Christopher R. Darr (2005) Civility as rhetorical enactment: The John Ashcroft “debates” and Burke's theory of form, Southern Communication Journal, 70:4, 316-328, DOI: 10.1080/10417940509373337
A brief outline and definition of the concept of civility is therefore necessary. According to Uslaner (2000), civility is closely related to compromise, reciprocity, and comity. "Civil language," he argued, "makes compromise across partisan and ideological lines possible" (p. 35). Evans and Oleszek (1998) asserted that incivility is associated with "unproductive personal and partisan attacks" instead of "constructive lawmaking and debate" (p. 27). For Carter (1998), civility in its ideal form is an attitude of respect for one's fellow citizens. Labeling and name-calling (calling one's political opponent an "extremist," for example) are uncivil because they become substitutes for serious debate. Similarly, Meyer (2000) theorized that civility requires a "willingness to explain oneself... to political antagonists, a willingness to listen to the same, and a fairmindedness in deciding when to compromise" (p. 74). But, as Carter argued, civility does not preclude criticism. It does, however, avoid destructive arguments and personal insults that result in the stifling of debate and the creation of hostile atmospheres that prevent or seriously damage genuine cooperation. Incivility exhibits rudeness and a general unwillingness to cooperate (Carter, 1998; Meyer, 2000; Uslaner, 1991). These scholars agree that civil language is respectful of others, both personally and ideologically, where other points of view are acknowledged as legitimate, even if the parties involved disagree. Civil language does not insult or berate; it is courteous and respectful. It may be critical, but not in ways that discourage productive debate by resorting to personal or hostile attacks. This working definition of civility provides a perspective from which to determine if and when civility has been violated.
No comments:
Post a Comment