Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the status of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s Mere Civility and her retrieval of Roger Williams. Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or looking for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem or shared moral commitments.
“Mere” civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less to withhold their forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another.
Elsewhere Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults and raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange.
Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the role and importance of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s "Mere Civility" and her retrieval of Roger Williams, the "father of American pluralism." Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon--against the wishes of a majority of the population, including prominent church leaders.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or hoping for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem, or shared moral commitments.
"Mere" civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less withhold its forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another. Elsewhere, Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults, dismissal of the law, or raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange!
Civility comes from a moral fibre while politeness arises from social obligations. For a society to be mature I think there should be a marriage between the two. Politeness is like being politically correct while civility should involve strains of both, being politically correct as well as being politically incorrect. In the quest of expressing honestly our innermost convictions which in itself is a moral obligation in a place where remaining silent for fear of offending would be immoral, it is not always possible to adhere to rules of conduct but we can, upto a point if we make the effort.. implying civility Because too much of diplomacy could lead to projecting ourselves as weak resulting in watering down our convictions and hence arguments hence as long as we are mindful conscious and aware of the pitfalls and assuming that we have sufficient knowledge, from the perspective of a reasonable man, of the possibility that such a thing can happen, inorder to have a civilized debate we can disagree without being disagreeable. This brings into play both politeness and civility which is the marriage of the two. It is the synergy that these two elements bring that makes a consummate argument. This is civilization at its best where both politeness and civility render in equal measure... Like someone said, we should remove the thorn without causing the other to feel the hurt
Thank you for taking the time to think this through so carefully. I hear in your comment a real desire to hold honesty and restraint together, and that is not a trivial aspiration.
I agree with you on one important point: a mature society needs both inner character and outward forms. The question is how they relate.
Where I would draw a sharper distinction is this. Civility is not a blend of politeness and candor. Civility is an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others. Politeness is technique, manners, etiquette, the social grammar that smooths interactions. One concerns how we see other people; the other concerns how we behave on the surface.
Because of that, civility sometimes requires what looks like impoliteness. If telling the truth is necessary for the good of another or the good of a community, then silence can become a form of harm. In those moments, civility does not mean watering down conviction. It means speaking with clarity while still refusing to dehumanize the person across from us.
You are right to warn about excessive diplomacy that turns into weakness or evasion. But I would frame the risk differently. The danger is not that politeness makes us weak; it is that politeness can become a substitute for respect. We can follow every rule of conduct and still treat someone as disposable. Conversely, we can violate certain social expectations and yet act from genuine regard for the other person’s worth.
Your line about disagreeing without being disagreeable points in that direction. The goal is not perfect smoothness. It is to engage disagreement without contempt. That is what makes a debate civilized in the truest sense.
So I would not describe civility as the marriage of politeness and political correctness. I would describe it as the moral center that determines whether our speech, polite or blunt, is aimed at domination or at shared flourishing. When that center is intact, outward forms become tools rather than masks.
I appreciate the seriousness of your reflection. These distinctions matter because they shape how we show up in moments of real tension, not just ideal conversations.
I liked the point you made about civility being the moral center that determines whether our speech, whether blunt or polite, is aimed at domination or shared flourishing. In other words whether it becomes win - lose or win - win. This is something to contemplate.
Another point I liked is that you said that these distinctions between politeness and civility matter because it shows how we appear in moments of real tension and not just ideal conversations.. This is a very important and pertinent point because despite being aware of how we must behave we can lose ourselves in the heat of the moment.... And therein lies the whole crux... How we show up in moments of real tension
ONE last point is that the goal of civility is not perfect smoothness but to engage disagreement without contempt. How true!! Like, in your words it is what makes debate civilized in the truest sense...
These are my takeaways. Thank you
Yet another point is the difference you drew between civility and politeness. one concerns how we see others while the other concerns how we behave on the surface.. With regards to how we see others if you have the intention and thought that you will not offend others civility comes naturally.. Here a point to be made is under the pretext of being pleasant we must not lose ourselves by watering down our conviction afraid that our convictions may hurt others but out of a pure heart we must speak with clarity while at the same time refusing to dehumanize the other person..
Another point I liked is how you defined civility and what it means according to you .. You defined civility as an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others.. And what it means according to you is that we can speak with clarity in a sensitive situation while at the same time refusing to dehumanize the person sitting across us.... This is possible when we see the other's inherent worth as a human being worthy of respect
Thank you. When I said civility is a blend of politeness and candor I meant that we should use both superficial politeness and the inner disposition of the heart to create synergy together The gospel song says, it is better to be kind than to be right.. We must blend social interaction with the best of both.. We must endeavor to be both kind and right.. It's about being both politically correct and politically incorrect in the different moments of the conversation..
In other words we must be both superficial when we need to be superficial as well as exercise depth in the deeper moments of the conversation . The golden rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you should be the cornerstone of social interaction which aligns with the concept of civility of knowing and recognizing the inherent worth of a person while at the same time having the moral courage to express truths that may hurt but which have to be expressed for a greater good... and that is a reflection of the inner values that we have.. Being kind and right These two values should be synergistically used recognizing the inherent dignity of human beings
Humans reflect or react to what they experience. Things go awry when they perceive a threat. That can happen when our inner nature, if it is antagonistic towards the other, gives hostile vibes making the other person insecure and antagonistic in return. But we may speak candidly according to the needs of what we want to express yet we may still come across as human when civility is ingrained in us. In other words when we have no malice in our hearts and only goodwill. This can either be our natural state or a learnt attitude. Only when the other side perceives no threat, that's the moment when the discussion gets second wind. That's the moment of flow. But as long as we have nastiness inside us covered by the initial superficiality, the moment we need to express something by departing from established politeness, the other person will perceive the rot within us.. Thus, as you say, civility is about having a good core at the same time being able to express ourselves perhaps unorthodoxly which is just a tool to getting the message across knowing deep within that you mean no harm... In other words civility is about being civil when you have the option to act according to our human nature.. Civility is a cultured state which makes us more civilized.. It takes just one person to carry that light to spread the light like you require just a little piece of yeast to raise the dough.. ... And that is the beginning... Of a civilized state.. I wish you a fulfilling time in Japan
To wind up I would like to say that civility is the next level from politeness which reveals the maturity of the person...
This is such a serious and thoughtful comment. Thank you.
You are right to name the ordeal. Living alongside people who are not like us, whose commitments, practices, or identities unsettle us, is not frictionless. It requires restraint. It requires limits on the expression of our own particularity. That tension is real, and any account of civility that ignores it collapses into sentimentality.
Where I would gently push back is on one claim: that genuine respect for the other is merely an acquired taste, the product of compromise, or simply the price of getting along.
I think that framing risks reducing civility to a negotiated truce among fundamentally self-interested actors. In that model, politeness is the tariff we pay for coexistence. It works. It stabilizes society. But it does not reach very far.
My argument is that civility goes deeper than that. Civility is an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others. That recognition is not the same thing as affection. I do not need to like you to acknowledge that you possess equal moral worth. I do not need to agree with you, or feel warmth toward you, to refuse to treat you as disposable.
You are correct that we are not born generous. Anyone who has raised a child sees that self-assertion comes early. But that does not mean respect is merely artificial. It can be cultivated into something stable, not just performed under pressure. The fact that it must be learned does not make it reducible to social necessity.
Your observation about Japanese calibration, reading the room, adjusting language and posture, is perceptive. That is an extraordinary social skill. It reflects the influence of reigi and wa, ritual propriety and harmony. But I would distinguish again between outward calibration and inward orientation. One can master form without granting the other real standing. That is the trade-off you describe in the Eightfold Fence image, a self that is orderly but sealed.
The question, then, is not whether harmony is achieved. It is whether harmony rests on mutual recognition or on managed distance.
You also raise the separatist temptation, the instinct to withdraw into enclaves where our particularity is not challenged. That impulse is understandable. Pluralism is costly. But withdrawal solves the tension by shrinking the circle rather than by strengthening our capacity to bear difference.
So yes, civility is demanding. It is not soft. It requires restraint, but not the erasure of the self. It requires compromise in practice, but not necessarily compromise in conviction. And it asks us to do something harder than mere coexistence: to look at someone we might never choose, and still grant them full standing.
Whether any culture achieves that consistently remains an open empirical question. I share your sense that it is always fragile. But fragility does not mean impossibility. It means the work is ongoing.
Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the status of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s Mere Civility and her retrieval of Roger Williams. Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon to the consternation of religious leadership.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or looking for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem or shared moral commitments.
“Mere” civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less withhold its forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another. Elsewhere, Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults and raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange.
Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the status of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s Mere Civility and her retrieval of Roger Williams. Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or looking for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem or shared moral commitments.
“Mere” civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less to withhold their forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another.
Elsewhere Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults and raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange.
Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the role and importance of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s "Mere Civility" and her retrieval of Roger Williams, the "father of American pluralism." Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon--against the wishes of a majority of the population, including prominent church leaders.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or hoping for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem, or shared moral commitments.
"Mere" civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less withhold its forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another. Elsewhere, Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults, dismissal of the law, or raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange!
Civility comes from a moral fibre while politeness arises from social obligations. For a society to be mature I think there should be a marriage between the two. Politeness is like being politically correct while civility should involve strains of both, being politically correct as well as being politically incorrect. In the quest of expressing honestly our innermost convictions which in itself is a moral obligation in a place where remaining silent for fear of offending would be immoral, it is not always possible to adhere to rules of conduct but we can, upto a point if we make the effort.. implying civility Because too much of diplomacy could lead to projecting ourselves as weak resulting in watering down our convictions and hence arguments hence as long as we are mindful conscious and aware of the pitfalls and assuming that we have sufficient knowledge, from the perspective of a reasonable man, of the possibility that such a thing can happen, inorder to have a civilized debate we can disagree without being disagreeable. This brings into play both politeness and civility which is the marriage of the two. It is the synergy that these two elements bring that makes a consummate argument. This is civilization at its best where both politeness and civility render in equal measure... Like someone said, we should remove the thorn without causing the other to feel the hurt
Thank you for taking the time to think this through so carefully. I hear in your comment a real desire to hold honesty and restraint together, and that is not a trivial aspiration.
I agree with you on one important point: a mature society needs both inner character and outward forms. The question is how they relate.
Where I would draw a sharper distinction is this. Civility is not a blend of politeness and candor. Civility is an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others. Politeness is technique, manners, etiquette, the social grammar that smooths interactions. One concerns how we see other people; the other concerns how we behave on the surface.
Because of that, civility sometimes requires what looks like impoliteness. If telling the truth is necessary for the good of another or the good of a community, then silence can become a form of harm. In those moments, civility does not mean watering down conviction. It means speaking with clarity while still refusing to dehumanize the person across from us.
You are right to warn about excessive diplomacy that turns into weakness or evasion. But I would frame the risk differently. The danger is not that politeness makes us weak; it is that politeness can become a substitute for respect. We can follow every rule of conduct and still treat someone as disposable. Conversely, we can violate certain social expectations and yet act from genuine regard for the other person’s worth.
Your line about disagreeing without being disagreeable points in that direction. The goal is not perfect smoothness. It is to engage disagreement without contempt. That is what makes a debate civilized in the truest sense.
So I would not describe civility as the marriage of politeness and political correctness. I would describe it as the moral center that determines whether our speech, polite or blunt, is aimed at domination or at shared flourishing. When that center is intact, outward forms become tools rather than masks.
I appreciate the seriousness of your reflection. These distinctions matter because they shape how we show up in moments of real tension, not just ideal conversations.
I liked the point you made about civility being the moral center that determines whether our speech, whether blunt or polite, is aimed at domination or shared flourishing. In other words whether it becomes win - lose or win - win. This is something to contemplate.
Another point I liked is that you said that these distinctions between politeness and civility matter because it shows how we appear in moments of real tension and not just ideal conversations.. This is a very important and pertinent point because despite being aware of how we must behave we can lose ourselves in the heat of the moment.... And therein lies the whole crux... How we show up in moments of real tension
ONE last point is that the goal of civility is not perfect smoothness but to engage disagreement without contempt. How true!! Like, in your words it is what makes debate civilized in the truest sense...
These are my takeaways. Thank you
Yet another point is the difference you drew between civility and politeness. one concerns how we see others while the other concerns how we behave on the surface.. With regards to how we see others if you have the intention and thought that you will not offend others civility comes naturally.. Here a point to be made is under the pretext of being pleasant we must not lose ourselves by watering down our conviction afraid that our convictions may hurt others but out of a pure heart we must speak with clarity while at the same time refusing to dehumanize the other person..
Another point I liked is how you defined civility and what it means according to you .. You defined civility as an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others.. And what it means according to you is that we can speak with clarity in a sensitive situation while at the same time refusing to dehumanize the person sitting across us.... This is possible when we see the other's inherent worth as a human being worthy of respect
Beautiful!! Thank you
Thank you. When I said civility is a blend of politeness and candor I meant that we should use both superficial politeness and the inner disposition of the heart to create synergy together The gospel song says, it is better to be kind than to be right.. We must blend social interaction with the best of both.. We must endeavor to be both kind and right.. It's about being both politically correct and politically incorrect in the different moments of the conversation..
In other words we must be both superficial when we need to be superficial as well as exercise depth in the deeper moments of the conversation . The golden rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you should be the cornerstone of social interaction which aligns with the concept of civility of knowing and recognizing the inherent worth of a person while at the same time having the moral courage to express truths that may hurt but which have to be expressed for a greater good... and that is a reflection of the inner values that we have.. Being kind and right These two values should be synergistically used recognizing the inherent dignity of human beings
Humans reflect or react to what they experience. Things go awry when they perceive a threat. That can happen when our inner nature, if it is antagonistic towards the other, gives hostile vibes making the other person insecure and antagonistic in return. But we may speak candidly according to the needs of what we want to express yet we may still come across as human when civility is ingrained in us. In other words when we have no malice in our hearts and only goodwill. This can either be our natural state or a learnt attitude. Only when the other side perceives no threat, that's the moment when the discussion gets second wind. That's the moment of flow. But as long as we have nastiness inside us covered by the initial superficiality, the moment we need to express something by departing from established politeness, the other person will perceive the rot within us.. Thus, as you say, civility is about having a good core at the same time being able to express ourselves perhaps unorthodoxly which is just a tool to getting the message across knowing deep within that you mean no harm... In other words civility is about being civil when you have the option to act according to our human nature.. Civility is a cultured state which makes us more civilized.. It takes just one person to carry that light to spread the light like you require just a little piece of yeast to raise the dough.. ... And that is the beginning... Of a civilized state.. I wish you a fulfilling time in Japan
To wind up I would like to say that civility is the next level from politeness which reveals the maturity of the person...
This is such a serious and thoughtful comment. Thank you.
You are right to name the ordeal. Living alongside people who are not like us, whose commitments, practices, or identities unsettle us, is not frictionless. It requires restraint. It requires limits on the expression of our own particularity. That tension is real, and any account of civility that ignores it collapses into sentimentality.
Where I would gently push back is on one claim: that genuine respect for the other is merely an acquired taste, the product of compromise, or simply the price of getting along.
I think that framing risks reducing civility to a negotiated truce among fundamentally self-interested actors. In that model, politeness is the tariff we pay for coexistence. It works. It stabilizes society. But it does not reach very far.
My argument is that civility goes deeper than that. Civility is an inner disposition rooted in recognizing the inherent dignity of others. That recognition is not the same thing as affection. I do not need to like you to acknowledge that you possess equal moral worth. I do not need to agree with you, or feel warmth toward you, to refuse to treat you as disposable.
You are correct that we are not born generous. Anyone who has raised a child sees that self-assertion comes early. But that does not mean respect is merely artificial. It can be cultivated into something stable, not just performed under pressure. The fact that it must be learned does not make it reducible to social necessity.
Your observation about Japanese calibration, reading the room, adjusting language and posture, is perceptive. That is an extraordinary social skill. It reflects the influence of reigi and wa, ritual propriety and harmony. But I would distinguish again between outward calibration and inward orientation. One can master form without granting the other real standing. That is the trade-off you describe in the Eightfold Fence image, a self that is orderly but sealed.
The question, then, is not whether harmony is achieved. It is whether harmony rests on mutual recognition or on managed distance.
You also raise the separatist temptation, the instinct to withdraw into enclaves where our particularity is not challenged. That impulse is understandable. Pluralism is costly. But withdrawal solves the tension by shrinking the circle rather than by strengthening our capacity to bear difference.
So yes, civility is demanding. It is not soft. It requires restraint, but not the erasure of the self. It requires compromise in practice, but not necessarily compromise in conviction. And it asks us to do something harder than mere coexistence: to look at someone we might never choose, and still grant them full standing.
Whether any culture achieves that consistently remains an open empirical question. I share your sense that it is always fragile. But fragility does not mean impossibility. It means the work is ongoing.
Thanks, in turn, for such a thoughtful response, Lexi. I hope our occasional exchanges underscore the importance of your work at Civic Renaissance. This is, at best, a partial response to the nuance you bring. I remain genuinely intrigued by our difference over the status of “inward disposition.”
My sterner sense of “civility” comes from Teresa Bejan’s Mere Civility and her retrieval of Roger Williams. Williams believed—devoutly—that some were heretics bound for hell. Yet he was equally committed to their full voice in public life. That included Native Americans, whose faith he rejected and said so openly (“pagans”) but whose political inclusion he insisted upon to the consternation of religious leadership.
When Bejan calls civility “mere,” she does not mean thin or watered down. She means stripped to its lowest common denominator: the basic norms that allow people who deeply disagree to live and argue together *without* requiring or looking for a good inward disposition, mutual esteem or shared moral commitments.
“Mere” civility is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not ask us to soften our conviction, much less withhold its forthright expression in public, but only to forgo silencing one another. Elsewhere, Bejan says the problem with Trump is not his insults and raucous behavior, but his use of power to shut down critics.
Thank you again—for your post, and for the exchange.