Ms Hudson’s piece is marvelous. She is a wonderful writer with insights on civility that we all need to think about. This copy is from a site it was posted on with shares. The site is called Civic Renaissance. I advise everyone to sign up for this site and enjoy some excellent writing.
On Plato and civility: reflecting on Plato during his traditionally recognized birthday month, and civility for International Civility Month + win a YEAR of WONDRIUM!
 |
Gracious reader,
May is the month that scholars traditionally deem to be the birthday of Plato. Also, certain authorities have declared that May is International Civility Awareness Month.
I’ve been thinking of both of these topics of late.
Plato and civility are never far from my mind, but I recently emerged from an experience that caused me to lean and reflect on them all the more.
A recent, tumultuous business transaction prompted me to consider how civility applies to the real world—a and to ask a question that you may have considered, too.
How can we be civil in an uncivil world?
Is it possible for people who are committed to the principles of decency, courteousness, and treating others with basic respect to succeed and thrive when others do not abide by these principles?
Or is it a hopeless cause?
The story
In a recent business situation, the opposite party lacked all manner of basic decency.
Their behavior did not quite reach the level of illegal — although it did come perilously close—they were certainly unethical. More than anything, however, they were just terribly unprofessional and unpleasant to work with.
But their conduct reminded me of the importance of basic civility that many of us take for granted. It is only when norms of courtesy and respect are broken that we fully appreciate their importance to helping us co exist with others in society.
It’s an important truth: we note and appreciate civility most in its absence.
I define civility as the basic respect we are owed by virtue of our shared dignity and equal moral worth as human beings. We owe this to others regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they are from, whether or not we like them, and whether or not they can do anything for us.
I live and breathe civility and have studied social norms across history and culture— including countless instances of when they have been broken. I was still taken aback by how unpleasant the entire interaction was because of the absence of civility and mutual respect.
From the outset the opposite party was more than rude. They dispensed of basic courtesies from the get go. They didn’t even attempt to appear generous, amicable, or conscientious.
They were single-minded in their aim: all things personal aside, they wanted to get the absolute best deal possible at any cost.
Business is business, I’m sure they were thinking.
They forgot that there was a person on the other end of the transaction.
This resulted in me feeling used, squeezed, bullied, nickeled and dimed throughout negotiations.
It brought out the worst in me.
Instead of making me want to help them or instead of making me want to reach an agreement of mutual benefit, their conduct inflamed my baser nature, tempting me to go “scorched-earth,” ensuring they didn’t get what they wanted even if it hurt me, too.
I was frustrated by the fact that we were operating on two different moral and ethical levels.
I tried to stay high when they went low, yet every grating exchange with them made me want to sink to their level, where all bets and codes of decency were off.
In the end, rather miraculously, we came to an agreement.
I managed to prevent my baser nature from winning out. I was able to rise above the pettiness and the vindictiveness that I wanted to respond with— a facet of the human personality that we all share when we feel we are under threat.
But it wasn’t an experience I particularly enjoyed.
I was left with feelings of frustration and exhaustion. I felt like I had been disrespected and degraded.
I also felt disappointed in myself.
Most of us have probably had thoughts like this during and after interactions with people who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the upper hand:
Should I have been tougher?
Was my commitment to civility in the face of incivility a handicap?
Did my attempt to uphold my values allow me to be taken advantage of?
This experience has caused me to consider the practical importance of civility in life.
Won’t the person who is willing to go low—one who is willing to throw off the shackles of decency and civility—always win out?
How to be good in bad world
“How to be civil in an uncivil world” is a variation of an important question that people have been considering for a long, long time: how can a good person succeed in a world of evil?
Renaissance thinker and author of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, who we have explored in a past CR issue, observed that, in history those who tend to gain and maintain power appear to have morals publicly, but privately dispense with their values the moment they get in the way.
“Politics have no relation to morals,” wrote Machiavelli.
Also in The Prince: “Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities.”
In other words, Machiavelli argues that one who wishes to be powerful must be willing to dispense with the moral bounds of civility if the need arises.
While the civil person is contained by their commitment to civility, the uncivil person can do whatever is necessary to win.
Socrates—the Greek philosopher Plato’s teacher, and the protagonist in his dialogues—took a different view. He would take issue with how Machiavelli defines “winning.”
Socrates said that justice is to the soul what health is to the body. If a person gets the better end of a business deal, wins an argument, or comes out on top of a political battle, but does so by cutting corners and being dishonest, he hasn’t really “won” anything.
His soul is unhealthy and sick.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates attacks the poet Homer, the educator of Greece, because he doesn’t like the values that Homer’s poems promote.
Achilles, the protagonist of The Iliad, embodies the ethics of revenge, slaughter, and vainglory.
Odysseus, the protagonist of The Odyssey, embodies the ethic of wiliness and deceit in order to come out on top of any situation.
Socrates purposes a new ethic: one that loves wisdom.
He wants to trade the ethic of revenge, “might makes right,” and vindictiveness with a shared love and pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth.
Socrates believes that anyone who acts with injustice does so out of ignorance—after all, who would willingly make themselves sick? Who would knowingly choose sickness of the soul?
“Living well and living rightly are the same thing,” Socrates said in The Crito.
Socrates argues that a just person has an excellent and healthy soul, and the function of a just soul and person is to seek the justice and soulish health of others, too.
Socrates noted that it is not then the function of the just man to harm either friend or anyone else. Seeking to harm is an act of injustice, and therefore harms the harmer. The function of the just person is to seek the good of others, friends and enemies alike.
In a related sentiment, Abraham Lincoln once said, “Do I not defeat my enemy when I make him my friend?”
Final thoughts: on virtuous and vicious cycles, and on unbundling people and situations
There are three thoughts I’d like to leave with you.
First, we should not underestimate the power we each have to promote trust and civility in our world.
Second, learning to “unbundle” people and situations can help us mitigate the vicious cycles of incivility that are so detrimental to a free and flourishing society.
Third, we must remember when we encounter incivility in our modern world — and we invariably will, as the problem of incivility is endemic to human nature and human social life — we have a choice about how to respond.
Norms of decency and courtesy comprise an unwritten social contract between us and our fellow citizens. We take this contract for granted, which is why when this bond is broken, we are surprised, offended, and dismayed. When people don’t uphold their end of the social contract, we lose a little bit of faith and trust in society and others.
When that trust in others and society is corroded by the thoughtlessness and incivility of others, often we are less likely to act in good faith and civility in our future interactions. Our less-than-civil response to others may in turn cause them to be unkind to others with which they engage.
And so the vicious cycle continues.
My recent experience with bad actors made me appreciate those today who claim that “all bets are off” when it comes to decency in public life. We often hear things like, “The other side has gone to a whole new low. How can I be expected to stay civil?”
We also see evidence of the “vicious cycle” all around us in politics today. When one figure breaks norms and bounds of decency everyone else feels like they have to so as to keep up.
We contribute to this trust-corroding ripple effect when we are uncivil. Others do, too, with their incivility. The incivility of others often tempts us to relinquish the shackles of decency in order to “win.”
But we must resist—for our own sake, for others, and for society.
We cannot control the conduct of others.
We can only control ourselves.
We must also learn to mentally unbundle people and situations. This means not assuming things about their character because of one deed, word, or interaction you had with them. We must learn to unbundle situations. This means not allowing one bad interaction or instance to corrode your trust in society in general.
This is much easier in theory than in practice. This is much easier said than done. but again, in the end we cannot control others. We can only control ourselves.
Socrates and Machiavelli remind us of why we are civil in the first place. The reason to be civil isn’t instrumental. It isn’t just a tool of success. As we’ve seen, sometimes it can be an impediment to success. Civility is instead a disposition, an outgrowth of seeing people as they really are: as beings with irreducible moral worth and deserving of respect. This is worthy for it’s own sake, even if it means we don’t gain the upper hand of every business dealing.
Being uncivil is poison to the soul. When we treat people as means to our ends, it hurts and degrades them, but also us, too.
Machiavelli is famous for the amoral aphorism: “The ends justifies the means.”
Socrates would respond, “But what is your end?”
No earthly battle is worth compromising your soul for.
Here are some questions to consider:
- Can you empathize with my experience? Have you had an experience where it felt like decency was not a match for indecency? Write to me with your story and how you dealt with it at ah@alexandraohudson.com
- Who do you find more persuasive: Machiavelli or Socrates? Do you think we can be civil in an uncivil world? Or will incivility always win out?
Thank you Ms. Hudson for a great piece of writing and morality.
I am surrounded, inundated, besieged by cancel requests. The Republican lamebrains such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz repeatedly scream “cancel culture, cancel culture, cancel culture!” I have not witnessed as much animosity towards a phenomenon since the zeitgeist of Political Correctness (PC).
Our second scenario involves going to church service. At the end of many services, the minister (Do Rabbis and Imams do this?) will wait at the door and greet the outgoing parishioners. Do you?
Our third and final scenario finds us on our ubiquitous freeway system wending our way to some appointment that we will probably be late to if the traffic stays so slow. Do you?
Once upon a time, I thought debates were the answer to the question of “how do we discover the truth?” I thought that if you put two intelligent people together and each took opposing positions on an issue, that through the interplay of ideas the truth would emerge. If you think about this a bit, it is the basis for our judicial system in America. One side argues for the defendant, the other side argues for the prosecution or against the defendant. It is also the basis for an academic exercise called Dialectical Research or Dialectical Inquiry.
A dialectical investigation is a form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic, aiming to discover truth through examining and interrogating competing ideas, perspectives or arguments. This latter method is often applied through the use of case studies in which students or investigators discuss real world examples of complex situations. The purpose of a case study is to provide a more thorough analysis of a situation or “case” which will reveal interesting information to the reader. As I use them in my classrooms, my goal for my students is to help them understand how to better form strategies for success in business.
Unfortunately, in the real world the strategy of debate does not work. Debates are a waste of time when honest discussion takes second place to winning or looking good. Dialectical Inquiry is also often useless since the complexity of the subject can be beyond the ability of many students to grasp. Real world situations are froth with uncertainty, volatility, complexity and ambiguity or as some have called it VUCA. VUCA is an acronym used by the military to describe or reflect on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of general conditions and situations. Many complex situations are seldom able to be accurately modeled leading in most instances to weak images or portrayals of the actual situation. This is why debaters opt for simple explanations rather than complex explanations. Another example of this watering down of reality is a Hollywood movie depiction of a supposed “true” story. Recent movies that come to mind include the following:
I have watched several of the debates now and I see no evidence that truth is being discovered. The debates have become hyperbolic spectacles of insults, half-truths, reality distortions, innuendos and petty personal attacks. I doubt if anyone has found much truth in these debates never mind elucidations of complex policy positions for any of the candidates. Trump 
will build a giant wall. Cruz will fix Syria. Rubio will fix health care. Sanders will fix inequality in America. Hillary will fix Obamacare. Do you know how any of the candidates will accomplish these lofty goals? Of course not, since they know that the “debates” are no place for such a complex discussion. Trump perhaps realizes this fact better than anyone and has kept his discussion and clarification of his policy positions to less than fifteen second descriptions. The general consensus seems to be that if a candidate cannot explain their position on any subject in less than fifteen seconds, they are doomed, i.e., they lose.
On a more personal level, I have a problem with debates. I have a few friends who love to debate. I have noted as a result of recent discussions with them concerning the Presidential elections that do not want to understand or clarify any issues, they just want to argue or perhaps debate. I say that they want to argue, because their main agenda seems to be looking good or advancing their points and not understanding my points. They often enter into these contests (Since that is what a debate means to them. It seems to be a contest between winning their points and looking good or losing their points and looking bad.) with a pretense of trying to understand why I think or feel a certain way. Sometimes, they start the “debate” with a flat out rejection of my position or with a declaration such as “you are dead wrong” or “you don’t know what you are talking about.” I confess that such latter utterances often preclude my disposition to have a rational discussion with them. I see no point in it.
Aging Capriciously 