Civility Rules

I attended an event in Portland last Tuesday (Veteran’s Day) evening which was entitled “Restoring Civility in Chaotic Times.” Organized primarily by the organization Brown Hope, it was billed as “an evening of storytelling and meaningful discussion about our collective future … featuring a panel of local experts on civics, de-escalation, and crossing political divides, followed by facilitated breakout discussions about how we can restore the dignity and respect needed for a healthy, thriving democracy.”

I had inside information pertaining to the title of the event. It was originally going to be called “Restoring Peace in Chaotic Times” but the word “civility” was substituted because it’s more specific and not as overused as “peace.” 

I thought that was a great idea. I think civility, in and of itself, is extremely important, and a critical stepping stone toward peace of all kinds. It’s not a “sexy” concept exactly, but it’s a potent one.

 So I’ve been thinking about it, and have tentatively identified the following civility rules.

Rule 1: Answering the Question that Was Asked

I heard later that the breakout discussions at the above-referenced event were terrific, but I wasn’t present for them. I left early because the panel discussion wore me out. The moderator asked pointed questions such as “What do you believe is the source or cause of political violence in America, and how would you address it?” and “What were your initial, personal reactions to the assassinations of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and activist Charlie Kirk?” 

The panelists were instructed to limit their answers to 90 seconds. Two of the four panelists repeatedly ran roughshod over that time limit, speaking five to ten minutes at a time, but worse yet, rambling about all kinds of things that had little to do with the question posed. This got tedious quickly.

As I left early, I wondered: was that civil of those two panelists – to just ignore the actual question, time and again? I think it was disrespectful – to the moderator and, for that matter, to the assembled audience of a couple hundred people. And you can’t really be civil if you’re being disrespectful. Civility would have included respecting the 90-second time limit for answers, and also answering the actual question that was asked.

I think this is an often-overlooked point of etiquette. How often are we asked a question that we don’t actually answer directly, because we’re more interested in talking about something else? And how often has it happened to you that you pose a simple question to someone and they respond as if you’d asked something completely different?

So that’s one rule of civility: Answer the question that was asked.  

Rule 2: Be Humble in the Face of What We Don’t Know

Obviously, there is infinitely more we don’t know than we do know … about just about anything. And it’s okay to admit that. More than okay. Imperative.

Susan asked me the other day how I felt about the eight Democratic senators who broke ranks and voted to end the government shutdown. I told her that the optics seemed terrible. The Dems had just won a bunch of elections and were looking strong, but now the storyline was that they “gave in” or “caved.” Still, I wasn’t sure. Did this mean that 42 million people would start getting their food stamps again? And the million-plus federal workers who’d been laid off and were unpaid during the shutdown –would their pain be ended now too?

Yes, Susan said, she thought so. And we agreed that while it was easy to say that the defecting Democrats had “lacked courage” or “backbone,” she and I were not among those who’d been directly feeling the pain. It’s easy to be righteous and to make sweeping judgments when our own skin isn’t in the game. As Susan put it, we need to embrace nuance, not just optics.

So I honestly don’t know if it was “right” for Democrats to vote to end the shutdown before getting more significant concessions from the Republicans. (The only thing I do feel I understand, and what I wish would stop, is the name-calling within the Democratic ranks, between those who feel that the eight senators “caved” and those who feel they made the right choice. Just quit the circular firing squad act, Democrats! That is uncivil. All of you have valid points of view. Please articulate your disagreements civilly. Become anti-Trumpian role models in that sense.)

Rule 3: Allow Judgmental Thoughts to Simmer Inside Rather than Be Stated Out Loud

I struggle with this personally but I think it’s important. 

I believe in transparency. But sometimes, honest and forthcoming though I may think I am, it’s far more sensible, and civil, to keep my thoughts to myself, particularly when I’m judging someone else’s behavior. 

I can’t count the number of times I have fallen into that stupid trap of imagining I was doing someone a favor by helping them to be more “self-aware” when they weren’t soliciting enlightenment.  

Now. Of course I have been well-trained to use “I” statements. As in: “I feel like you are/were being …” But this is obviously a judgment about the person to whom I’m speaking. The “I feel like you are/were …” part of that phrasing might just as well be “I judge/judged you as …” which means the exact same thing.

And sometimes, even a fairer sounding statement, such as “I felt such-and-such when you did this or you said that” is really just a thinly couched judgment, particularly when the “this or that” has nothing specifically to do with me. I’m not saying such reflections can never be necessary or helpful, but they rarely are. I myself have occasionally been helped by such statements, though far more often, they just piss me off.

And in fact, when someone’s behavior or speech “triggers” us … it’s always about ourselves really. It’s not about what they are doing. It’s about some vulnerability or self-judgment we feel that we’re not altogether conscious of.

So my Rule 3 could be paraphrased as: Do some soul-searching before making one of those “caring” “I” statements. What’s REALLY behind the urge to say what you’re about to say?

 Rule 4: Cultivate Curiosity

Other people are a lot more complicated than we imagine. 

We know how complicated and multi-faceted we are, right? It may not appear that way to our naked eye, but everyone has just as many hidden facets, so listen carefully (especially to people who don’t talk much) and ask questions. Get curious about what people are really feeling and thinking, and why they think as they do. It can be fascinating.

Rule 5: Don’t Try to Change Other People

I got this one straight from Braver Angels. Most specifically in the realm of politics, don’t try to change people’s opinions. Try to understand where people are coming from. People want to be heard, not converted.

Does this newsletter feel like a lecture? If so, that’s not civil either. I guess my only excuse is that I was in a rush this week. I hope it was interesting anyway. Thanks for reading!