Rules for Civility

Pleas for civility in public life are now commonplace. Lists of guidelines for civility in discourse have been published and disseminated. Political commentators debate the topic. Blog posts, including my own, opine on what civility really means.

Yet many people, myself included, are skeptical when it comes to the likelihood of a change in the current political climate. I fear too many cherished cultural norms have been gutted: honesty, transparency, and integrity have been replaced by coarser values. Deception and duplicity, coercive and arrogant use of power, and covert political action, even revolutionary agendas, have been embraced.

Nonetheless, perhaps we should set our skepticism aside for a moment and consider how healing that makes civility possible might happen. What actions could make a difference? If we were to convene a hypothetical mediation with major political players, how might the process begin?

We can speculate…

As a preliminary step we would assess the value of civility to the parties. Does civility serve their needs? Or does one or more of the parties believe civility will prevent them from satisfying their interests? From their viewpoint, would it be better to not foster civility? (For example, peace does not serve the interests of an arms dealer.)

If a party believes civility works against their interests, they will not desire civility in discourse. They will not collaborate in bringing about a more civil tone. The calculus is simple: if a party believes a more civil approach is not in their best interest, they will not work on a solution (in good faith).

In such a case where a party does not see the value of civility, progress would be possible only if certain changes take place: 1) the party’s worldview undergoes a transformation; 2) the party realizes their real interests differ from what was assumed; 3) the party realizes their current actions will not satisfy their interests; 4) the party discovers new ways to satisfy their interests that are consistent with old values or with emerging values that take shape during the process.

As a hypothetical case study in the political scene, we might explore a few basic values held by the current administration, and seek to understand how those values affect the desire for civility. This exercise will be speculative in nature, but will rely on selected publicly-known facts.

We know the President was a trained community organizer on the south side of Chicago. We know a significant percentage of his staff and appointees were trained in union or community organizing. The record shows many have studied a common body of organizing literature that includes Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky, the late father of community organizing who organized and trained others on the south side of Chicago.

Thus, our preparation for a facilitated discussion might include assessing how Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals promotes or discourages civility. We might start a hypothetical mediation by asking parties to consider the following excerpts:

Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation…”  [prologue, xvii]

A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.” [Prologue xxii]

These ideas give us a string to pull. We might ask a party if they are talking about revolution. If so, how do they see revolution affecting civil discourse?

Political realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest.” [12]

They [Have Nots] hate the establishment of the Haves with its arrogant opulence, its police, its courts, and its churches. Justice, morality, law, and order, are mere words when used by Haves, which justify and secure their status quo.” [19]

The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” [24]

[The man of action] asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” [24]

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s ‘conscience is the virtue of observers and not of ‘agents of action’; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.” [25]

We might ask a party how this attitude toward morality might affect the way people work together. Is the trust necessary for civil discourse possible in light of these rules?

We might ask if all current systems are targeted for dismissal or destruction. Can destruction of current morality and order be accomplished in a civil manner?

We might ask a party how they can engage in civil discourse with another when they consider the other corrupt and bloody. Is it possible? Or must civility be abandoned?

We might ask a party how abandoning conscience for an “ends justify any means” ethic will affect relationships. Will this stance destroy the trust required for them to engage in civil discourse? If they hold “ends justify the means” views, might they be viewed as unpredictable and untrustworthy?

We might ask a party how they imagine others will view their lack of morality. Will others turn away when faced with amorality?

… you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” [36]

We might ask a party to consider if they are causing others to fear their words and actions are duplicitous. Will trust break down if they are perceived to be masquerading in “moral garments” as a cynical means to an end.

Conflict is another bad word in the general opinion. This is a consequence of two influences in our society: one influence is organized religion, which has espoused a rhetoric of ‘turning the other cheek’… [61]

We might ask if they reject the principles of non-violence.

Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” [78]

It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen—in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.” [89]

Love and faith are not common companions. More commonly power and fear consort with faith.” [99]

The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’” [100]

The organizer simultaneously carries on many functions as he analyzes, attacks, and disrupts the prevailing power pattern.” [115]

The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.” [116]

An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations.” [117]

Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.” [127]

We might ask if they intend to stir up fear dissatisfaction, polarization, and civil unrest. If so, is that not a rejection of civil discourse? How, we might ask, will these opposing principles be reconciled? The rules (above) suggest the activist must engage in the opposite of civil discourse, encouraging incivility in order to satisfy their interests. Won’t these rules diminish their willingness to act in a civil manner?

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” [128]

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” [130]

… the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’” [130]

It should be remembered that you can threaten the enemy and get away with it. You can insult and annoy him, but the one thing that is unforgivable and that is certain to get him to react is to laugh at him. This causes an irrational anger.” [138]

These rules contradict the premises of civility. We might ask if they intend to engage in acts of incivility that include attacking and diminishing the other. We might ask if this approach could already be the cause of the increasing lack of civility in society that is drawing complaints.

We might ask a party if they seek to polarize and create conflict. We might ask if this approach is proving successful. And we might ask if increasing polarization and strife in society has been the intentional result of individuals and groups applying Rules for Radicals.

We might ask a party if they wish to continue using the “rules” to increase polarization, incivility and unrest. Or do they see a need to revise the rules? Do they imagine there might be better rules that build relationships and foster collaboration on common problems? We might ask how they explain the contradiction between their methods and the path to civility. How will they reassure others they have reconsidered, repented, and revised their intentions?

Every organization must have two or three stool pigeons who are trusted by the establishment.” [147]

The middle class, too, must learn the nature of the enemy and be able to practice what I have described as mass jujitsu, utilizing the power of one part of the power structure against another part.” [148]

We know that the efficacy of any action is in the reaction it evokes from the Haves, so that the cycle escalates in a continuum of conflict.” [153]

The lesson here is that a major job of the organizer is to instantly develop the rationale for actions which have taken place by accident or impulsive anger.” [164]

We might ask a party if strategies calling for deception and fostering conflict among others will need to be abandoned. Or will they continue to use division and distrust to achieve their ends?

We might ask if they know how to reestablish trust once they’re seen as deceptive and divisive. How will they overcome the distrust they have created among those who know their history?

Do their past actions force them to abandon any hope of bringing about civility? Or is it possible for them to offer sincere apologies and convince others they have changed?

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.” [dedications]

Lucifer, the deceiver, the one who causes separation between man and God, ruins lives. We might ask a party if they adopted these rules in order to cause adverse effects on others. How can the desire to emulate a destructive deceiver foster a move toward civil discourse? Is that even possible? Or does adoration of Lucifer promote conflict and suffering? What message are they sending when they support a word dedicated to Lucifer?

As a mediator one does not predetermine the “correct” answers but rather facilitates the party’s effort to tackle these questions, questions that require well-reasoned responses, if we hope to bring about civility.

We can only hope that those holding Rules for Radicals in high esteem stop and consider the adverse consequences of “rules” that stand in opposition to civility and peaceful collaboration. A party may need to choose either “rules for radicals” or civil discourse. Unfortunately, they may choose to be deceptive, covertly supporting “rules for radicals” (and the resulting unrest, division, strife, and distrust) while pretending to desire civil discourse.

If they choose to foment unrest, revolution, and distrust, we might ask if they know the outcome cannot be controlled. We might ask if they aware that the belief one can take a destructive path and avoid adverse consequences is foolish, a fantasy. We might ask if they know that such causes and movements always bring suffering, including to those who lead them?

This assessment might be the first evaluation in the hypothetical process. While there will be other topics and causes to assess, this approach first evaluates the most major departure from the desired outcome. A call for revolution and the intentional creation of division, unrest, and incivility are diametrically opposed to calls for civility. Common sense tells us such views should be red-flagged.

The existence of a call for community organizers to intentionally foment unrest cannot be overlooked as a possible reason for the disconcerting uptick in incivility. If we hope to bring about civility and peace, it is worth beginning the mediation discussion with an analysis of the role Rules for Radicals plays in the conflict…

Related Posts

• Civility and Deception
• Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
• Resolving Unintentional Immigration Insult
• Civility in Discourse
• Beyond Corruption and Deception