premise of Civil Sphere is that societies are not governed by power alone and are not fueled only by the pursuit of self-interest. Feelings for others matter, and they are structured by the boundaries of solidarity. How solidarity is structured, how far it extends, what it’s composed of— these are critical issues for every social order, and especially for orders that aim at the good life. Solidarity is possible because people are oriented not only to the here and now but to the ideal, to the transcendent, to what they hope will be everlasting…
…We need a new concept of civil society as a civil sphere, a world of values, and institutions that generates the capacity of social criticism and democratic institutions at the same time… I introduce the idea of democracy as a way of life… It has ‘its own’ ethics and institutions. But the civil sphere is not separated and ideal; it must exist in the real world. It must be located in time and space. As civil society settles down into everyday social systems, its contradictions become apparent. Real civil societies are created by social actors at a particular time and in a particular place…
Lawrence E. Cahoone, Civil Society: The Conservative Meaning of Liberal Politics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
On courtesy, manners, and civility…
…The ancient Roman civis meant citizen, and civitas referred to the independent state, that is, the state or province governed more or less independently from Rome. For the Romans and much of the medieval tradition, “civic” was the antonym of rude, natural, ecclesiastical, military, and familial. Roman law distinguished “civil” law, which governed legal conflicts among citizens, from the “criminal” law which covered crimes against and punishable by the state. Special social organizations, like the military, and much later ecclesiastical orders, stood outside the civil. So, civil referred above all to the association of citizens, in distinction from special institutions— army and eventually church— and in its legal use it related to property and private obligations. At this point, “civil” was understood as concerning state, but not state as government. Rather, it referred to the state as governed citizens, sometimes emphasizing their place under government, sometimes emphasizing their status independent of government. At the same time, “civil” was the antonym of rude or barbarous. Barbarous meant to the Romans and the Greeks before them simply, “foreign,” and bore a relation to language: its Greek root meant “stammering,” unable to speak our language. Civil has retained to the present day this connection to being civilized and “refined.” Thus the term “civil” has always functioned to two related but distinct orders: the status of citizen in civil society, and the constrained behavior of the civilized. (212)
On courtesy, manners, and civility…
…The ancient Roman civis meant citizen, and civitas referred to the independent state, that is, the state or province governed more or less independently from Rome. For the Romans and much of the medieval tradition, “civic” was the antonym of rude, natural, ecclesiastical, military, and familial. Roman law distinguished “civil” law, which governed legal conflicts among citizens, from the “criminal” law which covered crimes against and punishable by the state. Special social organizations, like the military, and much later ecclesiastical orders, stood outside the civil. So, civil referred above all to the association of citizens, in distinction from special institutions— army and eventually church— and in its legal use it related to property and private obligations. At this point, “civil” was understood as concerning state, but not state as government. Rather, it referred to the state as governed citizens, sometimes emphasizing their place under government, sometimes emphasizing their status independent of government. At the same time, “civil” was the antonym of rude or barbarous. Barbarous meant to the Romans and the Greeks before them simply, “foreign,” and bore a relation to language: its Greek root meant “stammering,” unable to speak our language. Civil has retained to the present day this connection to being civilized and “refined.” Thus the term “civil” has always functioned to two related but distinct orders: the status of citizen in civil society, and the constrained behavior of the civilized. (212)
Stephen L. Carter, Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999.
“We seem to have trouble agreeing on exactly civility is. Some people… think of manners. Others think of proper standards of moral conduct, or a set of standards for conducting public argument. Still others think of willing participation in the institutions that enable our democracy to thrive, what has come to be known as the movement for civic renewal… Civility is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together… We should make sacrifices for others not simply because doing so makes social life easier (although it does), but as a signal of respect for our fellow citizens, marking them as full equals, both before the law and before God. Rules of civility are thus also rules of morality: it is morally proper to treat our fellow citizens with respect, and morally improper not to. Our crisis of civility, then, is part of a larger crisis of morality. And because morality is what distinguishes humans from other animals, the crisis is one of humanity.” (11-12)
We should “[c]onsider once more Arthur Schlesinger’s argument, back in 1946, that we should understand our adherence to standards of civility not only as a vital social glue, but as the ‘letter of introduction’ that assures strangers that we are after all one community linked by a shared set of practices and beliefs. (30)
“We seem to have trouble agreeing on exactly civility is. Some people… think of manners. Others think of proper standards of moral conduct, or a set of standards for conducting public argument. Still others think of willing participation in the institutions that enable our democracy to thrive, what has come to be known as the movement for civic renewal… Civility is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together… We should make sacrifices for others not simply because doing so makes social life easier (although it does), but as a signal of respect for our fellow citizens, marking them as full equals, both before the law and before God. Rules of civility are thus also rules of morality: it is morally proper to treat our fellow citizens with respect, and morally improper not to. Our crisis of civility, then, is part of a larger crisis of morality. And because morality is what distinguishes humans from other animals, the crisis is one of humanity.” (11-12)
We should “[c]onsider once more Arthur Schlesinger’s argument, back in 1946, that we should understand our adherence to standards of civility not only as a vital social glue, but as the ‘letter of introduction’ that assures strangers that we are after all one community linked by a shared set of practices and beliefs. (30)
P. M. Forni, Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct. New York: St Martin’s Press, 2002. Concluding paragraph of chapter 2, “What Is Civility?”
“Civility’s defining characteristic is its ties to city and society. The word derives from the Latin civitas, which means “city,” especially in the sense of civic community. Civitas is the same word from which civilization comes. The age-old assumption behind civility is that life in the city has a civility effect. The city is where we enlighten our intellect and refine our social skills. And as we are shaped by the city, we learn to give of ourselves for the sake of the city. Although we can describe the civil as courteous, polite, and well mannered, etymology reminds us that we are also supposed to be good citizens and good neighbors.
“Civility’s defining characteristic is its ties to city and society. The word derives from the Latin civitas, which means “city,” especially in the sense of civic community. Civitas is the same word from which civilization comes. The age-old assumption behind civility is that life in the city has a civility effect. The city is where we enlighten our intellect and refine our social skills. And as we are shaped by the city, we learn to give of ourselves for the sake of the city. Although we can describe the civil as courteous, polite, and well mannered, etymology reminds us that we are also supposed to be good citizens and good neighbors.
John A. Hall. The Importance of Being Civil: The Struggle for Political Decency. Princeton: Princeton U.P. 2013. From Chapter 1, “Agreeing to Differ,” the first of five chapters that constitute “A Composite Definition.”
“Positively put, a civil society is one in which individuals have the chance of at least trying to create their own selves. This means that the membership of social groups must be voluntary and overlapping, for it is in the complex interstices of social life that individualism often resides…”
“Civility is based on recognition of difference and diversity… To say that the recognition of difference is shared and the decision to live together with diversity is mutual is to note a background consensus, an agreement to differ, that enables a civil society to flourish. The consensus in question should, of course, be minimal, including, most obviously respect for the rule of law, attention to empirical evidence, and abhorrence of violence, while its characteristic attitude will be that of ironic and affectionate amusement at the foibles of humanity within the resulting settled world. All this can be expressed more bluntly: the diversity that is acceptable to civility is that within a particular world with its own boundaries.”
“Positively put, a civil society is one in which individuals have the chance of at least trying to create their own selves. This means that the membership of social groups must be voluntary and overlapping, for it is in the complex interstices of social life that individualism often resides…”
“Civility is based on recognition of difference and diversity… To say that the recognition of difference is shared and the decision to live together with diversity is mutual is to note a background consensus, an agreement to differ, that enables a civil society to flourish. The consensus in question should, of course, be minimal, including, most obviously respect for the rule of law, attention to empirical evidence, and abhorrence of violence, while its characteristic attitude will be that of ironic and affectionate amusement at the foibles of humanity within the resulting settled world. All this can be expressed more bluntly: the diversity that is acceptable to civility is that within a particular world with its own boundaries.”
Susan Herbst, “The Powerful— if Elusive—Nature of Civility” in Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics, eds. Daniel M. Shea and Morris P. Fiorina. Reprinted from Herbst’s book Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Temple University Press, 2010.
“…[M]ost interesting, should we even worry about civility, a “pie-in-the-sky concept with an old-fashioned, nineteenth century ring to it?
When I told people I was writing a book on civility, they thought of opening doors for women, naughty children misbehaving in public, and suppressing the desire to give others “the finger” in traffic. These niceties or hoped-for niceties are related to civility, no doubt. But my interest is in the fundamental tone and practice of democracy, in the wake of an unusual presidential campaign [2008] and the start of the twenty-first century.
While a single presidential election offers but one window into the debates over civility, my empirical investigations seem to point to far larger, longitudinal conundrums of political culture. Some Americans, citizens and leaders, are distraught about what they see as a decline in civility. Others find the worries both naïve and cowardly: The line between passionate engagement and civility seems chronically fuzzy and arbitrary. Both views can be persuasive, and it does us no good to choose sides. Norms of civility certainly exist, but civility is also very much in the eye of the beholder. Where you sit—as a journalist, an ideologue, a candidate, or a citizen—matters immensely. Perspectives vary, and while this is all somewhat messy, it suits a democracy that must wrestle with both the policy and the one of policy debate.
The questions I want to raise about civility are challenging to answer, and the vague meaning of “civility” has much to do with that challenge. But as I argue in my book, debates over its definition, its rise, or its fall are a distraction. What we should attend to are the strategic uses of civility and incivility. Civility is best thought of as an asset or tool, a mechanism, or even a technology of sorts. This approach opens up a wide and productive range of empirical phenomena to study and captures the context-dependence, historical nature of civility. If we think of civility as a strategic asset, we can pull away from the “more or less” debates and study newer forms of political discourse and behavior with far more sophistication and success.” (19)
“…[M]ost interesting, should we even worry about civility, a “pie-in-the-sky concept with an old-fashioned, nineteenth century ring to it?
When I told people I was writing a book on civility, they thought of opening doors for women, naughty children misbehaving in public, and suppressing the desire to give others “the finger” in traffic. These niceties or hoped-for niceties are related to civility, no doubt. But my interest is in the fundamental tone and practice of democracy, in the wake of an unusual presidential campaign [2008] and the start of the twenty-first century.
While a single presidential election offers but one window into the debates over civility, my empirical investigations seem to point to far larger, longitudinal conundrums of political culture. Some Americans, citizens and leaders, are distraught about what they see as a decline in civility. Others find the worries both naïve and cowardly: The line between passionate engagement and civility seems chronically fuzzy and arbitrary. Both views can be persuasive, and it does us no good to choose sides. Norms of civility certainly exist, but civility is also very much in the eye of the beholder. Where you sit—as a journalist, an ideologue, a candidate, or a citizen—matters immensely. Perspectives vary, and while this is all somewhat messy, it suits a democracy that must wrestle with both the policy and the one of policy debate.
The questions I want to raise about civility are challenging to answer, and the vague meaning of “civility” has much to do with that challenge. But as I argue in my book, debates over its definition, its rise, or its fall are a distraction. What we should attend to are the strategic uses of civility and incivility. Civility is best thought of as an asset or tool, a mechanism, or even a technology of sorts. This approach opens up a wide and productive range of empirical phenomena to study and captures the context-dependence, historical nature of civility. If we think of civility as a strategic asset, we can pull away from the “more or less” debates and study newer forms of political discourse and behavior with far more sophistication and success.” (19)
Adam McClellan, “Beyond Courtesy: Redefining Civility” in LeRoy S. Rouner, ed., Civility. Notre Dame IN: U of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
On civility embodied: “Martin Luther King and his colleagues in the movement asserted that these segregationists [Bull Connor and his white Alabama supporters] were the misguided perpetrators of a profound wrong, but they were to be confronted in a spirit of brotherhood… This sentiment was of course profoundly influenced by the philosophy of nonviolence, but what made the movement civil was not the renunciation of violence per se but the spirit of engagement and self-sacrifice for the greater good that King’s philosophy of nonviolence implied. The pursuit of justice was not compromised. It was informed by an awareness of the humanity of the self and other, a sense of interdependence with the other, and the desire to make common cause with the other.” (91)
On civility embodied: “Martin Luther King and his colleagues in the movement asserted that these segregationists [Bull Connor and his white Alabama supporters] were the misguided perpetrators of a profound wrong, but they were to be confronted in a spirit of brotherhood… This sentiment was of course profoundly influenced by the philosophy of nonviolence, but what made the movement civil was not the renunciation of violence per se but the spirit of engagement and self-sacrifice for the greater good that King’s philosophy of nonviolence implied. The pursuit of justice was not compromised. It was informed by an awareness of the humanity of the self and other, a sense of interdependence with the other, and the desire to make common cause with the other.” (91)
Robert B. Pippin, “The Ethical Status of Civility” from LeRoy S. Rouner, ed., Civility. Notre Dame IN: U of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
If civility can be understood as an enactment in daily life of an active attempt to recognize and help promote each other as free beings, then such a commonality must already exist in daily life… It seems quite an open question whether in America, still quite a young country, the idea and experience of being “fellow Americans” can overcome the misunderstandings and often suspicious characteristic of a community with so many different national traditions, experiences, and religions. Civility, I have tried to suggest, cannot be understood as a duty, a responsibility, or an entitlement. It is already a manifestation of something else not subject to moral will or legal coercion. It is an indispensable human good, but no amount of moral lecturing or moral education, and certainly no amount of legislative constraint, can create it.
…[T]here is also the question of how much civility we really want. This has to do with the way we understand the great orienting ideal of our polity, leading a free life, and the various, complex dimensions that can have. At least one way to interpret incivility is that it reflects or betrays a false, self-deceived sense of self-sufficiency and independence. This already presupposes a contrary view, a view of a free life as an unavoidably collective achievement, or, said in its most paradoxical forms, that one cannot be free. A civil order would then be, and be experienced as being, not a restriction on individual entitlements but a way of leading a free life in the only way it can be led: civilly, or in common. (116-7).
If civility can be understood as an enactment in daily life of an active attempt to recognize and help promote each other as free beings, then such a commonality must already exist in daily life… It seems quite an open question whether in America, still quite a young country, the idea and experience of being “fellow Americans” can overcome the misunderstandings and often suspicious characteristic of a community with so many different national traditions, experiences, and religions. Civility, I have tried to suggest, cannot be understood as a duty, a responsibility, or an entitlement. It is already a manifestation of something else not subject to moral will or legal coercion. It is an indispensable human good, but no amount of moral lecturing or moral education, and certainly no amount of legislative constraint, can create it.
…[T]here is also the question of how much civility we really want. This has to do with the way we understand the great orienting ideal of our polity, leading a free life, and the various, complex dimensions that can have. At least one way to interpret incivility is that it reflects or betrays a false, self-deceived sense of self-sufficiency and independence. This already presupposes a contrary view, a view of a free life as an unavoidably collective achievement, or, said in its most paradoxical forms, that one cannot be free. A civil order would then be, and be experienced as being, not a restriction on individual entitlements but a way of leading a free life in the only way it can be led: civilly, or in common. (116-7).
Edward Shils. “Observations on Some Tribulations of Civility.” In Steven Grosby, ed., Edward Shils: The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997.
Civility…
Civility…
- is a belief which affirms the possibility of the common good;
- is a belief in the community of contending parties within a morally valid unity of society;
- is a belief in the validity or legitimacy of the governmental institutions which lay down rules and resolve conflicts;
- is a virtue expressed in action on behalf of the whole society; on behalf of the good of all the members of the society to which public liberties and representative institutions are integral;
- is an attitude in individuals which recommends that consensus about the maintenance of the order of society should exist alongside the conflicts of interests and ideals;
- restrains the exercise of power bv the powerful and restrains obstruction and violence by those who do not have power but who wish to have it;
- is on the side of authority and on the side of those over whom authority would rule;
- …[It] does not imply an expectation that it can ever be found in all the members of a society. It does require enough civility in enough persons… to restrain the conflicts arising from incompatible interests and widely diverging ideals. (formatting for emphasis mine)
Philip Smith, Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King. Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge UP, 2010.
Based on scholarly social science survey and focused group research. Excerpt below from final chapter.
The next time [an experience with a rude stranger] happens, you can think about the role of time and space, human movements and spatial patterns in the setting. You can identify the risk factors that were at play. You might develop some ideas as to why the rude stranger was also present, at that same time and place. You might even think about your own role in the event, or reflect back on your own complicity, or on your moral emotions, perhaps with a sense of shame. You might even discover that what seemed surprising to our commonsense self back there in the lifeworld was really not so unusual or disturbing after all.
Based on scholarly social science survey and focused group research. Excerpt below from final chapter.
The next time [an experience with a rude stranger] happens, you can think about the role of time and space, human movements and spatial patterns in the setting. You can identify the risk factors that were at play. You might develop some ideas as to why the rude stranger was also present, at that same time and place. You might even think about your own role in the event, or reflect back on your own complicity, or on your moral emotions, perhaps with a sense of shame. You might even discover that what seemed surprising to our commonsense self back there in the lifeworld was really not so unusual or disturbing after all.
Alan Wolfe, “Are We Losing Our Virtue? The Case of Civility” from LeRoy S. Rouner, ed., Civility
For if Americans no longer turn to the Bible, to their parents, or to great works of literature to find out what is right and proper, they have no choice but to turn to themselves. And when they do that, they discover that being virtuous does not consist in finding the right rule and adapting it to one’s circumstances but instead involves figuring out what the right rule ought to be. The missing ingredient in accounts of virtue lost is that Americans have been forced by the circumstances in which they live to be creative when it comes to knowing how to live. A people given to innovation and invention, especially in their economic activities, Americans cannot be expected to sit back and adhere to timeless notions of what is proper…
When writers talk about civility, they do so, not just to make a point about manners, but to draw large conclusions about the nature of their society. Even Miss Manners (Judith Martin) believes that politeness, or its lack, tells us something about the balance between freedom and authority as well as the problem of civility itself. When we bemoan the lack of civility in America we will soon learn that what we are really talking about is whether people themselves will play a role in creating the moral rules by which their behavior will be governed. This being a modern democracy, it is likely that they will. It is time for America’s moralists to recognize that fact and to incorporate it into their accounts of our lost virtue, or else they will find themselves talking only to each other.
For if Americans no longer turn to the Bible, to their parents, or to great works of literature to find out what is right and proper, they have no choice but to turn to themselves. And when they do that, they discover that being virtuous does not consist in finding the right rule and adapting it to one’s circumstances but instead involves figuring out what the right rule ought to be. The missing ingredient in accounts of virtue lost is that Americans have been forced by the circumstances in which they live to be creative when it comes to knowing how to live. A people given to innovation and invention, especially in their economic activities, Americans cannot be expected to sit back and adhere to timeless notions of what is proper…
When writers talk about civility, they do so, not just to make a point about manners, but to draw large conclusions about the nature of their society. Even Miss Manners (Judith Martin) believes that politeness, or its lack, tells us something about the balance between freedom and authority as well as the problem of civility itself. When we bemoan the lack of civility in America we will soon learn that what we are really talking about is whether people themselves will play a role in creating the moral rules by which their behavior will be governed. This being a modern democracy, it is likely that they will. It is time for America’s moralists to recognize that fact and to incorporate it into their accounts of our lost virtue, or else they will find themselves talking only to each other.