How will America resolve the heightened conflicts that have arisen during the race? The vitriolic climate throughout this election has been attributed to many dynamics, including economic stress, geographical differences and, most commonly, hyper-partisanship.
Commentators have doubled down on this idea, maintaining that the refusal of everyday people to engage across party lines on the internet, over news coverage and in real life is destroying the fabric of America.
A proposed antidote has emerged to this partly manufactured, partly real crisis, but don’t count on it to change much.
Individuals and organizations of varying political persuasions lately have called on candidates and elected officials, as well as the public at large, to express their political differences in a way that restores civility to the public discourse.
Instead of finding ways to restructure an antiquated, exploitative and ineffective two-party political system, these organizations are instead asking us to simply behave ourselves.
But focusing on civility as the key to recovering from this election cycle is an expression of privilege, whether it be economic status, gender, race, ability or so on.
In short, the most civil defense of oppressive beliefs will not save us as a nation.
Tomas Spath and Cassandra Dahnke, founders of the Institute for Civility in Government, describe civility as “claiming and caring for one’s needs and beliefs without degrading someone in the process.”
“Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step,” they state. “It’s about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about difference, listening past one’s preconceptions and teaching others to do the same.”
Civility is often associated with the pinnacle of political exchange, which explains the reason it has gained newfound reverence as our current American political disaster grinds on. But thinking about the complex rifts exposed by the 2016 election suggests that prescribing civility as a solution to complicated divides is not enough.
Often, civility is presented as a solution alongside a nostalgic revisiting of history. Pundits have the tendency to assign sainthood to political figures of the past, insisting that once upon a time, policy, not personality or personhood, were main topics of political debate. Intentionally or not, this fosters the idolization of figures who were politely upholding inhumane institutions.
Assigning the gospel of civility to Americans as post-election homework is pretty basic. Instead, our nation — which thinks so highly of itself and its ideals — should use recent overt expressions of hatred and explicit prejudice disguised as partisanship to redefine the goals of its democracy.
Who says the promotion and adoption of civility and its accompanying values can’t do this on their own? Theoretically, these measures could. But there are deep problems to address first.
Many proponents seem to use civility to focus on the tone of those engaged in debate, which is misguided and potentially treacherous.
Members of historically disenfranchised groups have often been further marginalized for critiquing their oppression with an alleged lack of civility. Their inability or downright refusal to join in Christian white middle class male behavior has often led to the dismissal of substantive critiques of complex issues.
The Irate 8, a group of black student activists at the University of Cincinnati, received lynching threats for protesting UC administration’s mediocre response to the murder of Sam DuBose. Following the media coverage of the threats, then president Santa Ono issued the following statement reported by UC’s student newspaper The News Record.
“Some of the comments are highly insensitive and racially charged and run counter to UC’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity,” Ono said in a university-wide email. “I ask everyone in our community to join me in condemning such comments and for all of us to fully embrace civility and respect.”
Rather than condemning the blatantly racist, dangerous speech, Ono pivoted to civility as a means to reframe an overt attack on a marginalized group. Here we see civility, as it is currently packaged, as a less-academic version of something called “respectability politics.”
Respectability politics is a concept that emerges from Harvard University professor Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. The idea maintains that in order for social, political and economic progress to be obtained by ostracized groups, they must be exceptional and non-threatening to the status quo.
While popular accounts of the American Civil Rights movement celebrate the practice of respectability politics, this election illustrated the importance of rejecting this practice. We must urgently commit to calling out oppressive language, behavior, ideologies and policies that civility alone does not promote.
Civility often simply desires fostering greater understanding between the divergent parties. Establishing and improving understanding across political beliefs is important, but not an endgame. To an extent, seeking understanding alone subtly imagines politics and policy as a zero-sum game that solely results in public disagreement.
For example, my ability to comprehend the position of lawmakers and their supportive constituents who refuse to support a comprehensive pathway to citizenship for undocumented folks is not in question.
The greater issue at hand when I exchange with my political adversaries is how this has historical, economic, political, social and cultural costs that seem to be disregarded. Perhaps if deportation were solely theoretical, exploring non-confrontational communication strategies to challenge these views would be a solution.
But our current reality shows that endless political jousting, even when framed without accusations of malice, does not stop lives and families from being destroyed on a day-to-day basis by politics playing out in the material world, away from the neat rules of the most well-mannered debate table.
Mindfulness is a desirable practice that should emanate through our politics and our citizens. But if civility is the only takeaway from this disturbing election season of death threats, racial slurs, physical assaults and so forth, it seems to me that what America requires is a remedial lecture about the basics of a truly civil society.
CHRISTINA BROWN serves on the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission and organizes for various social justice causes and racial equity. Contact Christina: [email protected].
