When power is unequal, we cannot let calls for civility quiet marginalized voices. Civility must create discursive openings, according to Renee G. Heath and Jennifer L. Borda in their latest piece for the Journal of Deliberative Democracy.

As ‘pracademics,’ we conduct research and run public dialogues on issues of import to our communities. We do this work because we believe that deliberation allows us to cultivate our shared understandings as our democracy evolves.

And so, we find it concerning that our conversations today, particularly in the United States where we are based, are driven by outrage culture which thrives on anger and moral indignation. We cheer passionate ways of engaging in politics, however, we caution against some of these practices when they shut down conversations. Following John Dewey, we think that at the core of democracy is a commitment to keep the conversation going. But how is this possible in a time of intense polarization and deep division?

Civility is not mere politeness

Our article published in the latest issue of the Journal of Deliberative Democracy, sought to reassert the role of civility in a functional democracy.

We recognize that the term civility carries the baggage of privilege. One could argue that civility is a code to silence voices we do not want to hear. We tend to deem uncivil that which inconveniences us. For some, encampment protestors, athletes who take a knee during a football game, or BIPOC communities who demand the defunding of the police are uncivil. For others, civility is an old-fashioned virtue that should not be imposed on communities that need to use confrontational speech just to break through into public conversation. Indeed, context and power matter. When power is unequal we cannot let calls for civility quiet marginalized voices. But in contexts of deliberation, where equity and equality are valued, we need to reimagine the role of civility.

At the core of democracy is a commitment to keep the conversation going.

We disagree with the interpretation of civility as mere politeness. For us, civility constitutes the dialectic of calling out while calling in. Calling out is an important part of dissent as it signals ideas or language that are oppressive and that foster injustice. We call out oppressive language, perspectives, and behaviors. But we should do this while also inviting in those with pluralistic views to create conditions that allow us to navigate these tensions or what we call ‘discursive openings.’

Civility seeks discursive openings that allow for learning and understanding. Viewed this way, we can say that polite conversations can also be an act of incivility for they shut down discussion.

Civility for discursive openings

What are the conditions that allow us to cultivate civility with a view of creating discursive openings? We have two suggestions based on our experience running public meetings.

First, when we design dialogue and deliberation forums, we invite constructive conflict into the conversation through ground rules that prepare participants for earnest disagreement. Some examples of ground rules include: Every voice and experience are valid; maintain confidentiality; focus on the issue not the person; and avoid generalizing. When participants recognize constructive conflict as a welcomed part of the deliberation process, and feel safe in partaking in those processes, richer conversations ensue.

The second condition that fosters discursive opening through civil deliberation is to bring forth contested language particular to issues and identities and allow participants to determine its meaning. In doing so, we bypass meaningless slogans about political correctness that constrain conversation. Instead, this communal negotiation of language, and determination of how language matters, favors communication that is generative of what we value rather than deferring to previously circumscribed meanings about beliefs, values, and language that ultimately influence identities and policy.

The most important question, then, is not, ‘was the conversation civil?’ but, ‘will the conversation continue?’

In our practice, this plays out by not telling participants the meanings of words, but by making space to determine the meaning of contested terms such as what does the word ‘addict’ mean to someone who suffers from substance use disorder? How do Israeli and Palestinian students understand the term ‘diaspora?’ These are just a few examples that we have encountered that have led to more authentic conversations that allow diverse participants to determine their own shared meanings.

The most important question, then, is not, ‘was the conversation civil?’ but, ‘will the conversation continue?’

Indeed, the most common and valued comment we seek when we evaluate our programs is the desire for participants to continue to discuss and work on solutions in a given content area. We are convinced that this work is necessary to sustain our democracy because a good conversation can elevate what connects us across differences; elicit greater empathy and understanding; inspire advocacy toward advancing equity, diversity, inclusion and social justice; and allow us to forge, however temporary, agreements and solutions.

About the authors

Renee Heath is a scholar and professor of organizational communication specializing in democratic communication and community collaboration at the University of New Hampshire. She has published on collaboration and deliberation in several leading scholarly journals. Her book, Interorganizational Collaboration: Complexity, Ethics and Communication (Heath & Isbell, 2017) presents the pyramid of collaborative language useful for organizations and community groups.

Jennifer Borda is Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire. Her research specializes in feminist social movements, public rhetorics of motherhood, civic rhetorics, and deliberation. She is author of Women Labor Activists in the Movies: Nine Depictions of Workplace Organizers, 1954-2005 (McFarland Publishers, 2010) and co-editor of The Motherhood Business: Consumption, Communication, and Privilege (University of Alabama Press, 2015).

Renee and Jen co-founded and co-direct of the UNH Civil Discourse Lab. The mission of the Lab is to: strengthen the ability of students and community members to conduct meaningful conversations, collaborate, and weigh decisions around sometimes difficult but important topics to a civil society through research, experiential learning, and praxis.