Luke McKenna is an active and leadership‐​oriented junior at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix, Arizona. Luke plans to pursue further studies in the field of STEM and is passionate about exploring how emerging technologies can shape the future.

His Sphere alumni teacher:  Kelly Guffey is an educator from Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix, AZ. She has been teaching Government and Economics for 22 years. She is passionate about civil discourse, viewpoint diversity, and financial literacy.

Civil Discourse and the Enlightenment Promise

“I will rouse up my mind and fix my attention. I will stand collected within myself and think upon what I read and what I see. I will strive with all my soul to be something more than persons who have had less advantages than myself.” Those were the words penned by John Adams nearly 270 years ago in his personal journal, capturing the essence of Enlightenment thinking that would shape American democracy. Adams embodied the foundational principle that free societies depend upon – citizens who actively engage their voices in the democratic process. Civil discourse, rooted in Enlightenment principles of rational debate and mutual respect, remains essential to American democracy despite the modern challenges we face, including digital polarization and disinformation, because it transforms individual liberty into collective 
self‐​governance.

Adams, who would go on to become one of the Declaration of Independence’s most passionate advocates, understood that liberty and discourse were inseparable. When he and his fellow founders wrote that “a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes,” for separation, they began the integration of civil discourse into American democracy. This insistence on justifying their actions through reasoned argument reflected the core Enlightenment values of dialogue and rationality. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates engaged in months of debate over representation, federalism, and individual rights. The Great Compromise emerged not from coercion but from Madison, Sherman, and others persuading one another through reasoned dialogue. Civil discourse thus became both a social courtesy and an important mechanism through which free thought thrived. 

The Enlightenment philosophers who influenced the founders – Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau – supported the notion that individuals possess capacities worthy of respect. This represented a dramatic shift from earlier assumptions that truth came from monarchs or religious authorities. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argued that legitimate authority requires the consent of the governed, which presumes citizens can reason about political matters. The Declaration’s appeal to “the Opinions of Mankind” therefore acknowledges that legitimate authority comes from persuading rational individuals through dialogue, not force.

Civil discourse gives life to this respect for human reason. It treats others as thinking beings deserving of explanation rather than coercion. When we engage in genuine dialogue, we practically affirm that our conversation partners possess minds that are worth engaging. The Federalist‐​Anti‐​Federalist debates of 1787–1788 exemplify this principle. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay published 85 essays defending the Constitution, while opponents like Brutus responded with their own detailed critiques. Neither side had governmental power to silence the other; instead, they competed in the marketplace of ideas. They trusted citizens to judge arguments based on merit. Adams’s vow captures this individual responsibility that makes democratic discourse possible in the first place. 

The connection between civil discourse and individual liberty runs deeper still. Free expression means absolutely nothing if society lacks the cultural means to receive diverse opinions. Civil discourse provides the framework through which our stream of ideas can function. It establishes norms of good faith and intellectual honesty, which allows controversial or perhaps unpopular views to still receive some consideration. In democratic societies, this becomes important because citizens must determine their own governance; unlike authoritarian systems, democracy distributes power to the people. This distribution can only function effectively when citizens have the ability to freely think, speak, and persuade one another. Civil discourse serves as a connection in binding individual liberty to self‐​governance. 

However, as we know, modern democracy faces significant obstacles in maintaining civil discourse. Digital communication technologies, for instance, have created environments that often reward shock value over any nuance or genuine exchange. Social media algorithms often amplify divisive content. According to a 2018 MIT study, false information spreads about six times faster than accurate information on Twitter. Facebook’s 2018 algorithm changes prioritized posts that generated strong emotional reactions, promoting polarization. The sheer volume of information can overwhelm our ability to reason. We are pushed towards being reactive, not reflective, the exact opposite of Adams’s commitment. 

Polarization also presents another challenge. When political disagreement becomes identity‐​based, rather than issue‐​based, civil discourse can become threatening. Seriously engaging with opposing viewpoints can feel like “betraying your community,” or as if you are questioning your “core identity.” Polarization transforms intellectual debate into conflict and makes the mutual respect discourse requires difficult to maintain. 

Furthermore, the weaponization of discourse by bad actors only adds more complications. Disinformation campaigns and online trolling can further exploit the openness that our democratic discourse requires. This creates a massive dilemma: either maintain open dialogue and risk providing platforms for those who actively want to undermine it, or undermine the authoritarian suppression the Enlightenment opposed.

Despite these challenges, civil discourse still has potential for strengthening democracy. It helps the humility necessary for self‐​governance flourish. When we genuinely engage diverse perspectives, we are confronting the limits of our own understanding. This humility actively combats extremism and makes compromise possible. Organizations like Braver Angels bring together citizens from opposing political camps for structured conversations, and participants report increased understanding even when disagreement persists. The Citizens’ Initiative Review in Oregon selects randomly chosen citizens to deliberate on ballot measures and publish findings – this shows ordinary people can reason through complex issues when provided with the proper structures. These examples demonstrate that Adams’s determination to “strive with all my soul to be something more,” remains achievable through intentional practice.

In all, John Adams’s journal entry reveals the personal commitment that is essential to democratic participation. His commitment to intellectual engagement and continual growth captures the Enlightenment’s values. Civil discourse remains the primary means through which this process thrives in democratic life. Civil discourse transforms the Enlightenment’s commitments; an actual democratic practice is created by treating each person as someone rational and worthy of persuasion. Democracy’s survival has depended upon – and will always depend upon – our collective willingness to follow Adams’s examples, to think carefully about our interactions, and to engage with the opinions of our fellow citizens.

Works Cited

“Founders Online: VI. ‘A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,’ No. 4, 2 …” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06–01-02–0052-0007. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

“History of Western Civilization II.” The Enlightenment | History of Western Civilization II, cours​es​.lumen​learn​ing​.com/​s​u​n​y​-​h​c​c​c​-​w​o​r​l​d​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​2​/​c​h​a​p​t​e​r​/​t​h​e​-​e​n​l​i​g​h​t​e​n​ment/. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

“Age of Enlightenment.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​g​e​_​o​f​_​E​n​l​i​g​h​t​e​nment. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

What Is Civil Discourse? The Surprising Power of Civil Discourse in a Divided World, standtogether.org/stories/free-speech/what-is-civil-discourse-the-surprising-power-of-civildiscourse-in-a-divided-world. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

“Why Is Civil Discourse Important?” Gonzaga University, www​.gon​za​ga​.edu/​w​o​o​d​l​e​y​-​i​n​s​t​i​t​u​t​e​-​f​o​r​-​c​i​v​i​l​-​e​n​g​a​g​e​m​e​n​t​-​a​n​d​-​h​u​m​a​n​i​s​t​i​c​-​d​i​a​l​o​g​u​e​/​c​i​v​i​l​-​d​i​s​c​o​u​r​s​e​/​t​e​a​c​h​i​n​g​-​a​n​d​-​f​o​s​t​e​r​i​n​g​-​c​i​v​i​l​-​d​i​s​c​o​u​r​s​e​/​w​h​y​-​i​s​-​c​i​v​i​l​-​d​i​s​c​o​u​r​s​e​-​i​m​p​o​rtant. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

“Second Treatise of Government.” The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government, by John Locke, www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370‑h/7370‑h.htm. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office. “Study: On Twitter, False News Travels Faster than True Stories.” MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, news​.mit​.edu/​2​0​1​8​/​s​t​u​d​y​-​t​w​i​t​t​e​r​-​f​a​l​s​e​-​n​e​w​s​-​t​r​a​v​e​l​s​-​f​a​s​t​e​r​-​t​r​u​e​-​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​-0308. Accessed 12 Dec. 2025.

Angles, Braver. Braver Angels 2020–21 Report, 2021, braverangels.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BA-2020–2021-Report‑1.pdf.