Why Civility is Still Important

(the piece that was too controversial for a social work journal)

This piece is a follow-up to an article that I had published in the Journal of Social Work Education. (I can’t link to it, but the title is “The Duties We Owe to One Another”)

Civility has unfortunately become a dirty word in social work circles, which I think is due both to misunderstandings of the concept of civility and general insanity within the field. I love this piece-and it was rejected earlier this year by a BIG journal as it was deemed to be too provocative at the time. Hope you all enjoy and I’d happy to discuss more.

After interviewing for a leadership position at a university, I received a series of ugly, anonymous emails. I was initially quite shocked as the messages purportedly came from some of my colleagues and fellow social workers. After all, social work core values explicitly endorse both the “importance of human relationships” and the “dignity and worth of the person.” Name-calling and rude emails would seem to be out of character for social workers. But after further reflection, I realized that the virus of incivility in our culture has infected all of us and that even those who commit their lives to helping others are not immune. I think it’s important to talk about this issue openly and honestly and strive to work on solutions, particularly within the academic environment.

While the children’s rhyme tells us that “words can never hurt me,” the truth is that they do. Mere words can wound us deeply and change our world view. Incivility in all forms takes a toll on both our mental and physical health. It can destroy teams and lead to individuals disengaging from their work. Denigrating and dehumanizing others makes it easier to justify acts of violence. With further research and study, I have no doubt that we will find deep correlations between the rise of rudeness and rise of mass shootings as the slow drip of chronic incivility erodes our sense of community and belonging and makes us into meaner versions of ourselves.

There are whole industries dedicated to insults, companies that profit off memes and t-shirts and other things that are solely created to mock and degrade. There are entire social media groups dedicated to making fun of others. And we’ve all encountered the online “activists” who make their livings from cutting people down on X and other platforms. Let’s not forget certain leaders who have turned crude nicknames into political capital and have won elections mostly by insulting their opponents.

Of course, it’s so much easier to disparage your opponent than to spend the time crafting an evidence-based critique of their policies and ideas. It’s easier to call someone a Nazi or a Socialist than to explain how their actions or words exemplify Nazism or socialism. And it’s become acceptable on both sides of the aisle to regularly engage in this toxic behavior. Ad hominem attacks have become so much a part of the political and activist landscapes that no one bats an eye.

One of the unfortunate things that I’ve noticed about myself, (and I suspect that I am not alone) is the rush I get when I artfully put someone down. We get a thrill when we type out our clever (and rude) responses. When it’s on social media, we may get hundreds or thousands of “likes” or “shares.” If your insult is particularly witty, the more public acclaim we may receive. The viral put down is one of the few trophies we can receive in our middle age. In our “attention economy”, the worse the put-down, the more attention we receive and the more online social capital we reap.

It’s not to say that we shouldn’t critique policies and programs, especially those that create harm and marginalize particular groups. We should continue to advocate for good government and fight to ensure that our laws are applied fairly. We should also hold people accountable for their poor actions. But we don’t need to degrade others as human beings in the process of accountability. Calling someone “trash” is unlikely to make them change their behavior. And two wrongs have never made a “right.”

The argument I frequently hear is what obligations do we have to those who dehumanize us? In other words, we can justify being rude or belittling anyone who we believe is racist, transphobic, etc. There are two main problems with this argument. The first is that we are essentially arguing that we should fight dehumanizing behaviors by dehumanizing others. The second is that our belief that someone else is a bad actor may be based on misunderstandings, miscommunication, the word of someone who is not trustworthy, or we are simply catching someone at a low point.

I am not suggesting that anyone, particularly members of marginalized groups should be forced to subject themselves to verbal abuse by others. There are always times when the best answer is to disengage and walk away. At the same time, we also need to clearly differentiate between abuse and conflict, as many of us seem to conflate the two and treat any points of disagreement as horrible mistreatment from the other side.

Several years ago, I had a student inform me that she had the “right” to react in any way she chose, which including cursing at other students in class. I had to explain to her that while she always had the right to her feelings, she did not have the right to be disruptive in my class. Those who chose to engage in uncivil behavior fail to consider is how their speech or behavior may affect innocent bystanders. In this example, other students in the class would certainly be negatively affected by her disruptive response. I would be negatively affected as the faculty member who would have to use instructional time to calm the situation. Such outbursts would likely prevent some members of class from raising their hand or otherwise contributing to class discussions in the future which could impede their long-term learning.

Just like in classrooms, chronic incivility is silencing many voices. It is keeping citizens from expressing their opinions on local events on message boards. It is keeping good people from running for office. It is causing some of us to retreat to our homes and turning our backs on our communities.

In this era of outrage, civility may be more important than ever While we can’t control the wider culture, there are things that we can chose to do within our classrooms and labs and offices and meetings and our direct communications with one another.

•Challenge ourselves to have difficult conversations in person or over Zoom as opposed to via email or messenger program. I know, it’s so much easier to send off a terse email (or ten) but face to face (or Zoom) is the better way to discuss areas of conflict and we all know that things frequently get misinterpreted over email or other forms of written communication.

•Consider the old mantra of “Public praise, private criticism.” While there is the wide-spread idea that one must publicly confront certain types of speech in order to be an ally to certain groups, consider the fact that such public confrontations don’t necessarily create change and may just make the offender defensive and recalcitrant. A private conversation is much more likely to produce the desired results and may create ongoing dialogue.

•Support the development of courses in civil discourse, as well as “skill building” workshops to teach students how to have challenging conversations. Create incentives for research on civility and creation of best practices.

•Remember that we are always role modeling for our young people. They watch how we handle conflict within our families and workplaces and communities.

While conflict is inevitable, incivility is a choice. In both our day to day and more consequential actions, we can choose the path of respectful disagreement. We can choose to find a better way.