Google AI Summary of the Critics
Opposition to the “civility movement”—often defined as calls for politeness, bipartisanship, and adherence to traditional political norms—comes from a diverse range of political activists, scholars, and grassroots organizers. These groups often argue that demands for civility are used to silence marginalized voices, protect the status quo, or impede necessary, radical social change.
Groups and movements that have historically or currently opposed the politics of civility include:
Progressive and Racial Justice Activists: Activists often argue that “civility” is weaponized as a tool to control the tone of marginalized groups demanding equality. Critics argue that calls for polite discourse prioritize the comfort of the privileged over the urgency of justice for Black people and other people of color.
Radical Social Change Movements: Movements seeking fundamental overhauls of the social order—such as abolitionists (historically) and modern anti-racism advocates—often argue that civility is a barrier to progress.
Direct Action Groups (e.g., ACT-UP): Groups that engage in disruptive, non-violent direct action (like blocking traffic or occupying spaces) reject the idea that protest must be polite to be effective. They argue that confrontational tactics are necessary when facing systemic violence or oppression.
Anti-Colonial and Anti-Racist Theoreticians: Scholars like Alex Zamalin argue that there is a “hidden racism” in the obsession with civility, which has historically been used to suppress dissent.
Leftist Political Activists: Some on the far-left view calls for “bipartisanship” as a capitulation to extreme right-wing positions, arguing that when one side is engaged in extreme, discriminatory behavior, civil engagement is not appropriate.
Grassroots Organizers: Many grassroots movements prioritize immediate, material results (such as policy change or equality) over the “etiquette” of political engagement, arguing that systemic issues require challenging, rather than upholding, existing norms.
.https://medium.com/@carolinegracestefko/the-problem-with-civility-d7302a027f1e
https://www.wunc.org/2019-03-14/when-civility-is-used-as-a-cudgel-against-people-of-color
Response
- As the Braver Angels article outlines, Civility is not a noncommittal moderate neutrality. It does not prefer the “status quo”. It is not predisposed to centrist or moderate solutions. It does not promote being soft of weak. Many of the critics are simply creating a “strawman” of the term “Civility” in order to destroy it.
- Critics call Civility a tool of the powerful. It can be a tool of the powerful. It can be a tool for anyone that uses its powerful values and proven techniques for better communications and problem solving.
- These critics argue that Civility is biased to the right. I address this in a separate post.
4. Critics say that Civility is used as a distraction or diversion from important issues. It can be used that way, but it is designed to engage people and groups with different experiences, values and interests to engage in order to pursue their ends without demonizing each other. By establishing common interests, agreeing upon terms of engagement and committing to working with “others”, Civility provides a means to address even the most difficult issues. It does not guarantee a solution. It accepts that “no deal” or “walk away” are valid results.
5. Critics say that Civility leads to a “false equivalency” between different groups, people or views. It is claimed to implicitly support comments like Trump’s comments on immigrants “and some, I assume, are good people” and some white-nationalist protesters are “very good people”. Civility is based upon the properly defined values of human dignity, respect and constructiveness. Some people might incorrectly interpret these values as supporting complete tolerance for all positions and actions.
6. Critics argue that successful political movements have been active, disruptive, powerful and direct; not civil. The historical record is mixed. Civility is firmly situated within the last 250 years of Western civilization and liberal democracy. It believes that structures, processes, information and education are powerful tools to combine the interests of individuals while also protecting their rights and freedoms.
7. Critics claim that Civility inherently benefits the radical-right, fascist-right by delaying action through unlimited debate. Civility has no inherent bias towards fast or slow engagement and problem resolution. It focuses on the behaviors of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, communications, growth and problem solving. Starting with the values of responsibility, intentionality and constructiveness it is inherently proactive rather than reactive.
8. Critics say that some people, groups and positions are “so offensive” that they are not entitled to a place at the table. They argue that the Civility movement validates these extremists. Proponents of Civility as a set of tools, habits and values to support constructive social, economic and political engagement do lean towards more tolerance, but the Civility values and behaviors take no stance on this controversial topic. Civility is not a replacement for religion, political or philosophical views. It is a reasoned approach to defining a process that can/should be broadly adopted by our individualistic society in order for it to function effectively. In order to be a neutral process, it does not address these larger questions.
Summary
The modern Civility movement was started in the 1990’s as polarized politics and lack of trust in people and institutions grew in the US. The Civility values and behaviors have been refined to clarify what Civility is and is not. Civility is not politeness, utopian, weak, emotional, partisan, righteous or apologetic. It can be used by the most serious, radical individuals to refine their own skills, engage with others and attempt to find common ground and understanding. It seeks to find solutions and to build relations. It seeks to undermine polarization. It does not prevent leftists or rightists from highlighting systematic injustices or threats to individual rights and liberties in our economic, political and social worlds. It seeks to radically improve the effectiveness of our politics and communications to make the world a better place, to make individuals more powerful and to hold each other accountable.
Good News 