royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described...

4
Royal BankLetter Publishedby Royal Bank of Canada TheDutyof Civility Civility meansa greatdeal more thanjust being niceto one another," it is the lubricant thatkeepsa society running smoothly. So vital is it, in fact, thatsomephilosophers say thatwe havea dutyto act civilly -- especially herein Canada, wherewe mustlive withdiversity... On first examination, a person would never guess how important civility istohuman affairs. One dic- tionary writes itoffasmere good manners. Another says that the word refers especially tocold and for- mal politeness. Yet another suggests that itislittle more than acting ina way that isnot outrightly rude. Bythese standards, one might conclude that civil- ity isbest exemplified bythe polished hypocrisy ofa diplomat inanunfriendly capital orthe supercilious correctness ofa waiter ina pricey Paris restaurant. But when you consider itinpractice, you realize that the lexicographers have settled forwoefully incom- plete definitions. Itisasthough they had wrestled long andhard with theimmense scope andweight of the concept, and given upintheir efforts topinit down. Instead of exploring the crucial role ofcivility in social and political life, the lexicographers have con- centrated onhow itcarries less personal warmth than other social graces. Soitoften does: but ifcivil men andwomen tend to bereserved, it isbecause they scrupulously avoid intruding into orinterfering with other people’s business. Another factor that tends to render their manner less than familiar isthat civility isusually directed towards people onehardly knows or does not know atall. Aswecan see from looking atthe first part ofthe word, civility isa form ofpublic, asopposed topri- vate, behaviour. The adjective "civil" refers tociti- zenship, sothat civility, orthe lack ofit, governs the approach of one citizen tothe rest ofthe citizenry. Its presence orabsence has a profound effect onthe char- acter ofany society. Itgoes a long way towards mak- ing thedifference between a pleasant and a not-so- pleasant place tolive. The difficulty in bringing itinto focus seems tolie inthinking ofitasa single personal quality like politeness, whereas itisactually anamalgam ofsev- eral such qualities. True, itbegins with the inculca- tion and exercise ofgood manners, but notjust any kind ofmanners, certainly not thesnobbish kind de- signed toshut people outofone’s own circle orto assert one’s presumed superiority. Thebest manners, ithas been said, are tailored tothe occasion and the recipients. Thekey tocivility isintrying tomake everyone you encounter day-by-day feel atease. In anycase, manners areonly themost visible manifestation ofwhat isless ofa code ofconduct than a spirit. That spirit encompasses consideration, tact, good humour, andrespect forothers’ feelings and rights. Perhaps theone word that comes closest tosumming itupis"obliging." Itisa variation on thegolden rule, urging that youtreat everyone as decently andconsiderately asyouwould like to be treated yourself. Wemay bebetter able tograsp what itisall about byputting aside the dictionaries and turning toa fan- ciful example. Thecelebrated 18th century English preacher Richard Cecil told thestory oftwogoats who metona bridge which was toonarrow for either topass orturn back. When onegoat laydown tolet the other walk over him, civility was born.

Transcript of royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described...

Page 1: royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described returning to Toronto after a number of years abroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks,

Royal Bank LetterPublished by Royal Bank of Canada

The Duty of CivilityCivility means a great deal more than just

being nice to one another," it is the lubricant

that keeps a society running smoothly. So vital

is it, in fact, that some philosophers say that we

have a duty to act civilly -- especially here in

Canada, where we must live with diversity...

On first examination, a person would never guesshow important civility is to human affairs. One dic-tionary writes it off as mere good manners. Anothersays that the word refers especially to cold and for-mal politeness. Yet another suggests that it is littlemore than acting in a way that is not outrightly rude.

By these standards, one might conclude that civil-ity is best exemplified by the polished hypocrisy of adiplomat in an unfriendly capital or the superciliouscorrectness of a waiter in a pricey Paris restaurant.But when you consider it in practice, you realize thatthe lexicographers have settled for woefully incom-plete definitions. It is as though they had wrestledlong and hard with the immense scope and weight ofthe concept, and given up in their efforts to pin itdown.

Instead of exploring the crucial role of civility insocial and political life, the lexicographers have con-centrated on how it carries less personal warmth thanother social graces. So it often does: but if civil menand women tend to be reserved, it is because theyscrupulously avoid intruding into or interfering withother people’s business. Another factor that tends torender their manner less than familiar is that civilityis usually directed towards people one hardly knowsor does not know at all.

As we can see from looking at the first part of theword, civility is a form of public, as opposed to pri-vate, behaviour. The adjective "civil" refers to citi-zenship, so that civility, or the lack of it, governs theapproach of one citizen to the rest of the citizenry. Its

presence or absence has a profound effect on the char-acter of any society. It goes a long way towards mak-ing the difference between a pleasant and a not-so-pleasant place to live.

The difficulty in bringing it into focus seems to liein thinking of it as a single personal quality likepoliteness, whereas it is actually an amalgam of sev-eral such qualities. True, it begins with the inculca-tion and exercise of good manners, but not just anykind of manners, certainly not the snobbish kind de-signed to shut people out of one’s own circle or toassert one’s presumed superiority. The best manners,it has been said, are tailored to the occasion and therecipients. The key to civility is in trying to makeeveryone you encounter day-by-day feel at ease.

In any case, manners are only the most visiblemanifestation of what is less of a code of conductthan a spirit. That spirit encompasses consideration,tact, good humour, and respect for others’ feelingsand rights. Perhaps the one word that comes closestto summing it up is "obliging." It is a variation onthe golden rule, urging that you treat everyone asdecently and considerately as you would like to betreated yourself.

We may be better able to grasp what it is all aboutby putting aside the dictionaries and turning to a fan-ciful example. The celebrated 18th century Englishpreacher Richard Cecil told the story of two goatswho met on a bridge which was too narrow for eitherto pass or turn back. When one goat lay down to letthe other walk over him, civility was born.

Page 2: royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described returning to Toronto after a number of years abroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks,

Such self-effacement calls for self-restraint; and itis at this point that we can see that the link betweencivility and civilization is more than just etymologi-cal. People might think of a civilized community asone in which there is a refined culture. Not necessar-ily; first and foremost it is one in which the mass ofpeople subdue their selfish instincts in favour of thecommon wellbeing.

Building an enviablenation on a

foundation ofcivility

Think of it in the negative: in an uncivilized soci-ety, the stronger and more cunning individuals pur-sue their own impulses and desires to the limit, rid-ing roughshod over their weaker fellows. In contrast,

civilized societies live 0ya set of customs and lawswhich, imperfect thoughthey may be, are funda-mentally designed tostrike a rough balance be-tween the stronger and theweaker. The laws them-

selves, however, are less important than a public dis-position to obey them, and this stems largely fromthe spirit of civility.

The democratic system presupposes civil conductin our courts and elected bodies. More generally,civility calls upon us to make an effort to see theother person’s point of view, and to try to resolvedifferences democratically. It allows us to engage indialogues with those whose ideas we oppose in anon-aggressive fashion. This leads to attempts to rec-oncile disagreements by seeking and moving towardscommon ground.

That great expert on manners, Lord Chesterfield,once remarked that "mutual complaisances, attentions,and sacrifices of little conveniences" are at the heartof an "implied contract" among civilized people. In acountry like Canada, people on the whole abide by atacit agreement to hold back from doing as they pleaseif it is in opposition to what is deemed best for thewhole society.

"What I love about Canada is its civility," thefamed American-born urbanologist Jane Jacobs oncesaid. "There’s always a willingness to talk things outwith reasonable politeness." And indeed Canadianshave long been noted for their civil ways, to the pointwhere it has become something of a caricature. Whenyou step on a Canadian’s toes, an American come-dian once observed, he apologizes. No doubt the publicpoliteness of Canadians is exaggerated in foreign eyes,but the fact remains that it has helped them to makethe compromises necessary to build an enviable na-tion out of competing regional and cultural interestswith a minimum of rancour and strife.

The question is: is civility slipping away from us?In an article in the University of Toronto Magazinebased on his book A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue,and the Politics of Pluralism, Mark Kingwell, assist-ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College,described returning to Toronto after a number of yearsabroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks, brutal ex-changes on the bus, people losing their cool in theEaton Centre." In his absence, Canadian politics hadalso grown more rough and nasty, leading him toworry that "we are in danger of losing our sense thatcivility matters. [It] is an increasingly fragile aspectof our national life, a virtue in danger of going out ofstyle permanently."

If civility really is in danger of going out of style,it is largely because of what is now in style in our popu-lar culture. In the name of personal freedom, peoplehere have long since accepted that anything goes, aslong as it is not clearly identified as a criminal of-fence. This is partly a reaction to traditional socialstrictures which stifled individual expression andhelped to maintain the domination of elites in oursociety. Be that as it may, the ethos of "letting it allhang out" has dealt a heavy blow to civility, becauseit is just the opposite of self-restraint.

When it started in the 1960s, one of the guidingnotions of the social liberation movement was thatpeople should give vent to their feelings. That initself is good, but it seems to have been misinter-preted by the entertainment media, which can be ex-pected to influence the attitude of the public at large.

They seized upon it to confront the public withwild demonstrations of rage, an emotion that makesfor spectacular action in movies, television and stageplays. In a typical scene, the hero of a movie cannotget what he wants in a restaurant, so he overturns thetable and sends the plates and glasses flying. Theaudience laughs indulgently. The underlying messageis that it is all right -- even glamorous -- to relieveyour frustrations by smashing things and generallyraising hell.

Sheer rudeness, too, has acquired a certain chic. Inrecent years the media have raised boorishness to anart form. The hip heroes of movies today delivergratuitous put-downs to ridicule and belittle anyonewho gets in their way. Bad manners, apparently, makea saleable commodity. Television situation comedieswallow in vulgarity, stand-up comedians base theiracts on insults to their audiences, and talk show hostsbecome rich and famous by snarling at callers andhectoring guests.

Page 3: royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described returning to Toronto after a number of years abroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks,

It was a sad day for civility when a journalist firstwrote approvingly about somebody being "outspo-ken." Now everybody, it seems, is speaking outvehemently on the premise that the more stridentlyyou shout, the more attention your cause will receive.In public affairs, the rallying-cry of the times seemsto be "in your face!" TV news shows feature a steadyparade of advocates and demonstrators demandingwhatever they want, regardless of how their demandsfit in with public priorities. If extra-parliamentary poli-tics is lacking in reason and grace, do not look toparliaments for a better example. Telecasts from ourelected assemblies reveal the spectacle of membersbumptiously grinding their particular axes to a ca-cophony of juvenile jeers.

The traditional admonition to "keep a civiltonguein your head" appears already to be out of fashion.From the schoolyard to the office, what used to becalled bad language has become standard form. Muchof it is simple verbal laziness, using expletives toavoid the search for words that precisely convey whatthe speaker is thinking. But crude language has notentirely lost its power to insult and intimidate. Itremains a medium of anger and scorn, and it is oftenused as a bludgeon to beat down the expression ofother people’s views.

Are we losing’moral virility’

by beingso darn polite?

The old civil virtue of minding one’s own busi-ness has also been taking a beating. Civility demandsthat you graciously let others go their own way andrefrain from sitting in judgment on them. In recent

years, many people havetaken it upon themselvesto tell other people whatthey may or may not do,over and above anythingrequired by law or publicdecency. Civility impliesa kind of partnership in the

business of getting along in life; this behavioural bul-lying is not the act of a partner, but of a superior.

As if all this were not enough of an assault on theCanadian tradition of civility, intellectual commenta-tors have advanced the theory that it somehow sapsour vital juices. To them, our mild-mannered waysare a source of embarrassment in the cultural capitalsthey admire. Our stereotypical niceness contributesto another stereotype: that Canadians -- English-speaking Canadians, at least -- are irredeemably dulland plodding. Reserve and reticence, once consideredadmirable traits, are now viewed as evidence that weare too deferential for our own good.

A magazine columnist recently linked Canadiancivility to "a loss of moral virility." Canadians, shewrote, "show the conviction of dead fish most of thetime..." She made these statements in aid of a par-ticular point, but they were typical of the school ofthought that suggests that we need less civility ratherthan more of it. The theory is that, under what shecalled "yoke of civility," we have become rather gut-less when it comes to standing up for our rights.

Where there iscivility, issues

are not resolvedby shoutingothers" down

This is not quite true, any more than it is true thatEnglish-speaking Canadians are insuperably lackingin verve and passion. A look at the Canadian mediaon any given day will demonstrate that we are actu-

ally a disputatious lot,not at all behind-hand indebating political and so-cial issues and makingclaims on behalf of ourvarious groups. As forour reputation for sheep-like tameness, we might

sometimes wish we were tamer. Historically, we havehad our share of civil disorder. In recent years riotshave erupted in Canadian cities for as little reason asa local team losing -- or winning -- a sports trophy.

For all that, as Mark Kingwell writes, "citizenshipas civility is a notion that actually exists in this coun-try" -- albeit precariously. As Canadians pursue theirexperiment in ever-increasing multiculturalism, thatnotion needs to be reinforced. According to Kingwell,"civility is basic to political life in a pluralistic soci-ety because it governs the continuing dialogue thatmakes such a society possible .... Properly understood,civility may provide us with the most coherent, andmost progressive, characterization of social cohesionthat we are likely to find."

So far in our history, civility has served us well.Injustices and inequities have been steadily rightedwithin its framework. It is, however, an unfortunatefact of democratic life that some injustices and ineq-uities will always exist, if only because new ones arelikely to arise in the process of getting rid of oldones; they are thrown up by the inevitable march ofchange. It might be argued that we can get rid ofthem more quickly if those affected by them wereless patient and accommodating, more willing to re-sort to confrontation. But that runs the risk of civildisorder, which does no one any good.

Civility does not preclude intense debate, nor doesit lead us to back down from principles that reallymatter. It only means that we conduct our debates

Page 4: royal bank newsletter - RBC · ant professor of philosophy at Scarborough College, described returning to Toronto after a number of years abroad to witness "scuffles on sidewalks,

and defend our principles in an atmosphere of rea-sonableness and courtesy. Where there is civility indiscourse, differences can be examined intelligently.They are not resolved by the unfair criterion of whichparty is able to shout the other down.

According to the modem American philosopherJohn Rawls, civility is nothing less than a duty amongcitizens of a democracy. The system is inherentlymade up of disparate groups with their own intereststo promote or protect. "Even with the best of inten-tions their opinions of justice are bound to clash,"Rawls commented. Therefore the competing parties"must make some concessions to one another to op-erate a constitutional regime."

In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls stated thatcitizens are obliged to act in good faith, and to as-sume good faith on the part of others until clear proofemerges to the contrary. They must recognize, in ef-fect, that the system cannot meet everybody’s claimsat once and accept that at times they will be on thelosing side.

Good mannerscan give a

powerful boost topractical success

He wrote: "... We have a natural duty of civilitynot to invoke the faults of social arrangements as atoo ready excuse for not complying with them, nor to

exploit inevitable loop-holes in the rules to ad-vance our interest. Theduty of civility imposesa due acceptance of thedefects of institutions anda certain restraint in tak-ing advantage of them.

Without some recognition of this duty mutual trustand confidence is liable to break down."

The lofty level of constitutional democracy mayseem a far cry from the dinner table at home, wherewe train -- or neglect to train -- our children inbasic good manners. Manners can only be adoptedthrough example; they cannot be imposed. Parentswho are not in the habit of using polite expressionssuch as please and excuse me cannot expect theirchildren to suddenly become paragons of decorum inoutside company. A foul-mouthed father or motherwill develop foul-mouthed children. Adults who arenot willing to give a little to accommodate others oraccept their faults will find the same attitudes re-flected in their progeny.

To the German philosopher Johann KasparSpurzheim, the manners taught to children shouldinclude "the whole circle of charities which springfrom the consciousness of what is due to their fellow

human beings." It all adds up to the old-fashionedconcept of "good breeding," which has been describedas "benevolence in trifles, and the preference of oth-ers to ourselves in the daily occurrences of life."

Though there should be no incentive to train youngpeople in civility other than making them into goodhuman beings, the fact is that good breeding doeshave its practical benefits. The worldly Lord Chester-field called it "the result of much good sense," inwhich a little self-denial is practised for the sake ofothers "with a view to obtain the same indulgencefrom them."

The crassest motive for civility is that it can be apowerful aid to occupational success. Whether weare selling goods or services or simply our own per-sonalities, it pays to have a winning manner. Theleader in business or public service today is the onewho can make other people want to work for him orher, and that requires the sort of consideration thatfosters good feelings on both sides.

But there is a deeper degree of success that comesfrom being at peace with oneself. These days, manypeople’s problems are said to be due to a lack of self-esteem. Good manners build self-confidence, becausepeople who have them can be reasonably sure thatwherever they go, they will be accepted. People whotreat other people nicely stand to be treated nicely bythem. By making others feel good, they feel goodabout themselves.

This exchange of pleasant feelings plays a largepart in making a community or a country a goodplace to live. While civility is a bonding agent insocieties everywhere, the Canadian society, in its plu-ralism, needs it more than most. It is nothing to beashamed of. We should not be swayed by argumentsthat we are not tough or assertive or abrasive enoughfor this hard old world. If we have the reputation ofbeing the naive boy scouts of the world, so be it.There are worse reputations to have; boy scouts, afterall, go about doing good.

At the same time, we Canadians have nothing tobe smug about. In our laxity in maintaining our tradi-tional standards of polite behaviour, we have indeedbecome less civil -- and thereby less civilized. Cana-dian parents and others who have an influence on theyoung should make conscious efforts to instil civilityin the emerging generation at a time when it is beingbombarded with bad examples. Far from being em-barrassed by it, we should nurture it as a feature ofour national identity and indeed a matter of nationalpride.