The Root of Civility

Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo has said that, "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Now that, is a brilliant expression!

At least one writer (Salman Rushdie) has expressed the belief that "without freedom to offend," freedom of expression "ceases to exist."

Despite the brilliance of Rushdie, I respectfully disagree with him. And in a time when communication appears to have become so much more careless, offensive, and frankly just plain rude, we need, as a society to figure out how to protect this basic and fundamental right without destroying the slender and fragile threads of civility that hold our society together.

Earlier this week and in another forum, I wrote: "Don't you wish there were a way to indicate non-verbal ques in our emails? How often I would have loved to have had a symbol that indicated my tongue in my cheek, but feel it is somehow not quite manly to use those silly little "emoticoms" with their insipid - more leering than smiley faces!

I'm convinced that the biggest problem with the electronic forms of communication and discussion is that the non-verbal and face-to-face components have been removed but we still expect that they are present. Since our brains are designed to make rapid value judgments, we still make the assumptions we would if we were in a face-to-face discussion but without what communication experts say is as much as 90% of the needed 'data.'

It is a huge problem getting bigger as more and more interpersonal communication is short and written - and getting shorter and more written (texting is showing this trend to be fairly permanent and even more short-handed!)

Seth Godin, a tremendously brilliant marketing writer and consultant, believes that anonymity is killing the civility of our society. I think that it's corollary, "faceless-ness," is a huge component of this destruction. The bottom line though, is that communication is risky even with, or perhaps especially with, the people we love most."

These twin facets, anonymity and faceless-ness, indicate that the real problem with rude or offensive communication or expression is not the inherent freedom, but instead the inherent lack of respect for those with whom we are communicating. If we do not know our audience then we do not even understand those things which might offend. If we cannot see that audience, we often have no idea how real - and bright, they may be.

Ah, you may say, "Lon, you idiot, if your premise is right and we know our audience and we know that something we will say will offend them, then curtailing that communication is to limit our freedom of expression. Rushdie was right!" I did not say we should curtail our expression. But respect for those with whom we communication requires us to work at it.

The root of civility is not conformity or a lack of freedom.

The root of civility is respect.

If we have a tough message to deliver, or a variant point of view, and we need to convince a person we love and respect that this point of view is worth embracing - or at least understanding, we work very hard at crafting the right message, and delivering it persuasively. This is not limiting our freedom of expression - it is merely taking care in its delivery.

One of the mistakes I think that some "constitutionalists" make is believing that expression is an "offensive" word printed boldly and openly on an outer garment. Those of us who don't have to wrestle with theoretic constitutional positions know what the judges cannot admit to in public: those who do such want to shock and offend. They weren't looking so much for expression as for shock value. They want attention - even negative attention.

Expression is the verbalization of one's point of view, thoughts, or values. And you can offend without having a point of view, thought or value.

But if we follow Rushdie to the end of his expression, then perfect freedom is a world in which everyone says whatever comes to their mind at any time no matter who may be shocked, offended or even harmed.

Yelling "FIRE" when there is none, in a crowded theater is the usual example. When, in the rush to get out of the theater, one or more are injured or killed, the expression or thought has just led to damage.

I suspect you have witnessed a political debate where the carefully practiced civility of the candidates breaks down pretty quickly. At the root of that breakdown is contempt for the ideas and opinions of the other candidate or candidates, and the belief that everyone with any intelligence agrees with them. That is a simple lack of respect, my friends.

The opinions of another candidate or citizen may not be worth the effort, but the right to hold them is the same for one candidate - or citizen as for the other.

How well I remember my father, a career military officer, saying he may not agree with my opinion, but would fight to the death for my right to hold it. I don't think we hear those kinds of expressions any more. They seem too quaint. And that is just too bad, because "lay down their life" is exactly what too many have done so that we can have the freedom of expression.

So I am trying to add the element of respect to my freedom of expression. When I write an email, a paper (or even this blog), or when I speak with anyone else I'm picturing and respecting the self-same rights and intelligence of my audience. (You all are quite bright and beautiful, aren't you!)

When I get an email, or read a post, or hear someone speak and something expressed is obnoxious and offends me, I'm trying to remember that they obviously forgot, or didn't know, that a brilliant, cultured, well-read, hard-working and handsome fellow like me was going to read or hear their remarks. I'm going to try to be self-satisfied enough to ignore the offense.

Why? Well, I'd like to see civility restored in my community, and since I am the only member of my community I can possibly change, I'm just working on me. If you'd like to join me in my little quest, you are free to do so.