Discussion about this post

User's avatar
William C. Green's avatar

One thought for the new edition.

I admire The Soul of Civility, especially your insistence that civility is something deeper than politeness. Yet I wonder whether politeness slips back in through the rear door.

Teresa Bejan’s Mere Civility has made me more drawn to an agonistic account: civility is what keeps people in the argument when disagreement involves offense, contempt, even hatred. Bejan’s civility does not patronize controversy by trying to cure it; it gives controversy somewhere to go.

The task is not to turn antagonism into mutual understanding or fellowship, but to sustain real contest without coercion or violence. Honest controversy may include genuine dislike of one’s opponents. The point is not to become nicer, but to keep talking and stay at the table.

I would welcome more of that harder edge in the new edition. I fear that your civility is ultimately a civility for the already congenial—more at home at an Indianapolis dinner party than where injustice, contempt, and hatred make civility most necessary and most difficult.

See also Mary Scudder’s Beyond Empathy and Inclusion. (For Bejan, also "You don’t have to be nice to political opponents. But you do have to talk to them" - Washington Post online.)

Philalethes's avatar

But Dr King plagiarised his dissertation, did not he? I would not expect Augustine to need do that. So, perhaps tolle lege Augustinum, non Martinum Lutherum. (I would apply the maxim to Dr Kingˆs 16th century eponym, too).

No posts

Ready for more?