Civility in Discourse
In the days of the American Revolution, an unassuming man by the name of George Mason was a statesman, a thinker, and—if you can believe it—a founding father, too. While knowledge of his founding role has fallen by the wayside in the two‐hundred‐and‐fifty years since, a striking quote of his demands remembrance. Mason once reflected that “A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state.” Perhaps, it should be added: the more decent the discourse, the more decent the society. The simple presence of civil discourse became a norm in American society from our early beginnings as a fledgling democracy. Our founding fathers, like the Enlightenment thinkers of their time, are well‐known for their faith in individual liberty and natural rights. These values, in turn, shaped the structure of our constitution, government, and societal conventions around public discussion. Simply put, our civil liberties and respect for mankind cannot persist, let alone endure, without the norms of civil discourse in place. Out of civil discourse comes the opportunity to craft dynamic and mutually beneficial solutions to our most pressing issues; however, the challenges posed by social media today are graver than ever.
First off, it must be stressed how much civil discourse, alone, holds up our values of civil liberties and respect for the individual. In the term itself, the word “civil” carries a multi‐faceted role. For one, it means to be relating to everyday citizens. Taken from this perspective, civil discourse reaches out to the individual and says, “you’ve got a right to be heard,” and thus the beliefs and input of all individuals are, by necessity, welcomed. At the same time, “civil” communicates another key aspect of the practice—civility. With mutually respected boundaries around courteous behavior, such as talking in turns, acknowledging other points of view, and referring to others respectfully, the floor of discussion becomes open to all to think freely for themselves and articulate their thoughts to their fellow citizens. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt conclude in their book, How Democracies Die, “In the case of American Democracy,” having these “informal rules… has proven vital.“1 Such norms of discussion by the ordinary and discussion with civility allow civil discourse to carry enormous weight in defending against the degradation of such rights as sacred as that of free thought and expression.
By presenting us with such keys to liberty, these norms of civil discourse also open up a world of opportunities. In fact, civil discourse allows us to share a wealth of ideas and to discuss for the common good. One critical case in point lies with our Constitution, which would not have coalesced nor endured were it not for the discourse held at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There, despite divisions over contended issues such as representation and governmental centrality, civil and rational discussion were maintained and the opportunity for compromise was thus realized. In Scandinavia, too, one can see a whole region where civil discourse and consensus‐driven politics has provided opportunities for answering some of society’s biggest questions. As Finnish social scientist Johanna Rainio‐Niemi attests, under the Nordic model of civil discourse, “shared notions of the common good facilitate compromise and mutual agreement in place of zero‐sum games and a winner‐take‐all attitude.“2 This freedom of conversation and the belief in discussion towards mutually beneficial ends is proven successful, of course, by the high qualities of healthcare, education, and life present in this region.3 So, if there’s anything we can learn from the Convention and the Nordics, it’s that when we truly embrace the norms of civil discourse for common interests, faith in democracy increases and the window for positive reform widens.
However, civil discourse can be fragile. In the modern world, the greatest challenges toward civil discourse either stem from or are exacerbated by social media. One threat is sensationalization. The best examples are found on YouTube, where the channel Jubilee posts a common series called “Middle Ground.“4 There, they, like similar channels, market content under the guise of civil discourse, and in doing so, monetize it. To accumulate views and profit, such channels are incentivized to foment attention‐grabbing interactions by platforming some of the most extreme individuals. One video participant—when asked if he would call himself a fascist—exclaimed, “Absolutely,” going on to say: “I don’t believe in democracy.“5 In other videos, Jubilee inserts well‐versed, professional, and partisan debaters into conversations of seemingly average people. For instance, one man repeating baseless talking points, interrupting other speakers, and otherwise dominating the conversation turns out, upon further research, to be one failed four‐time congressional candidate, Omar Navarro.6 Viewed sometimes by over thirty million people, these videos play a substantial role in adulterating civil discourse. When participants such as these abandon fact for fiction, rely on disinformation, and stand unwilling to learn from others, discussions become not only unproductive, but also harmful. As often happens when professional debaters are brought into discourse, a winner‐and‐loser mentality is assumed, the result being the loss of opportunities and possibilities for agreement. Perhaps most pressing, such videos shift the norms of what behavior is acceptable and expected by allowing individuals to talk over others, and conversation to devolve into petty name‐calling and endless bickering. These challenges, truly, are serious but not insurmountable by any means. Their presence simply brings up a valuable point: when the norms of civil discourse are shifted, its strength as a democratic defender and problem‐solver dissipates.
Now more than ever, the decay of such norms of positive and open discussion invites us to reexamine the role of public discourse in society and reaffirm our commitment to it. Only then can we manifest the true power and opportunities that civil discourse has to offer. It won’t be easy, the threats of sensationalization, disinformation, and skewed conversation necessitate from us all conscious and collective resistance. Nevertheless, civil discourse and the enlightened democratic society it sustains are worthy of our defense and our fight.
Notes/Works Cited:
1. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (New York: Crown Publishing, 2018), 98–102.
2. Rainio‐Niemi, Johanna, “A Nordic Paradox of Openness and Consensus? The Case of Finland.” The Paradox of Openness: Transparency and Participation in Nordic Cultures of Consensus (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 27. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004281196/B9789004281196-s004.xml.
3. Iacono, Roberto, “The Nordic Model of Economic Development and Welfare: Recent Developments and Future Prospects — Intereconomics.” Intereconomics.eu. 2018. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2018/number/4/article/the-nordic-model-of-economic-development-and-welfare-recent-developments-and-future-prospects.html.
4. Jubilee, “Middle Ground | Jubilee.” n.d. YouTube. Accessed November 22, 2024. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBVNJo7nhINSjBZdNezW15PzOTCc-10m9.
5. Jubilee, “1 Progressive vs 20 Far‐Right Conservatives.” YouTube. July 20, 2025, 23:36; 26:15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo.
6. Jubilee, “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?” YouTube. September 20, 2024, 4:11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68aej2qmCtw.
