| Path's Principles of Civil Discourse by A. Neal Mangham, Vice-Chairman |
The simplest definition of “civil discourse” is that offered by various on-line sources: Civil discourse is engagement in
discourse (conversation) intended to enhance understanding.
The difficulty arises because of a frequent lack of agreement on what exactly is meant by “understanding”, and by the fact
that there are no commonly held principles that guide individuals or groups in efforts to engage in civil discourse. Clearly,
civility has to mean something more than mere politeness, as when one says "excuse me please", while (figuratively)
stabbing the other party in the back. Civility also cannot mean "roll over and play dead." People need to be able to raise
tough questions and present their cases when they feel their vital interests are being threatened. A civil society cannot avoid
tough but important issues, simply because they are unpleasant to address. There must also be more to civility than a
scrupulous adherence to the laws governing public-policy debate. Clearly, there are numerous instances in which the
parties to public-policy conflicts act in ways which are destructive and inappropriate, even though they are (and should
continue to be) legal.
The question is then what constitutes “civil discourse” in the ordinary run of conversation and debate. To reframe the
definition mentioned above, one can argue that civility in conversation occurs when all parties listen and speak respectfully
of all others and when listening means acknowledging the legitimacy of other parties’ positions. Implicit in such
recognition is that all parties must be prepared to acknowledge validity on arguments other than their own, and even to
change opinions when confronted with new facts or interpretations of ideas. A useful reminder for anyone hearing ideas
and opinions very different from their own is Voltaire’s statement that “I may disagree with everything you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it”.
Working out from those bases, some general guidelines can be suggested for achieving a genuinely civil conversation.
• Staying on the topic at hand. Introducing straw man arguments or attempting to change the subject to avoid facts or
confuse other parties would not be acceptable.
• Use facts, and check those facts for validity. Deliberate introduction of false information or selective use of partial fact
to support an opinion is also unacceptable. Arguments based on dogma or creed are not amenable to discussion and
have no real place in civil discourse.
• Avoid equivocation in terminology. Identifying opinion or belief as such is important, but so too are avoiding the use of
phrases such as “many people think” or “some would say” in order to lend weight to an argument without identifying exactly
who “many people” are and why they “would say” something.
• Separate people from the issue. Essentially this means avoiding the use of ad hominem arguments, stereotyping by
groups, and imputing motives to other parties.
Often adversaries proceed on the basis of very inaccurate (and usually unjustifiably evil) images of the interests, positions,
and actions of others. Civility requires that contending parties make an honest and continuing effort to understand the views
and reasoning of their opponents. Civil discourse means condemning the deliberate distortion of information and the
presentation of unbalanced views as unacceptable.
Finally, any conversation is “civil” in the broadest sense of community and shared response to issues only when a final
guideline is observed.
• Listen respectfully and attentively, weighing new ideas and new facts carefully, and recognizing the possibility that
one’s position is wrong and one’s opinion may change. The old adage that “reasonable people can reasonably disagree”
is in many ways a fair description of the nature and intent of civil discourse.