Incivility

Last updated

Incivility is a general term for social behaviour lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism, through public drunkenness and threatening behaviour. [1] The word "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen". [2]

Contents

The distinction between plain rudeness, and perceived incivility as threat, will depend on some notion of civility as structural to society; incivility as anything more ominous than bad manners is therefore dependent on appeal to notions like its antagonism to the complex concepts of civic virtue or civil society. It has become a contemporary political issue in a number of countries. [3]

Uncivil communication

Civil behavior requires that people communicate with respect, restraint, and responsibility, and uncivil communication occurs when people fail to do so. [4] Universal pragmatics, a term coined by Jürgen Habermas, suggests that human conflict arises from miscommunication, [5] so communicative competence is needed to reduce conflict. Communication competence "involves the ability to communicate in such a way that: (1) the truth claim of an utterance is shared by both speaker and hearer; (2) the hearer is led to understand and accept the speaker’s intention; and (3) the speaker adapts to the hearer’s world view." [6] If people disagree about the truth or appropriateness of their interaction, conflict will occur.

According to Habermas, we should establish communicative norms that lead to rational conversations by creating the social coordination needed for interactants to pursue their goals while recognizing the truth or appropriateness of their interaction. [7] Such norms, or social rules, include: "all participants must be allowed to speak freely, all participants must be allowed to speak for themselves (to enable them to establish their own ethos or "selfhood"), and that communication should be equal, with no one participant commanding more attention from the others than is afforded to them on their turn." [4]

Some examples of uncivil communication include rude gestures, vulgar language, interrupting, and loudly having private discussions in public spaces. [4] Recent poll data suggests that Americans believe uncivil communication is a serious problem, and believe it has led to an increase in physical violence. [8] The 2013 study on Civility in America: A Nationwide Survey, conducted by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick and public affairs firm Powell Tate in partnership with KRC Research found that 70 percent of Americans believe incivility has reached crisis proportions. [8] Of those who expect civility to worsen, 34 percent blame Twitter. [8] The study found that Americans encounter incivility, on average, 17.1 times per week, or 2.4 times per day. [8] Some studies suggest that uncivil communication may have real consequences, including increased health problems due to stress, decreased work productivity, more auto accidents caused by aggressive driving, and vandalism. [4]

Political incivility

Political incivility is different from the everyday incivility described above. According to face negotiation theory, politeness norms require us to avoid challenging others, but political incivility is different because, since it is specific to the political sphere, contestation of views and confrontation are required for a democracy to occur. [9] According to Thomas Benson, "Where there is disagreement, there is a risk of incivility; in many cases, incivility is itself a tactic in political discourse, employed as an indicator of sincerity, as the marker of the high stakes in a disagreement." [10]

Civil discourse is "the free and respectful exchange of different ideas". [11] Eight out of 10 Americans believe that the lack of civil discourse in the political system is a serious problem. [12] Eighty-two percent of American respondents to a 2011 survey felt that political advertisements were too "nasty" and 72 percent believed that political commercials that attacked the opponent were "inappropriate". [13] Research has linked political incivility to reduced trust in the legitimacy of political candidates, political polarization, and policy gridlock. [14] Campaigns and politicians are not the only avenues for incivility, however. The public also participates in civil discourse, and incivility. Incivility in these contexts can lead to the breakdown of political discourse, and exclude certain people or groups from the discussion. [15] [16] If people or groups are systematically excluded from the discussion, the democratic nature of that discussion is called into question. [16] [15]

In his article The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964) , Habermas explains that the public sphere is "a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed… Although state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it." [17] Political incivility threatens the features of the rhetorical model of the public sphere, [18] which include:

  1. It is discourse-based as opposed to class-based.
  2. Norm of reasonableness, meaning the success of an argument depends on participants agreeing that it makes sense.
  3. It "emphasizes indeterminate bracketing of discursive exchanges", meaning the public sphere is made up of many smaller conversations that happen independently of each other.
  4. Values communication that leads to shared judgments. [18]

Political incivility threatens the future of the rhetorical model of the public sphere because it fractures that sphere into counter-publics, which may or may not interact with each other. [15] [16] According to Papacharissi (2004), "Incivility can then be operationalized as the set of behaviors that threaten democracy, deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype social groups.", [15] all of which could result from the violation of the features of the rhetorical model of the public sphere. People or groups may be systematically shut out of the mainstream political discourse, which makes that discourse less democratic, as certain voices are then missing from that discourse. [15] [16] Examples of incivility in political discourse include, but are not limited to, name calling, derisive or disrespectful speech and vulgarity, intentional lies, and misrepresentation. [9] [15] [19] Another type of uncivil behavior is "outrage speech", which includes name calling, insulting, character assassination, mockery, and emotional displays. [20] [21] There are disagreements among researchers about whether or not emotional speech – using anger, fear, or hatred – should be considered uncivil. [14] [15] [19] Some researchers view some emotional speech as civil unless it threatens democracy in some way, while other researchers view emotional speech itself as a disruption to democracy, and push for a purely rational view of civility. [15] [19]

Stryker et al. assert that "political incivility is usefully distinguished from interpersonal politeness outside of politics." Their research found consensus among survey respondents concerning the types of political speech and behavior that "count" as "political incivility". [14] Papacharissi echoes this sentiment, stating that "civility should be redefined as a construct that encompasses, but also goes beyond, politeness." [15]

Workplace incivility

A 2011 report in USA Today defined workplace incivility as "a form of organizational deviance... characterized by low-intensity behaviors that violate respectful workplace norms, appearing vague as to intent to harm." [22] Researchers had announced at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association that "Workplace incivility is on the rise. [22] Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others", which can lead to distress for those experiencing this treatment. [23] [24] Incivility is distinct from violence. Examples of workplace incivility include insulting comments, denigration of the target's work, spreading false rumors, and social isolation. Cortina (2008) conceptualizes incivility that amounts to covert practices of sexism and/or racism in the workplace as selective incivility. [25] For example, Ozturk and Berber (2022) demonstrate significant evidence of subtle racism in UK workplaces, where racialized professionals appear to be the main targets of selective incivility. [26]

Marketing incivility

At one time, a number of automotive audio manufacturers engaged in marketing incivility with their products, which included Sony with its "Disturb The Peace" tagline. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jürgen Habermas</span> German social theorist and philosopher (born 1929)

Jürgen Habermas is a German philosopher and social theorist in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. His work addresses communicative rationality and the public sphere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Etiquette</span> Customary code of polite behaviour

Etiquette is the set of norms of personal behaviour in polite society, usually occurring in the form of an ethical code of the expected and accepted social behaviours that accord with the conventions and norms observed and practised by a society, a social class, or a social group. In modern English usage, the French word étiquette dates from the year 1750.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politeness</span> Practical application of good manners or etiquette so as not to offend others

Politeness is the practical application of good manners or etiquette so as not to offend others and to put them at ease. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public sphere</span> Area in social life with political ramifications

The public sphere is an area in social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. A "Public" is "of or concerning the people as a whole." Such a discussion is called public debate and is defined as the expression of views on matters that are of concern to the public—often, but not always, with opposing or diverging views being expressed by participants in the discussion. Public debate takes place mostly through the mass media, but also at meetings or through social media, academic publications and government policy documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civic virtue</span> Cultivation of habits important for the success of the community

Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits important for the success of a society. Closely linked to the concept of citizenship, civic virtue is often conceived as the dedication of citizens to the common welfare of each other even at the cost of their individual interests. The identification of the character traits that constitute civic virtue has been a major concern of political philosophy. The term civility refers to behavior between persons and groups that conforms to a social mode, as itself being a foundation of society and law.

Discourse ethics refers to a type of argument that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse. The ethical theory originated with German philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, and variations have been used by Frank Van Dun and Habermas' student Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Communicative rationality</span> Philosophical concept concerning reason and agreement, pioneered by Apel and Habermas

Communicative rationality or communicative reason is a theory or set of theories which describes human rationality as a necessary outcome of successful communication. This theory is in particular tied to the philosophy of German philosophers Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas, and their program of universal pragmatics, along with its related theories such as those on discourse ethics and rational reconstruction. This view of reason is concerned with clarifying the norms and procedures by which agreement can be reached, and is therefore a view of reason as a form of public justification.

<i>Between Facts and Norms</i> Monograph by Jürgen Habermas

Between Facts and Norms is a 1992 book on deliberative politics by the German political philosopher Jürgen Habermas. The culmination of the project that Habermas began with The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in 1962, it represents a lifetime of political thought on the nature of democracy and law.

In sociology, communicative action is cooperative action undertaken by individuals based upon mutual deliberation and argumentation. The term was developed by German philosopher-sociologist Jürgen Habermas in his work The Theory of Communicative Action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional patriotism</span> Concept of citizenship

Constitutional patriotism is the idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal democratic constitution rather than to a national culture or cosmopolitan society. It is associated with post-nationalist identity because, while it is seen as a similar concept to nationalism, the attachment is based on the constitution rather than on a national culture. In essence, it is an attempt to re-conceptualize group identity with a focus on the interpretation of citizenship as a loyalty that goes beyond individuals' ethnocultural identification. Theorists believe this to be more defensible than other forms of shared commitment in a diverse modern state with multiple languages and group identities. It is particularly relevant in post-national democratic states in which multiple cultural and ethnic groups coexist. It was influential in the development of the European Union and a key to Europeanism as a basis for multiple countries belonging to a supranational union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rudeness</span> Display of disrespect

Rudeness is a display of actual or perceived disrespect by not complying with the social norms or etiquette expected within a relationship, social group, or culture. Social norms are established as the essential guidelines of normally accepted behavior within a given context, and individuals often establish personal boundaries to meet their own needs and desires within smaller settings, such as friendships. To be unable or unwilling to align one's behavior with these norms known to the general population of what is socially acceptable is to be rude. These norms may resemble a sort of "unspoken law", with social repercussions or rewards for violators or advocates, respectively.

Pier Massimo Forni, a native of Italy, was a professor at Johns Hopkins University, where he taught since 1985. Forni published several books, including his 2002 best-seller Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct. He co-founded and directed the Civility Project at Johns Hopkins, the purpose of which is to assess the significance of civility, manners and politeness in contemporary society.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to communication:

The salons of Early Modern and Revolutionary France played an integral role in the cultural and intellectual development of France. The salons were seen by contemporary writers as a cultural hub, responsible for the dissemination of good manners and sociability. It was not merely manners that the salons supposedly spread but also ideas, as the salons became a centre of intellectual as well as social exchange, playing host to many members of the Republic of Letters. Women, in contrast to other Early Modern institutions, played an important and visible role within the salons. The extent of this role is, however, heavily contested by some historians.

Civil discourse refers to respectful conversation aimed at fostering understanding and constructive communication, where individuals within a group share different perspectives, enhancing the learning experience. It is a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech, characterized by dialogue that supports the societal good." Members of the U.S. Supreme Court session in 2011 aptly described civil discourse as "robust, honest, frank and constructive dialogue and deliberation that seeks to advance the public interest." Arguments are grounded in reason and evidence, adhering to strict guidelines for the appropriate behavior to be practiced. In contrast, uncivil discourse contains direct insults, unwarranted attributions of motive, and open contempt."

Workplace incivility has been defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others. The authors hypothesize there is an "incivility spiral" in the workplace made worse by "asymmetric global interaction".

Public sphere pedagogy (PSP) represents an approach to educational engagement that connects classroom activities with real world civic engagement. The focus of PSP programs is to connect class assignments, content, and readings with contemporary public issues. Students are then asked to participate with members of the community in various forms of public sphere discourse and democratic participation, such as town hall meetings and public debate events. Through these events, students are challenged to practice civic engagement and civil discourse.

Civility may denote orderly behavior and politeness. Historically, civility also meant training in the humanities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public rhetoric</span>

Public rhetoric refers to discourse both within a group of people and between groups, often centering on the process by which individual or group discourse seeks membership in the larger public discourse. Public rhetoric can also involve rhetoric being used within the general populace to foster social change and encourage agency on behalf of the participants of public rhetoric. The collective discourse between rhetoricians and the general populace is one representation of public rhetoric. A new discussion within the field of public rhetoric is digital space because the growing digital realm complicates the idea of private and public, as well as previously concrete definitions of discourse. Furthermore, scholars of public rhetoric often employ the language of tourism to examine how identity is negotiated between individuals and groups and how this negotiation impacts individuals and groups on a variety of levels, ranging from the local to the global.

Gerard Alan Hauser is an author and academic, and professor emeritus of communication and college professor emeritus of distinction in rhetoric at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research focuses on the interaction between formal and vernacular rhetorics in the public sphere. He has authored several books and numerous articles on the subject, and his writings have helped shaped the field of modern rhetoric.

References

  1. ↑ "Definition of 'Incivility'". AskOxford . Archived from the original on 30 March 2007. Retrieved 25 November 2006.
  2. ↑ Catherine Soanes; Angus Stevenson, eds. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised ed.). Oxford University Press.
  3. ↑ "Incivility in Political Discourse (The Coming Apogee of the Moonbat Hordes)". indcjournal.com. 13 October 2004. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013. Retrieved 25 November 2006.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Lane; McCourt. "Uncivil Communication in Everyday Life: A Response to Benson's "The Rhetoric of Civility."". Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric. 3.
  5. ↑ Habermas, Jurgen (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Toronto, Canada: Beacon Press.
  6. ↑ Herrick, James (2005). The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Boston: Pearson Education.
  7. ↑ Habermas, Jurgen (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  8. 1 2 3 4 "News - Civility in America 2013: Incivility has reached crisis levels - Weber Shandwick". webershandwick.com. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
  9. 1 2 Massaro; Stryker (2012). "Freedom of speech, liberal democracy and emerging evidence on civility and effective democratic engagement". Arizona Law Review. 54. SSRN   2042171.
  10. ↑ Benson, Thomas (2011). "The Rhetoric of Civility: Power, Authenticity, and Democracy" (PDF). Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric. 1: 22–30.
  11. ↑ Coe; Kenski; Rains (2014). "Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website commentary". Journal of Communication. 64 (4): 658–679. doi:10.1111/jcom.12104.
  12. ↑ "Americans Say Elections More Negative than Past, Lack of Civility as Major Problem - PRRI". PRRI. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
  13. ↑ Fridkin, Kim L.; Kenney, Patrick (1 April 2011). "Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (2): 307–325. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00494.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  14. 1 2 3 Stryker, Robin; Conway, Bethany Anne; Danielson, J. Taylor (1 October 2016). "What is political incivility?". Communication Monographs. 83 (4): 535–556. doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207. ISSN   0363-7751. S2CID   148330691.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Papacharissi, Zizi (2014). "Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups". New Media & Society. 6 (2): 259–283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444. S2CID   18186437 – via SAGE.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Mouffe, Chantal (1998). "Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?". Dialogue International Edition. 7: 9–21.
  17. ↑ Habermas, Jürgen; Lennox, Sara; Lennox, Frank (1 January 1974). "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)". New German Critique (3): 49–55. doi:10.2307/487737. JSTOR   487737.
  18. 1 2 Hauser, Gerard (1999). Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. The University of South Carolina Press. pp. 61–64.
  19. 1 2 3 Gervais, Bryan (2015). "Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment". Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 12 (2): 167–185. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.997416. S2CID   143634843.
  20. ↑ Sobieraj, Sarah; Berry, Jeffrey M. (9 February 2011). "From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News". Political Communication. 28 (1): 19–41. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.542360. ISSN   1058-4609. S2CID   143739086.
  21. ↑ Sobieraj; Berry (2013). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.
  22. 1 2 "Most Popular E-mail Newsletter". USA Today. 7 August 2011.
  23. ↑ Leiter, Michael P.; Day, Arla; Price, Lisa (2015-03-01). "Attachment styles at work: Measurement, collegial relationships, and burnout". Burnout Research. 2 (1): 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.003. ISSN   2213-0586.
  24. ↑ Andersson, Lynne M.; Pearson, Christine M. (July 1999). "Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace". The Academy of Management Review. 24 (3): 452–71. doi:10.2307/259136. JSTOR   259136.
  25. ↑ Cortina, Lilia M. (2008). "Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations". Academy of Management Review. 33 (1): 55–75. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.27745097.
  26. ↑ Ozturk, Mustafa B.; Berber, Aykut (2022). "Racialised professionals' experiences of selective incivility in organisations: A multi-level analysis of subtle racism". Human Relations. 75 (2): 213–39. doi: 10.1177/0018726720957727 . S2CID   223597864.
  27. ↑ "Today's Boom Cars Are Nothing If Not Acoustic Terrorism", Ted Rueter, Los Angeles Times, 27 March 2002 http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/27/opinion/oe-rueter27 Retrieved 19 July 2017

Further reading

Quotes

Movements and organizations promoting civility

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.