Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Civility breakdown in the marketplace of ideas


TexasFreethinker

Recommended Posts

The president of a well-known conservative think-tank has a good point.

His essay is a little biased IMHO, but I agree with his conclusion.

 

 

Civility breakdown in the marketplace of ideas

 

07:09 PM CDT on Saturday, May 21, 2005

 

In 1969, a Stanford University psychologist named Philip Zimbardo set up an experiment. He arranged for two cars to be abandoned – one on the mean streets of the Bronx, N.Y.; the other in an affluent neighborhood near Stanford in Palo Alto, Calif. The license plates had been removed, and the hoods were left open. Dr. Zimbardo wanted to see what would happen to the cars.In the Bronx, he soon found out. Ten minutes after the car was abandoned, people began stealing parts from it. Within three days, the car was stripped. When there was nothing useful left to take, people smashed windows and ripped out upholstery, until the car was trashed.

 

In Palo Alto, something quite different happened: nothing. For more than a week, the car sat there unmolested. Dr. Zimbardo was puzzled, but he had a hunch about human nature. To test it, he went out and, in full view of everyone, took a sledgehammer and smashed part of the car.

 

Soon, passers-by were taking turns with the hammer, delivering blow after satisfying blow. Within a few hours, the vehicle was resting on its roof, demolished.

 

Among the scholars who took note of Dr. Zimbardo's experiment were two criminologists, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The experiment gave rise to their "broken windows" theory of crime, which is illustrated by a common experience: When a broken window in a building is left unrepaired, the rest of the windows are soon broken by vandals.

 

But why is this? Aside from the fact that it's fun to break windows, why does the broken window invite further vandalism? Drs. Wilson and Kelling say it's because the broken window sends a signal that no one is in charge here, that breaking more windows costs nothing, that it has no undesirable consequences.

 

The broken window is their metaphor for a whole host of ways that behavioral norms can break down in a community. If one person scrawls graffiti on a wall, others will soon be at it with their spray cans. If one aggressive panhandler begins working a block, others will soon follow.

 

In short, once people begin disregarding the norms that keep order in a community, both order and community unravel, sometimes with astonishing speed.

 

Police in big cities have dramatically cut crime rates by applying this theory. Rather than concentrate on felonies such as robbery and assault, they aggressively enforce laws against relatively minor offenses – graffiti, public drinking, panhandling, littering.

 

When order is visibly restored at that level, the environment signals: This is a community where behavior does have consequences. If you can't get away with jumping a turnstile into the subway, you'd better not try armed robbery.

 

As the head of a think tank in Washington, I work exclusively in the marketplace of ideas. What we're seeing there today is a disturbing growth of incivility that follows and confirms the broken-windows theory. Alas, this breakdown of civil norms is not a failing of either the political left or the right exclusively. It spreads across the political spectrum from one end to the other.

 

A few examples:

 

•A liberal writes a book calling Rush Limbaugh a "big fat idiot." A conservative writes a book calling liberals "useful idiots."

 

•A liberal writes a book titled The Lies of George W. Bush. A conservative writes a book subtitled Liberal Lies About the American Right.

 

•A liberal publishes a detailed "case for Bush-hatred." A conservative declares "even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

 

Those few examples – and unfortunately there are many, many more – come from elites in the marketplace of ideas. All are highly educated people who write nationally syndicated columns, publish best-selling books and are hot tickets on radio and television talk shows.

 

Further down the food chain, lesser lights take up smaller hammers, but they commit even more degrading incivilities. The Internet, with its easy access and worldwide reach, is a breeding ground for Web sites with names like Bushbodycount.com and Toostupidtobepresident.com.

 

This is how the broken-windows theory plays out in the marketplace of ideas. If you want to see it working in real time, try the following: Log on to AOL, and go to one of the live chat rooms reserved for political chat. Someone will post a civil comment on some political topic. Almost immediately, someone else will swing the verbal hammer of incivility, and from there the chat degrades into a food fight, with invective and insult as the main course.

 

This illustrates the first aspect of the broken-windows theory, which we saw with the car in Palo Alto. Once someone wields the hammer – once the incivility starts – others will take it as an invitation to join in, and pretty soon there's no limit to the incivility.

 

Now if you watch closely in that chat room, you'll see something else happening. Watch the screen names of people who make civil comments. Some – a few – will join in the food fight. But most will log off. Their screen names just disappear. They leave because the atmosphere has turned hostile to anything approaching a civil exchange or a real dialogue.

 

This illustrates the second aspect of the broken-windows theory: Once the insults begin flying, many will opt out. Drs. Wilson and Kelling describe this response when the visible signs of order deteriorate in a neighborhood: "Many residents will think that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise, and they will modify their behavior accordingly. They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, silent lips and hurried steps. Don't get involved. For some residents, this growing atomization will matter little. ... But it will matter greatly to other people, whose lives derive meaning and satisfaction from local attachments; for them, the neighborhood will cease to exist except for a few reliable friends whom they arrange to meet."

 

The chat room shows us that a similar response occurs when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas. Many people withdraw and tune out, regardless of whether the incivility occurs in a chat room, on a talk show, in a newspaper column, in political campaign ads or on the floor of Congress.

 

This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.

 

What we see today is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.

 

Last year I attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the 25th anniversary of her accession to the prime ministership of Great Britain. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility. If you want to grasp the nature of civility, try to imagine Lady Thatcher calling someone a "big fat idiot." You will instantly understand that civility isn't an accessory one can put on or take off like a scarf. It is inseparable from the character of great leaders.

 

Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken-windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases.

 

But those cases aren't parallel in every way. When behavioral norms break down in a community, police can restore order. But when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas, the law is powerless to set things right. And properly so. Our right to speak freely – and to speak with incivility, if we choose – is guaranteed by those five glorious words in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... ."

 

And yet, the need for civility has never been greater. Our nation is divided as never before between the left and the right. We are at loggerheads on profoundly important political and social questions. Civilization itself is under barbaric attack from without.

 

Sadly, too many of us are not rising to these challenges as a democratic people. We've seen declines in voter participation in national elections. Rather than helping reverse this decline, the rising chorus of incivility is driving out citizens of honest intent and encouraging those who trade in jeering and mockery.

 

If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity.

 

Edwin J. Feulner

 

is president of the Heritage Foundation. This essay is adapted from a commencement address he delivered last year at Hillsdale College. You may e-mail Dr. Feulner at staff@heritage .org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was very interesting. Thank you for posting it TF.

 

There is a great deal of "food for thought" in the article.

 

IBF :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TexasFreethinker,

 

Great post! Thanks very much.

 

Proverbs 15:2 - The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that it's fun to break windows, why does the broken window invite further vandalism? Drs. Wilson and Kelling say it's because the broken window sends a signal that no one is in charge here, that breaking more windows costs nothing, that it has no undesirable consequences.

 

Uncanny. Remember your childhood?

 

There is a pumphouse near a river in my home town. When I was a kid we totaly vandalised it. I do remember that other kids got to it before we did. We just finnished th job.

 

The broken window is their metaphor for a whole host of ways that behavioral norms can break down in a community.

 

This is so obvious yet I never connected the dots. This seems like a very reasonable explanation. It just makes so much sense.

 

This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.

What we see today is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.

 

I want better politicians. What is the real agenda of the politicians we have. Either they just don't care and are just riding the gravy train, or they are doing this so they can further the interests of the upper crust. I know I have felt for a long time that it is futile to participate in government when I just don't see ideas being exchanged. Only a smoke screen of non issues to distract from bad ideas. Is there really any infighting going on or are they all just using tactics to discourage citizens who are practical at heart. I don't know much about politics but I have friends who think they know about politics and they feel discouraged in even bothering to get involved in our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always a bit unnerving to find myself agreeing witha conservative, but it happens sometimes. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always a bit unnerving to find myself agreeing witha conservative, but it happens sometimes.  :shrug:

 

Ro-Bear how many people do you know who have the us against them attitudes and are very dogmatic in supporting thier politicians even though thier politicians break promises or go totaly againts the philosophy of thier party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be more apt to agree with him a little more if he wasn't quoting Ann Coulter at one point. I refuse to stand near anyone who holds that beast in any sort of regard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read a bit of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken....and the one thing that Al Franken does is support his insults with actual information.

 

The problem with Ann Coulter is that she lies, and insults, and then doesn't have the decency to even justify or substantiate what she says. When she does, it's misinformation, lies, or propaganda.

Someone who says "we should invade the Middle East and convert them all to Christianity" should not be supported, or defended.

 

Al Franken is a liberal, but he's also a satirist...which I think gives him license to insult and degrade the people he's satiring, I know a lot of you support Silly Geezer in his satires.

 

I don't see any reason to think that the the author of the essay has a good point simply because he selects evidence from political satirists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be more apt to agree with him a little more if he wasn't quoting Ann Coulter at one point. I refuse to stand near anyone who holds that beast in any sort of regard...

 

 

I fucking love your avatar, it kicks ass!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article TfT...

 

Goes to show how many BiPeds there are out there who have no concern at all for the property physical and otherwise of others.

 

What the Doc didn't say is that there are many of we who just don't care to go fuck with others things, say hammering a car in public, are a quiet majority of Humans...

 

Notice that those inclined to do harm are also the badits found on Wanted posters and crawling into your personal space to take your things..

 

Assholes and cretins abound, however they tend to be the same actors over and over and over again until they are replaced by younger cretins...

 

Like the old saw of the little kid seeing a Wanted poster at Post office: "Daddy why didn't the Police keep him then?"

 

Have no easy answers. Won't claim to be so strident and aware that *nothing* is going to happen to me and mine, the House and holdings.. However I'll not take a swing, nor will I raise my Son to do so..

 

Casey's post on a "Rifle's Distance" is a way of life for me...

 

n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ro-Bear how many people do you know who have the us against them attitudes and are very dogmatic in supporting thier politicians even though thier politicians break promises or go totaly againts the philosophy of thier party?

 

Plenty of these folks on both sides of the aisle. It's almost as much an indictment of the two-party system as of the sheeple themselves. Politics in the U.S. is like a tug of war; you can sit and watch or pick a side and pull. Some people try to tie a little cord off and pull at an angle, but their efforts are largely in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's absolutely correct, even if he's blind to some things close to home that fit the description of what he's commenting about.

 

Rehtorica excess, particularly when it comes to discourtesy, is the stock in trade of demagoguery. This has been a personal hobby horse of mine for some time - the hurling of wanton insults and innuendo is distraction engaged in by people who are either angy, tired, lazy, or sneaky, and is unbecoming to a civilized person.

 

Manners may change from era to era, but courtesy, respect, and dignity are universal. Humans - even depraved despicable humans - deserve to be treated with these things. It's one thing to kill somebody who deserves it, it's quite another to spit on them. In an imperfect world full of suffering and cruelty, distasteful actions (killing in self defense, calling out a criminal, harshly confronting a friend) are sometimes the only ethical option left open to us. It's one thing to carry out one's duty, to do what one must. It's quite another to derive pleasure in inflicting degradation on another.

 

Now, please understand that I say this in full knowledge that I have, myself, been less civil of late than I would normally expect of myself or of those around me, and that I've let it bleed through onto these forums. My recent struggles with disgust and bitterness in a variety of areas have led me to behave in a fashion that is beneath me, even around here, among my friends - something I truly regret. For this, I beg forgiveness of those who I may have hurt with some of my very serrated rants on education and politics recently.

 

My deepest thanks to you, TF, for posting this article and bringing me up short by reminding me of some of my own principles that I was in danger of forgetting. I hope others have ears to hear as well.

 

Honor, dignity, and courtesy...

Words to live by.

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very nice!

 

It was comprised of deep and solicitous understanding of the issue and combined with undoubtedly well expressed statements declaring your opinion and regret.

 

Henceforth your apology has been considered and accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Asimov, there is bile on both sides, the difference is that the right have to lie in order to defend their ideology, which indicates to me that is bunk. Al Franken shows in his work that the right have a consistent habit of misrepresenting liberals in order to attack them, like creationists who straw-man evolution, xtians who demonise atheists, they seem to feel that the truth fails to support their beliefs. There own position is suspect, so they go after their opponents, but as liberals have a reasonable position they have to distort it, (and with Coulter) lie outrageously to score points for a side which consists of uncritical, credulous and biased idiots. I see no good in the right in the U.S., I try to, as I am in fact personally conservative, (UK style) though politically Liberal, but like xtianity it appears to be rotten to the core. They may appear to have a point in this instance, but they merely point to a problem liberals cannot be blamed for, whereas they are for more likely to share responsibility. In Al's Liers book he takes several chapters to show the right is to blame for the "tone", and the examples he gives remind me of xtian apolagists, the entire right wing paradigm, religious and political in the US seem to thrive on dishonestly, and as far as I’m concerned all attacks on them are justified, you cant deny the political xtians are a threat to everything your nation is supposed to stand for, especially for freethinkers, I say unite against the right, don’t fall for this tactic of highlighting a problem they created and blaming it on their opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand...

 

Some of the most damaging and corrupt deeds have been done under a cloak of civility. Some of the most reprehensible crimes have been committed by people their neighbors later identified as "always pleasant; never made any trouble."

 

Those who feel unshakably confident of their power can afford to be civil, while civility has rarely been a tool used by those trying to free themselves from the chains put on them by those civil people in power. Boston Tea Party, anyone?

 

I understand that the components of the Hebrew word for "oppression" break down into: With Gentle Speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RevJ

I think this is probably why I'm a moderate. I never get excited about anything. I'm a senior and like my afternoon nap but relax, I don't drive a Buick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand...

 

Some of the most damaging and corrupt deeds have been done under a cloak of civility.  Some of the most reprehensible crimes have been committed by people their neighbors later identified as "always pleasant; never made any trouble."

 

Those who feel unshakably confident of their power can afford to be civil, while civility has rarely been a tool used by those trying to free themselves from the chains put on them by those civil people in power.  Boston Tea Party, anyone?

 

I understand that the components of the Hebrew word for "oppression" break down into: With Gentle Speech.

 

I think great social change can be brought about using civility. Think of Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. Civilility doesn't have to mean ignoring wrongs or downplaying injustice. To me, it's about keeping the focus on the matter at hand without using distracting personal attacks that add nothing to the argument.

 

Civil: "It is injust to prevent homosexuals from marrying the partner of their choice."

 

Uncivil: "It is injust to prevent homosexuals from marrying the partner of their choice, your feet stink and your mama is a whore."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it's about keeping the focus on the matter at hand without using distracting personal attacks that add nothing to the argument.

 

 

 

I agree that personal attacks are unwarranted in a debate of ideas. In fact, ad hominem thinking and talking is almost always counter-productive to one's aims in discourse.

 

This makes me unsure whether civility is exactly what we're discussing here.

 

For instance, I've never thought it uncivil to call a lie a lie if one can demonstrate that it is, especially operating from the premise that actual civil society must be premised on truth. It's just plain rude, though, and pretty much unprovable, to call someone a liar -- or to use any label that denotes a broad, intrinsic and life-long characteristic of a person.

 

Don't you think MLK, Ghandi, Mandela, et al, were perceived by the dominant powers of their Times as flauting accepted civil norms? As attempting to undercut civil society? Whereas, probably nobody would have called their words and actions 'ill-mannered'...?

 

It's a distinction I need to clarify, TF, because I'm still hoping that at some point in my rapidly attenuating lifetime I'll have an opportunity to be arrested for civil disobedience; at that point I'd be alarmed to be labeled :eek: 'rude.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me unsure whether civility is exactly what we're discussing here.

 

For instance, I've never thought it uncivil to call a lie a lie if one can demonstrate that it is, especially operating from the premise that actual civil society must be premised on truth.  It's just plain rude, though, and pretty much unprovable, to call someone a liar -- or to use any label that denotes a broad, intrinsic and life-long characteristic of a person.

 

Don't you think MLK, Ghandi, Mandela, et al, were perceived by the dominant powers of their Times as flauting accepted civil norms?  As attempting to undercut civil society?  Whereas, probably nobody would have called their words and actions 'ill-mannered'...?

 

For me, civility has nothing to do with avoiding certain topics - instead it's about the manner in which the topics at hand are discussed. When I looked up "civility" in the dictionary it basically said "avoiding rudeness or using adequate politeness".

 

I also agree with you that calling a lie a lie should be done, and can certainly be done in a civil manner. I may be missing something, but I think ad hominem attacks make up a majority of uncivil behavior when conflicting ideas are being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, civility has nothing to do with avoiding certain topics - instead it's about the manner in which the topics at hand are discussed.  When I looked up "civility" in the dictionary it basically said "avoiding rudeness or using adequate politeness".

 

I also agree with you that calling a lie a lie should be done, and can certainly be done in a civil manner.  I may be missing something, but I think ad hominem attacks make up a majority of uncivil behavior when conflicting ideas are being discussed.

 

Agreed completely.

 

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we have any morality norms at all?

They seem necessary to me for societies to function. Without them, it's each person for himself. However, I'm not sure that I see the correlation between morality and civility. Aren't they two separate things? You can be civilly immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civility is *social lubrication*.

 

I can think the person I am interacting with is the blankety-blankest-blanking son of a blank...

If it does nothing to further negotiations, enhance discussions, hammer out a business deal, or prevent me from putting several slugs in his forehead, being un-civil gains little.

 

Morality IMNHO is a function of preferences. If you prefer not to be an asshole, don't be. If you do, wear the consequences.

 

Where lines get fuzzy is when folks try to blend civility and morality..

 

I am usually civil to those I meet. As to *moral*? Not according to sectarian standards..

 

However I am not the one bashing your broken down car windows out..

 

n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, civility has nothing to do with avoiding certain topics - instead it's about the manner in which the topics at hand are discussed.  When I looked up "civility" in the dictionary it basically said "avoiding rudeness or using adequate politeness".

 

I also agree with you that calling a lie a lie should be done, and can certainly be done in a civil manner.  I may be missing something, but I think ad hominem attacks make up a majority of uncivil behavior when conflicting ideas are being discussed.

 

Okay, TF, try this on for size: we may actually be engaged in that rarest, though oft-claimed, difference of opinion called, "a matter of semantics."

 

What my very old dictionary goes on and on about in discussing the meaning of 'civil' or 'civility' is the contrast between urbanity and barbarity, i.e., "Having the manners of a citizen as distinguished from those of a rustic or savage." This makes me wonder if those conservatives who famously argue for 'civility,' as opposed to arguing for plain old 'manners,' are playing the game with loaded dice. The inference they may hope will be made is that some hapless liberal on a talk show who's out of his/her mind because of the accelerating loss of liberties in the U.S. is engaging in an emotional rant which marks her/him as a savage. The conclusion they hope will be made is that we civilized folk needn't attend the arguments of savages.

 

The above provides a kind of blanket, all-inclusive ability to dismiss a person and his/her point of view as being beneath our consideration, whereas to call the person on a specific breach of manners would make the statement, not the person, the subject of examination. Conservatives, generally, don't want the specifics examined, but prefer to negate the nay-sayers themselves. My guess is that this phenomenon, rather than actual personal attacks, represents the major part of what's going on in public discourse.

 

I think the Greek root of the word, civilization, refers to a place where a weapon needn't be carried. Ours has increasingly become far from that ideal. Maybe if we ever get civilization back we'll no longer be bothered by the obsessive leftist crack-pot hot-head Cassandras whom, imo, the allegedly civilized ones among us wish to shut up and shut down.

 

But there's never an excuse for rudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.