The SMH has published a speech by The Honourable JJ Spigelman AC, Chief Justice of New South Wales (title used advisedly) on civility, or its decline. The Chief Justice takes aim at the usual culprits - road rage, parents at sporting fixtures, mobile phones, and the disappearance of “please” and “thank you” from every day speech (which I for one haven’t noticed).
Up to a point, you could infer different causes for all the changing patterns in social behaviour that Spigelman (title not used advisedly) cites, but he’s probably right that we can posit something called “civility” as a concept that makes sense (and there have been several empirical studies in the sociological literature which attempt to confirm or verify the hypothesis that it’s declining).
But I think that his call for the law to intervene is misguided. No doubt it is appropriate for some aspects of what he sees as civil conduct in the legal profession to be entrenched “institutionally”. But there’s a lot of confusion in his definition of the problem and the analogies he uses, for instance:
It would never cross the mind of a barrister to address me in court, and generally outside court, by my first name. That is a privilege reserved for 18 year olds in telephone call centres. All too often rudeness is justified as a form of egalitarianism.
Here, he seems to me to be talking not about civility, but about manners.
When I was at Uni in the late 80s, it was usual to address academics by their title (Ms X, Dr Y, Professor Z), and earlier, I called all my high school teachers “Miss” or “Sir”. It was quite a shock at first when I entered the workforce to be able to call my supervisor John (later Johnno) and my boss Col, rather than Mr Kelly and Mr Green. It felt like an initiation into the adult world, where despite distinctions of rank and power, there was a presumed equality in social relations.
Perhaps Mr Chief Justice Spigelman is unduly riled by the fact that call centre workers address him as “Jim”. I remember hearing a story once about an Anglican Dean (let’s call him Dean Ffolkes-Smythe) who became very angry in a chemist’s shop when the pharmacy assistant typed the label on his prescription as “Mr D. Ffolkes-Smythe”. She’d assumed that “Dean” was his first name. He puffed out his chest and declaimed - “It’s an ecclesiastical title! Don’t you know that? I’m the Very Reverend Dean of Brisbane”. Of course she didn’t, and it seems that it’s mainly pomposity and a sense of self-importance that would lead to this unjustified burst of anger.
Civility can be distinguished from informalisation in social relations, according to the sociologist Norbert Elias. The latter, he argues, corresponds to an increase in social equality and a decrease in embedded hierarchical distinctions. As such, in a democratic society, it’s a good thing, Jim.
In this case, social norms don’t need any supplantation by legal rules.
Elsewhere: More at Tim Dunlop’s.
The ethos at Griffith, throughout my time and before, has been and is that students are on first name terms with lecturers and tutors. The exception to this rule was the idiosyncratic Ken Walker in Australian Environmental Studies, who always insisted that his undergraduate students call him Doctor Walker. Ken - sorry, Dr. K. J. Walker - was also noted for the 100% Fail rates achieved by students on assessment items in his subjects.
In keeping with Griffith’s egalitarian spirit, I always tell my students that they don’t have to call be Doctor Norton, and I’m quite happy for them to call me Paul. Unfortunately this does not prevent some of them from thinking they’re being respectful by addressing their emails to *Mr.* Norton.
There is another angle regarding the ability of processes of commodification to erase cultural difference. For example, in the context of a shop space, everyone becomes a customer regardless of their standing in other social contexts.
Second thing is the collapse of quite different social registers in the list of things that allegedly lack civility. For example, road rage and disgruntled customer satisfaction are affective responses to quite different situations. In road rage it is normally the response to a disruption to the social rules that allow the multitude of immanent micro-queues that constitute automobile traffic. The impersonality of automobiles enabling technologically mediated social relations is a different order of intimacy to the one-on-one of the shop space. Hmmmpf, much more could be said.
“In this case, social norms don’t need any supplantation by legal rules.”
Habermas agrees with Mark.
This striving for equality doesn’t exist in any realm other than mathematics. The question that needs to be asked is how many crucial aspects of the dominant hierarchy are we willing to equalize and to what consequence?
Some would like a total equalization having the inevitable effect of placing the dominant hierarchy on par with the “foreign” hierarchy. This “foreign” hierarchy need have no other definable characteristic other than it represent the “equal” to the dominant hierarchy. Identity politics is a great example of this.
This is the problem with “egalitarianism.” By destroying the traditional hierarchy only to replace it with another dominant hierarchy just assures another replacement of this dominant hierarchy.
If we want “civility” then distinctions must be made and we must violate one of the “Multiculturalist’s” most sacred cows: antidiscrimination.
We must discriminate in order to retain a civil society that can absorb similar cultures and dissuade incompatible ones.
Clever segue, there, thordaddy, but I think it would be incivil to turn this thread into *yet another* discussion of multicult.
Thordaddy, we couldn’t talk about Sri Lanka’s chance of making the VB Series Final without you bringing up multicultualism.
Reading time slow modem = Mark beats me to the post
It seems silly to talk of egalitarianism and civility without discussing “Multiculturalism.” Afterall, no one is really striving for “equality” amongst the dominant culture.
This struggle is between the dominant culture and “foreign” cultures. The question is whether “equality” (liberally defined) is even a relevant factor within most of these “foreign” cultures. Or, does “equality” simply mean the freedom to assert your culture and “tolerance” means we can’t say a darn thing about it?
This is the genesis for uncivility!
bloody hell. i wish people would forget about ‘equality’ (liberally defined) as some sort of abstract measure of equivalence between a Same and a Difference. If people would keep up with what was actually happening in academia they would realise such neoplatonic dialectical approaches to difference went out the window with the much derided ‘postmodernism’ in the early to mid-1990s. No one is actually striving for equality with any culture, because equality would mean being the same in the eyes of a third party (the state, market or whatever). All it does is reinfore the distribution of difference _allowed_ and _sanctioned_ by the state, market or whatever ‘democratic institution’ determines a given field. That is why we have such things as utopian studies and ‘post-Rights’ conceptions of humanity. Hence, the problem when complex concepts such as postmodernism and the like get filtered through the popular press. Difference in itself is neither good nor bad, but is put to creative/enriching or destructive/exploitative ends.
I see the PM has bought in to the argument as well. Of course he wouldn’t be the first lying rodent to join the conga-line of suckholes calling for more civilty.
Glen,
We don’t care what happens in academia as much as we care about what’s happening in our own lives, communities and nations. “Multiculturalism” happened in academia, but its proponents need not worry about its outcome. They are watching it come about.
You are correct to say that “no one” is striving for “equality” of culture, but it’s only because such a situation would make the “third party” you speak of irrelevant. Gosh, you sort of seem like that “third party.”
If decrease in civility is being debated one could either accept its premise or chalk it up to one of those intractable debates. Hardly anyone expresses the notion of an INCREASE in civility.
It only seems rational that the introduction of “foreign” cultures would be the main contributor to this OVERALL perception in a decrease in civility.
You might have a lot fancier explanation that excites your peers, but it is seemingly meaningless to the rest of us provincials. The teacher must connect.
I think the fundamental problem is obvious, but you give it exquisite complexity.
Hmmm
only those that are made to use formal titles fail their Uni exams 100% of the time.
Conclusion: tertiary education does not improve deductive skills.
Thank you.
Multiculturalism has nothing to do with civility. Whether you use Mr. thordaddy, Bwana thordaddy, or thordaddy-ji, the form is obeyed. Now saying ‘Senor thordaddy is a jackass’ might be a violation of manners, but only dependent on context, because it is in most cases simply a statement of fact.
Greg,
Can you please tell me how you can detach multi-”cultural” from “civil”-ity?
Not only do I always remember to say “Please” and “Thank You” at the appropriate times, but in the past fortnight I have been instructed in how to say “Thank you, my friend” in French and Swedish by staff at my local pub who come from those ethnic backgrounds.
French: Graci, mon ami
Swedish: Tack min van