The End of Civility
I’m not sure if this title is a good or bad thing. I’m not sure if I am so hopeful of the idea of Civility to begin with. I think Civility and Ethics function on two different social energies. Civility is manners, dictated by authoritarian structures and standards rooted in tradition. This isn’t a bad thing, but it belies a sense of impermanence — tradition is important, but even the most rigid and orthodox religious institutions have websites and podcasts.
Ethics is the discussion of how humans treat humans. I define it in such a broad sense because whereas Civility seeks to conform all to a single mode, Ethics is all omnipresent and omnipotent. We observe Ethics in every human interaction with its surrounding world. In a sense, it is the moral qualitative of life. Government, Science, Industry, Letters, the Arts, name a discipline and you will inevitably be forced to acquiesce to the presence of one, if not many ethical considerations when approaching various behaviors, activities, and norms within the discourse community. In a sense, Ethics answers the question “What is the meaning of life?”, with “It is how we treat life.”
I spent the past two weeks lecturing my students on some fundamental principles of academic writing and research. The premise of these past two weeks is to connect all of these learning objectives to the idea that the ability to write objectively will allow for you to succeed in both your academic and professional goals. I present the idea that these skills will build both Digital literacy and resilience when applied to digital mediums or online platforms for creating and communicating. The emphasis on objectivity is my appeal to Ethics. The goal is to meet the state requirements for the course, but the idea is that these skills will build civic characteristics necessary for engaging the 21st century digitized world.
If you’ve paid any attention to politics these last few months, you’ve seen an American electorate never more divided. Perhaps, not since the Civil War have we as a nation felt such animosity towards our political opponents, and even towards political dissenters in our respective political parties. It is this polarization, this massive political separation and irritation that turns people off of politics, or inflames an impassioned rage against those who we disagree with. If you look at the larger picture of this political reality, it all makes sense. We are in a new Dark Age, it’s just one that is playing out through our smartphones.
Disinformation — A technique utilizing untrue information or facts to deceive an audience.
Think Europe in the Middle Ages — castles and feudal lords, myths and stories dominate political, religious, cultural institutions. In this isolation, Europe’s retreat into its early stages of capitalism, information was fear. This fear was stoked by authority intent on keeping its population in feudal bondage. Kings made lesser titles to help divide the wealth among a select few, not unlike oligarchs and the corporate elite of today. And, as authority once used a lack of information to spread fear — authority today utilizes a state where we are overwhelmed with information. In fact, we have the most powerful source of knowledge humanity will ever know, it’s so powerful that it has replaced the term “search engine”. With all of this information it can become overwhelming, confusing, and even frustrating. The result is a tired mind, angry at a world that is barely comprehensible — the Dark Ages, a self imposed retreat into the absence of light.
We must build a new system of Ethics, not just for our Democracy, but for our daily lives. Technology is increasing our daily activity, our children are processing an amount of information in one day that their grandparents might encounter in a month, if not several. I do not think this is necessarily good or bad, but I do feel that the allegory between the Dark Ages and information utilized as fear in American public discourse and social spaces is self-evident. We will not begin to see the human on the other side of our political, religious, cultural beliefs until we start by remembering the human in our daily actions. What are the circles that we frequent socially, both in-person and online? How do we argue with people we disagree with in-person and online? What sources of information are we engaging to understand politics, religions, culture, society? How do we define the term truth so that it values all life?
Fake news — A technique utilizing deliberate disinformation or hoaxes in order to mislead and damage an audience.
In the first question, we are speaking of confirmation bias. The need for traditional community is a fundamental building block of civilization. In one way or another, tradition is the bedrock that we all define our sense of identity. Tradition is also a concept that is forced to change, for the simple fact that it is each generations responsibility to keep tradition alive. We all know, all of us from our own traditions and beliefs, that old practices remain because of effort. They rely on innovation and creative thinking to keep them relevant. The digital world preys on this warmth in preventing us from seeing the human in those we disagree with or seem different than our way of living, especially online. It takes a certain mindset to follow someone we disagree with that we don’t know, much less do know, because confirmation bias is part of our programming.
The second question speaks of gaslighting, of lying and misleading someone when arguing. It’s a common tactic online, its easy to lie when you don’t have to show your face. Now we see this tactic in public, at our dinner tables, from coworkers and politicians. TV, radio, and podcast talking heads utilize gaslighting for one to two hours blocks, and for social media trolls on Twitter and elsewhere, it is their sole function. The ultimate purpose is not to assist with anyone’s quality of life, or to move civilization forward, rather, it is to simply “win the argument.” Those who use this technique are also revealing the hubris at the same time, they must resort to these methods because they are not speaking the Truth. In this sense, speaking honestly and truthfully is our programming, for the simple fact that you must want to lie and mislead in order to gaslight. After all, what is religion if not a long tradition of demanding you not lie and deceive — and the moral consequence of this behavior?
Gaslighting — A technique for manipulating an audience through rhetorical deception.
The third question is one that feeds on the first two, how we speak to each other and who we surround ourselves with generally navigates our information diet, they feed us and provide us with sources of information. This question touches on how we see the world, in a world with so much information. We can connect with anyone around the world in an instant, and news spreads even faster. This is why disinformation and fake news are used as weapons, foreign countries know we already can’t stand our political opponents — angry hornets are easy to antagonize. This question investigates the things we read and watch to understand the other parts of the country, society, the world that we are not familiar with or do not understand. It pushes against the belief that we have arrived to a day and age where we are so obsessed with our own beliefs and view of the world that we do not need to know any other way — much less break bread with a political opponent and call them friend.
The final question is for my students, but I think it’s fair to pose to the reader, because my Ethics is a pursuit of Truth — we are all unequivocally entitled to honesty and the truth. In a sense, what I am saying is that in the 21st century, if we are unable to access a state of objectivity we will never understand our own humanity, much less ideas of ethics, truth, or civility. I would like to end with a different question and I will acknowledge its inherent irony. In a world where Twitter is an official form of communication for the Office of the President of the United States, how deep do you question what you read online, and why you read it?
