In a world filled with political, cultural, and ideological differences, the ability to engage in civil disagreement is more important than ever. The concept of mere civility, a term explored by philosopher Teresa M. Bejan, offers a framework for understanding how people with deeply opposing views can coexist while maintaining an environment of mutual respect and open discourse.
This topic examines the idea of mere civility, the nature of disagreement and toleration, and the challenges that arise when trying to balance free expression and social harmony.
What Is Mere Civility?
Defining Civility
Civility is often understood as politeness, respect, and good manners in public interactions. However, Bejan challenges this view, arguing that civility should not mean suppressing disagreement or avoiding conflict. Instead, she promotes the idea of mere civility, which acknowledges that:
-
Disagreement is inevitable in a diverse society.
-
Civility does not require agreement or excessive politeness.
-
People should tolerate offensive or uncomfortable speech to maintain a free and open society.
The Role of Toleration in Mere Civility
Toleration means accepting differences without necessarily endorsing them. Mere civility operates within the limits of toleration, meaning that:
-
People should not be silenced or excluded from discussion simply because their views are unpopular.
-
Disagreements should be expressed openly, even when they create discomfort.
-
Civility should act as a bridge, allowing diverse opinions to be heard rather than dismissed.
The Nature of Disagreement in a Democratic Society
Why Disagreement Is Inevitable
In any democratic society, individuals hold different beliefs, values, and interests. Disagreement is not a sign of failure but a natural consequence of freedom. Some common areas of conflict include:
-
Politics – Differing ideologies create divisions between groups.
-
Religion – Conflicting beliefs about morality and faith often cause disputes.
-
Social Issues – Topics like gender, race, and equality spark intense debates.
The Danger of Suppressing Disagreement
Some people believe that social harmony can be achieved by silencing controversial opinions. However, this approach has serious risks:
-
Censorship – Restricting speech can lead to authoritarianism.
-
Intellectual stagnation – Suppressing debate prevents the growth of ideas.
-
Polarization – People who feel unheard may become more radicalized.
Instead of avoiding difficult conversations, societies should embrace disagreement as a pathway to progress.
The Limits of Toleration: When Does Civility End?
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech
One of the biggest challenges in mere civility is determining where toleration should end. While free speech is essential, some argue that:
-
Hate speech should not be tolerated because it threatens the dignity and safety of individuals.
-
Some opinions cross ethical lines and promote harm.
-
The boundaries of civility must be clearly defined to prevent abuse.
However, others believe that restricting speech creates a slippery slope, where any controversial idea can be labeled as harmful and silenced.
Civility Should Not Be Forced
Mere civility does not mean forcing people to be polite. Instead, it acknowledges that:
-
People should be allowed to express strong opinions.
-
Civility should be a social expectation, not a legal requirement.
-
Disrespectful speech should be countered with better arguments, not censorship.
Historical Perspectives on Civility and Toleration
John Locke and Religious Toleration
The concept of toleration has deep historical roots. John Locke, a 17th-century philosopher, argued that:
-
Governments should allow religious diversity rather than enforcing a single belief system.
-
Toleration promotes peace and stability.
-
However, some extreme beliefs could still be excluded if they threatened society.
Locke’s ideas influenced modern discussions on free speech and the balance between toleration and security.
Roger Williams and Mere Civility
Another important figure, Roger Williams, founded Rhode Island as a place of religious freedom. He believed that:
-
People of different faiths must engage with each other, even in conflict.
-
Civility means allowing harsh, honest debate rather than forcing politeness.
-
A truly tolerant society embraces discomfort in discussions.
Williams’ approach reflects the core of mere civility-allowing disagreement to flourish while maintaining basic respect.
Challenges of Practicing Mere Civility Today
1. Social Media and Online Discourse
The rise of social media has made public discussions more accessible but also more toxic. Issues include:
-
Echo chambers – People surround themselves with those who share their views, reducing exposure to opposing perspectives.
-
Cancel culture – Public shaming and boycotts create fear around expressing controversial opinions.
-
Anonymity – Online platforms often encourage harsh and aggressive interactions.
To foster mere civility online, users should:
-
Engage with different viewpoints rather than blocking opposing opinions.
-
Avoid personal attacks and focus on arguments.
-
Recognize the value of debate in shaping better ideas.
2. Political Polarization
Modern politics is deeply divided, with opposing sides often viewing each other as enemies rather than fellow citizens. This has led to:
-
Increased hostility in debates.
-
Distrust in democratic institutions.
-
Difficulty finding common ground.
Mere civility requires that even political opponents:
-
Recognize the humanity in those they disagree with.
-
Prioritize dialogue over demonization.
-
Accept that disagreement does not mean moral failure.
3. The Role of Education in Promoting Civility
Schools and universities play a vital role in teaching how to engage in civil disagreement. This includes:
-
Encouraging critical thinking rather than blind acceptance.
-
Teaching the history of free speech and toleration.
-
Providing safe spaces for discussion without fear of censorship.
An education system that values open debate helps create a society that understands the importance of disagreement and civility.
Why Mere Civility Matters for the Future
A Society That Encourages Debate Thrives
History has shown that the most successful and progressive societies are those that allow open debate. Mere civility ensures that:
-
Different perspectives are heard.
-
Social progress continues through discussion.
-
People learn from one another, even in disagreement.
Democracy Depends on Civility
In democratic societies, free expression and open debate are fundamental. Without mere civility:
-
Public discourse becomes either hostile or suppressed.
-
People lose trust in governments and institutions.
-
Extreme divisions weaken the ability to work together for the common good.
By embracing mere civility, societies can navigate disagreements without resorting to violence, censorship, or political instability.
Mere civility offers a way to balance free expression, disagreement, and social harmony. It does not require politeness or agreement but insists that people engage honestly and respectfully, even in the face of deep conflict.
By understanding the limits of toleration, recognizing the importance of open debate, and embracing discomfort in discussions, societies can ensure that differences strengthen democracy rather than destroy it.
As the world becomes more connected yet more divided, the ability to disagree without destruction will determine the success of future generations.