You are here: Home / Commentary / Civility and Deception
About Greg Stone
Greg Stone, managing director of Taming the Wolf Institute, is the author of Taming the Wolf a guide to conflict resolution in the tradition of Saint Francis. He graduated with a Masters in Dispute Resolution from the Straus Institute at the Pepperdine University Law School. He specializes in faith-based approaches to conflict resolution.
Civility and Deception
Deception is the most significant barrier to civil discourse.
An article in Christianity Today titled “Conviction and Civility” fueled my ongoing concern that the concept of Civility in Discourse is being used in a cynical manner. The credit announcing Jim Wallis as co-author raised a red flag. Why would a habitual purveyor of incivility call for civility? Had he experienced a conversion? Was the article a mea culpa and public apology?
Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” The article contains no apology and no expression of personal responsibility for past incivility. Worst of all, the article itself is uncivil. This assertion requires explanation…
First, I must set the stage by considering the vital role honesty and transparency play in civility. We have all encountered the person who is polite, well mannered, and apparently quite civil, yet deceptive. Most of us would rather deal with a crass, ill-mannered, and disagreeable opponent, who is nevertheless honest, than deal with a charming but dishonest opponent. We may dislike opposition but being deceived is worse.
Honesty and transparency (and the trust they build) are fundamental factors in civil discourse. In the absence of honesty and transparency civil discourse disintegrates. Surprisingly, these critical factors have been omitted from the proscriptions in “Civility and Conviction” (and in the Franciscan Action Network’s “Commitment to Civility in Discourse”). The oversight is unfortunate, as honesty needs to be recognized as the cornerstone of civility.
With this foundation in mind, I return to my concerns with “Civility and Conviction”…
How do we evaluate Jim Wallis’ sincerity and intentions? Stated more delicately, how do we achieve a level of trust that supports civil discourse? In the past, he has resorted to deception and he has smeared those with whom he disagreed. In one unforgettable incident Wallis called Glenn Beck a liar and attempted to ruin his credibility. This attack took place after Beck reported that Sojourners (a Wallis organization) received funding from atheist George Soros. Public records proved Beck was truthful, Wallis deceptive.
Thus we find reason for skepticism when Wallis calls for civil discourse. If he wishes to reestablish credibility, apology is needed; if he wishes to increase trust, a gesture of taking responsibility for past incivility is needed; if he wishes to show good faith, a promise of future honesty and transparency is needed. The article omits such vital conciliatory steps.
As I continued to read, my skepticism mushroomed. Wallis and his co-author write, “… we affirm the politics of conviction. Conviction is not inconsistent with civility, which is far deeper than political niceness, indifference, or weakness.” This is true, but a given. The unanswered question is whether or not Wallis believes conviction excuses “ends justify the means” Saul Alinsky –style deception.
In one section, the article seems to argue against deception:
The absence of an apology for past incivility, however, leaves one wondering if the prohibitions listed also apply to Wallis. Does the article signal a change of heart? A close reading raises doubts:
And…
These words foster a lie. Tying the murder of innocents by a mentally deranged young man to civil discourse constitutes deceptive rhetoric. It is disingenuous for Wallis to acknowledge a lack of causality (between conservative speech and the attack) then continue to imply causality. It is disingenuous to admit X is false, then continue to speak in a context that implies X is true.
There is no reason the shootings should provide “a moment for moral reflection and renewal” with respect to speech. A discussion of civil discourse does not constitute “a fitting tribute” to those who died. If the two topics are causally unrelated it is disingenuous to continue to present them as if they are related.
An article signaling a true change of heart would decry liberals’ dishonest attribution of the cause of the murders to conservative speech. The article would decry the libel directed at innocent parties. An article would state, without reservation, that vicious attacks on Palin and Beck, as well as others, deserve an apology. If one intends to signal the presence of a new heart and new intention, one accounts for past transgressions in an accurate and even-handed manner. One takes full ownership and responsibility for “some of our worst partisan reactions” instead of pretending those reactions were universal.
Instead of expressing a heartfelt mea culpa that clearly acknowledges accusations leveled at conservatives were reprehensible, the article covertly leaves in play the idea that speech was responsible for homicide. A robustly honest article would state “there is no causal relationship” and thus no reason to conflate the two topics.
This sleight-of-hand rhetoric fails to signal a believable turn toward civility. It appears to continue the Saul Alinksy activist tradition that endorses deception. And that tradition of promoting deception is a tradition even Alinsky understood was inherently evil, as is evidenced by his dedication in Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, “the very first radical.”
Political activists like Jim Wallis fall short when they call for civil discourse but fail to repent publicly for past transgressions and fail to promise to cease using “rules for radicals” that champion deception.
But let us not get stuck on the political realm, as the issue of deception is not exclusively a political issue. Deception is an issue in most conflict. I have simply used a public example as an illustration, as “the facts of the case” are well known. When you engage in conflict resolution, you, too, will need to consider how to manage deception, both your own and that of the other party.
You may discover prior deception blocks convening. Parties often argue there is no point in “coming to the table” because the other party will only continue to lie and act deceptively. Most of the time this is not true. Mediators and parties usually are able to disentangle relatively harmless attempts to fashion narrative accounts designed to preserve a party’s self-identity and protect Face. While parties may never completely agree when it comes to the truth of what happened in the past, typically they are able to overcome that barrier and achieve resolution and reconciliation.
Willful deception intended to harm the other party, on the other hand, while rare, is destructive and challenging. As a party to a conflict you can learn to address and manage such intentional deception, but it is a demanding process and may require the assistance of a skilled mediator. As you plan to resolve conflict spend a few minutes considering these variables and sketch out a tentative action plan.
Most of us long for a more civil society. We long for resolution of the conflicts that tear at the fabric of social peace. If we truly desire “civility in discourse,” however, we must first address honesty and transparency. We have reason to be seriously concerned when deception becomes an accepted cultural norm.
If guidelines for civil discourse do not include honesty and transparency as cornerstone concepts, we should proceed with caution. We must demand that those who plead for civility in discourse take an active part in reestablishing trust by addressing their past transgressions and offering good faith promises of future honesty and transparency.
Related Posts