- Civility. By this, I do not mean an unwillingness to ever grow
hostile, no matter what, or to refuse to go along with what
others want - that is docility, not civility. Rather, it
refers to a reluctance to initiate hostilities.
It refers to a certain sense of decorum, which it became
fashionable to discard in the middle of the 20th century. A
willingness to let people speak freely, without cutting them
off, or engaging in character assassination as a way of
expressing disagreement, or pressuring others to not listen.
An absence of "attitude", and a willingness to consider
another's personal issues, out of respect. A great reluctance
to engage in intimidation.
One possible question:
"Weren't you being kind of uncivil
in one of the discussions on this site?
Do you feel the need for an answer
to that? If not, Continuing then, ... Civility would be ...
A recognition that one's freedom should begin to taper off
around that point at which its exercise begins to interfere
with the freedom of another. An understanding of what
rightfully belongs to oneself, and what rightfully belongs to
others. A respect for the dignity of each individual, that
can only be forfeited by that individual through his own free
and informed decisions to act.
... and much more. What that "much more" consists of, is
defined by an ever growing body of collected human experience,
too complex to be adequately codified. It is carried in a
sort of collective social memory, implicit in the customs
acted out in the continuing chain of human interactions in
a particular society. A chain which we act to avoid breaking,
by avoiding massive disruption to the network of
relationships, and the expression of tradition, which binds
the society together. To the extent that it is to be read
about, it is to be found in the spirit of the stories told
about those in a society, not in a book of rigid laws.
Civility is not just another way of saying "ettiquette".
Ettiquette is a rigid set of customs, that is not required to
make sense, or to be fair. To act in a threatening fashion
toward another man, whenever he 'dares' to talk back to a
woman, many would view as being wonderfully chivalrous and
very good ettiquette. However, it would be unforgivably
uncivil. (And, most likely, more than a little opportunistic.
Some have found this to be a very effective way of currying
favor with the opposite sex.)
In fact, ettiquette is exactly what some would complain is
absent from traditional Mediterranean societies. With a smile,
we would say that is true, and we would have it no other way.
Let us be clear. We would not be defining "civility" according
to the stilted ethic that holds that the police must be called
if one arches one's eyebrow too forcefully during an argument,
and yet calls on us to think nothing of arguing the most
arrogant positions imaginable - as long as one feigns
cheerfulness successfully enough while one does so.
More choices ...
- So, tell me what's wrong with a little ettiquette
- No, forget about that, just go on
- Forget about this whole issue, and return