WeShare

Recent public outbursts by various celebrities have sparked a number of blogs and columns on civility that I believe have largely missed the point.  I don’t think there’s anything new about people being nasty to one another in a public setting.  Politicians have been dueling both figuratively and literally since the beginning of the republic, and I suspect professional athletes have been using profanity as long as there have been professional sports.

We might also remember that the most destructive wars in history took place more than 60 years ago; so, it would be hard to argue that at a time when genocide and mass destruction were taking place on a global scale that somehow people were more civil to one another.

My concern is more local.  I believe many of us never learned or have forgotten that civility begins with some basic assumptions.  I think we have to assume that other people’s motives are as legitimate as our own until we see compelling evidence they are not.  People say inaccurate things all the time, but that doesn’t mean everyone is a liar.  Disagreements are also part of daily life, and most of us realize that a disagreement with a spouse doesn’t mean that our partner has evil intentions or is mentally impaired.  At least 50 percent of marriages do not end in divorce; so, apparently, a majority of people understand this principle.

We can also assume that responding to incivility with equal or greater incivility will lead to a bad outcome.  Flashing the one-finger salute to a rude driver may provide a moment of satisfaction or it could lead to a needless confrontation with a really nasty person.  The young Oregon football player who responded to a stupid taunt from an opposing team member with a punch to his face sacrificed the remainder of his college football career and probably some NFL cash by escalating incivility.

Those of us who work in government often fail to remember these lessons.  It’s now a national sport to criticize government, and everyone’s favorite target is the federal government.  State workers can lob insults at federal agencies, secure in the knowledge that almost no one will disagree.  City workers can point to the intransigence and arrogance of the state.  The only reason, in my opinion, that local government typically scores higher in public opinion polls than the state or federal levels is that we have no layer of government below us.

My solution to incivility is not to avoid disagreements or ignore bad behavior.  Rather, we need to focus on the problem, not the person.  People respond most negatively when they are not respected and/or humiliated.  Most of us can handle the idea that someone disagrees with something we say or believe.  We get testy, however, when someone calls us dishonest, incompetent, or stupid.  Attacking an idea can be a productive way to create understanding and reveal the truth.  Attacking people usually leads to a less desirable outcome.