Is civility a tool for tolerance or a weapon to silence dissent?
In short: Political theorist Teresa Bejan examines the dual nature of civility. While often framed as the bedrock of a tolerant society, it is frequently weaponized by partisans to dismiss opposing perspectives. Bejan proposes a shift toward mere civility to preserve our ability to coexist despite deep disagreements.
Civility is often presented as a requirement for a functioning society, yet it carries a complex history. Teresa Bejan explores how the term has served two conflicting roles: acting as a foundation for tolerance while simultaneously functioning as a tactic for political partisans to silence those they disagree with.
To move past this tension, Bejan advocates for the practice of mere civility. This virtue is defined by the capacity to maintain fundamental disagreements with others without undermining the potential for a shared future. By focusing on this approach, individuals may navigate ideological divides without destroying the possibility of a common life.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Is civility a sham? | Teresa Bejan
- 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/ideas-is-civility-a-sham-teresa-bejan.
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?
