Why our modern pursuit of civility might be silencing real debate
In short: Is politeness actually preventing progress? Political theorist Teresa Bejan explores how the concept of civility can be weaponized to dismiss opposing views rather than foster genuine understanding.
Bejan examines the dual nature of civility: it serves as a vital foundation for tolerant societies, yet it is frequently co-opted by political partisans to silence dissent. By demanding a specific standard of conduct, those in power can dismiss valid arguments simply because they are delivered with 'uncivil' intensity.
The talk proposes a shift toward "mere civility." This virtue focuses on the ability to disagree fundamentally with others while preserving the possibility of living together as a common society tomorrow. It is about maintaining a functional public life without requiring total agreement or superficial harmony.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Teresa Bejan: Is civility a sham?
- Also: Is Civility a Sham? | Cultivating Civic Virtues through Action
- Also: Spotlight - Padnos/Sarosik Center for Civil Discourse - Grand Valley State University
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/history-is-civility-a-sham.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in History · Latest · A–Z · All topics
