More on "Civility". Fnord.
Friday, July 4, 2008 at 6:10PM Okay. First off, it wasn't me. Just for the record. While it's certainly something I would do, I have decided to use a literary reference since it is a library campaign.
;)
While I certainly applaud the "Choosing Senility" sticker mod, I personally decided that a more literary reference was in order. In The Illuminatus trilogy
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a conspiracy to affect any sort of meta change that degrades our society in any kind of devious way. On the contrary, I think the people at the library are well intentioned people who really want to try to make Howard County a better place to live. However, like I pointed out with a previous post, they may be having the opposite effect on our fair city and county. Since the original post last April, I've been getting a fair amount of positive comments in person as well as online. Obviously, I'm not the only person who feels this way.
Bear with me for a while.
I've recently been reading Nixonland by Rick Perlstien
[The] Othogonians, was for the strivers, those not to the manner born, the commuter students like him. He persuaded his fellows that revealing one's unpolish was a nobility of its own. Franklins were never photographed save in black tie. Orthogonians wore shirtsleeves. "Beans, Brain and Brawn" was their motto. He told them orthogonian - basically, "at right angles" - meant "upright," "straight shooter." Also, their enemies might have added, all elbows.
Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: the Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008. Page 22
What Nixon spent his life fighting was the elites of his youth who knew what was best for the country. Stephen Fry recently discussed a similar phenonomon on his blog and also on his latest Podgram. But that's a tangent, however recommended reading/listening it might be. The point is that Nixon managed to convince the masses that the elites don't really have their best interest at heart, but he does since he's one of them. Orthogonians Unite! and all that. Throughout the 50's, 60's and early 70's, Nixon cultivated that attitude and managed to convert the lower classes to identify as Republicans. Now, those still on the left continued to work in an intellectual frame of mind, and therefore, became the elites as well in the mind of the blue collar people. The result of which was that crassness was, in a way, celebrated.
I can certainly understand this feeling. I was a nerd in high school as well as a Sci-fi and anime fanboy. If I ever revealed my passions, my contemporaries made fun of me and some even tried to beat me up. It wasn't until I started attending Otakon that I really began to celebrate my own geekdom openly. Here were groups of people like me. I was really part of society. I imagine that most working class people probably felt similar feelings. Here's a guy in power who's one of us.
With this crassness, the younger members of the left brought their own form of crassness. Talks of revolution. Overthrowing the establishment. Everything that the orthogonians held with contempt. With that expression, it was met in kind by the new left. Harrasment of soilders returning from 'Nam and the like. This continued to spiral out till today with each side saying that they know what is best for the other.
In a recent post, Aaron Brazell discusses some of the recent flame wars within the bloggosphere. Godwin's Law is probably a phenomenon of this evergrowing crassness within society. "If you don't agree with me or see the world the same way I do, then you're a fascist!" I'll admit I'm guilty of that too, but it's usually to people who truly are fascists in the Mussolini definition of the term so it's not entirely a baseless insult. :)
Which brings us to "Choosing Civility". I already did my review of Forni's hissy-fit earlier, so I won't go into that, but the overall campaign needs to be addressed. This is merely a localized manefestation of "I know what's best for you" attitudes that tend to perpetuate crassness of society rather than engaging in a discussion of proper behavior which tends to build community as well as understanding on both sides.
As I was listening to WAMU this morning, I was listening to the Diane Rehm show. In the first hour, Diane was interviewing Maggie Jackson and Rick Shenkman on the lack of critical thinking in the current crop of students. This was a fairly interesting show, but with my current musings, I couldn't help but think about the presenters in terms of "knowing what's best for others". While they certainly had their points I really must think about what it is that they're doing about it. Really, what are they doing about it? They wrote books and they're being intereviewed, but are they involved locally? Are they getting people of similar thoughts involved? i've heard from my elders about similar themes, but are they trying to some up with solutions? I rarely see that either.
I think we need to begin a dialog about what civility really means. What does it mean to be a thoughtful person? What does it mean to be an informed person? What does it mean to be a member of a community? I'm not sure myself, but I think we need to get beyond the current mode of thinking and get down to some action. I don't know what it'll take and I'm open to suggestions. More on this later.
Reader Comments (5)
OK, can someone please explain to me what the heck these bumper stickers mean? A google, even with "inurl:hclibrary", only turns up the book of the same title. Does the library want everyone to read and abide by this book?
Yeah. Basically. http://choosecivility.org/" rel="nofollow">Here's the library site that explains the program.
What do the "Believe" bumper stickers, seen all about Baltimore mean? It's a calling forth to a vision, the way I see it. I like it. I don't necessarily care for the book and the concept of rules, but I like guiding principles that are logical and provide direction.
Hmm. I understand what you're saying, but I'll admit that I thought it was pretty bold for the library - or anybody - to make the Choose Civility campaign available for people's cars. I don't find it any more of an "l know what's best for you" order than, say, a bumper sticker like "Impeach Bush" or "I'm one of the 20% who still likes Bush" or "Barack '08" or "Believe." Is it the fact that it's issued by the Library (not exactly the strongest arm of HoCo government) coloring the opinion here? How would you feel if the same message was produced on the same scale by an assemblage of the Methodists churches of Howard County? Or one of your best friends who's sick to death of people being rude to him for the way he looks churning out the same message out of his own pocket, and it caught on? Would that be different?
I don't think there's as much of a detrimental effect to the campaign. I mean, any published opinion (be it online or on magnetic sticker) will have its detractors, that's life. And like any bumper sticker, it will run its course and go away eventually.
In fact, I'd wager that the vast majority of people driving around have never or have barely heard of the book (that guy lives in Columbia too, no? See, I don't even know/care) and likely think that the central message is to be nicer to each when driving around - like, don't honk at people for not going fast enough and crap like that, forget about "please" and "thank you." But I'd also say that if that's all people get out of it, is it a bad thing? The bumper sticker by itself isn't giving you a "rule" - it's asking you to choose to do something positive.
Now, does the book itself have "rules"? I have no idea, but I'll believe it if you say so - I think I'm a relatively civil person in normal interactions with others, so I'll admit the book isn't on my short list. But for the book, the author probably should have gone with the term "suggestions", or "common sense points" or "Duh's" or something else.
I'm not sure about what a public dialogue on civility would produce, except for a lot of people complaining about how they've been slighted or how nice it Used To Be. And I imagine a more general online dialogue would turn into a rather salty diatribe when someone who thinks that everybody's being a bunch of lemmings starts spouting flame posts simply to be contrary.
Which brings up your insightful thoughts on crassness - I agree with some aspects of that, but I'd disagree that the majority of what the general public would define as crass behavior is a result of over-restricting people's thoughts/movements. I'd argue that the explosion in crass behavior can be traced to the level that Anyone - not just a stereotypical against-the-grain outsider - can be linked to the level of anonymity that someone can feel in a situation. The driving metaphor is really perfect to reflect that...have you ever been in a car with someone you'd consider a dear friend who shares many of your values and they turn into an ANIMAL behind the wheel - if not outright aggressive or impatient, perhaps just responding with a string of curses that could make Yosemite Sam blush against a driver who's cut them off? I have. Sort of like getting back to primal instincts...Junk that people would rarely say to someone's face, they're safe in that car. Or in the online world they're safe at home ranting and flaming at some online dude because even if they're not "Anonymous" on the boards, because even with a name posted they're pretty untouchable.
I don't know...I guess I'm just saying that utilizing the word Civility distracts from the REAL issues of x, y, and z doesn't work for me. Because it's a setup for a cyclical argument most of the time...it generally means that those issues can be swapped for each other, like algebra. The guy next you can just as easily say utilizing the word X distracts from the REAL issues of y, z, and Civility. It all still equals an unproductive conversation. I mean, didn't the talk show do its basic job and get you thinking about the topic? Whether the presenters practiced what they preach is sort of immaterial if you end up thinking about your own practices - being in the media, I see first-hand that far too many people get wrapped up in the messenger, rather than the message. We hyperactively look for hypocrisy, if only to hide behind a "see, its all bullshit!" position rather than addressing our own attitudes, and what's really bothering us. Which answers the question, does it matter where the term "Choose Civility" comes from, be it the Library or some church, or your friend - if the message speaks to the person processing it, then the answer is no. I'm not convinced that "Choose Civility" is the red herring that its detractors would suggest.
I should have linked to the http://chrisbachmann.com/blog/2008/04/23/choosing-civility-in-howard-county-how-uncivil/" rel="nofollow">previous post where I gave a review of the book. That does give some more insight into my agitation of the populace. And an agitator is the center post of the washing machine that gets the dirt out.