Toward a Theory of Civil Communication:
The Impact of Civil Dialogue®
Clark D. Olson, Arizona State University
John Genette, Black Mountain Communications
Jennifer Linde, Arizona State University
A whitepaper articulating the foundations of a theory of civil communication.
Given the optimism with which Barack Obama began his presidency, no doubt even he
was surprised by South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s vitriolic outburst of “You lie,”
during his 2010 Presidential address to Congress. Throughout his presidency Obama has faced
an increasing divide between parties, a polarization that while rooted in a two-party democratic
system, has reared its ugly head with new enthusiasm during Obama’s first term as president.
Partisan politics has played havoc with his confident agenda of hope, and partisanship for
political purposes, whether it is to thwart his policies or to seek his ouster, has run rampant.
Then, in January of 2011, an event occurred which had the potential to reunite the country, the
tragic shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, which killed six and wounded
thirteen.
Before the news of Gifford’s condition was even confirmed, media outlets, including
CNN, the Huffington Post, as well as numerous GOP sources, were finger pointing over who
was to blame for such an event. Liberals pointed a finger at Sarah Palin who had Giffords in the
crosshairs of a rifle on her website, targeting her for defeat as the Tea Party steamrolled ahead.
Conservatives were just as quick to point the blame on Giffords and her unjustifiable liberal
politics. However, at a memorial service just days later, President Obama sought to salve the
wounds of anger and discontent that horrified the country when he flew to Tucson and delivered
a nationally televised address.
While memorializing the deceased and comforting the wounded as well as the shocked
community of Tucson and the rest of the country Obama commented on the very nature of
incivility which had rocked the nation, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply
polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the
feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a
moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that
wounds” (Obama 2011).
Obama’s very terminology was chilling. Subsequently as he concluded he issued a new
call for civility, “And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more
civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused
this tragedy. It did not. But only because a more civil and honest public discourse can help us
face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them [the Tucson victims]
proud,” (Obama 2011).
Indeed, Arizona Republic columnist Linda Valdez (2011) wrote that “Obama’s call for
civility mirrored the national mood. A whopping 82% of those polled characterized political
discourse as negative, with 44% of them saying it was very negative or angry.”
President Obama’s words were echoed in an even stronger call to action by former
Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor (2011) in her remarks, “Only we—working
together—can restore reason and civility in our public speech and actions. Congresswoman
Giffords is a fine example of a public official who brings these efforts and qualities to her
meetings and gatherings. May her health be restored and may we all remember the role each of
us plays in restoring civil talk to our public expressions. Before speaking out ask yourself
whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil
discussions.”
Giffords was the role model for civility. An Arizona Republic editorial quoted
Republican Jeff Flake, a fellow member of Congress from Arizona as saying, “A number of us
have longed for more civility before this tragedy,” and he called Giffords a “perfect model of
civility.” Giffords was the honorary co-chair of a moderate think tank called the Third Way,
which proposed that Democrats and Republicans sit side by side at the State of the Union address
instead of dividing up by party, to “demonstrate what is true but not always apparent—that we
are one nation, not two, and that members are unified by their service to our country” (Our
Model, 2011). The editorial concluded, “Our nation has developed quite a bad habit of talking to
political opponents as though they are enemies instead of fellow Americans” (Our Model, 2011).
Valdez (2011) opined where the change toward civility must begin, “Politicians and
partisan media celebrities do not have the power to change the tone of America’s political
conversation. The people do.” Yet sharp differences of opinion will always continue to exist. It
is how to shape and speak about these differences that becomes key to enacting civil
communication. As former Arizona Representative Jim Kolbe (2011), Giffords’ predecessor,
wrote, “We should never shy away from political discussion because we are afraid of the
consequences. But in conducting a dialogue, we need to be respectful of others, mindful of their
points of view and accepting that there will be disagreements over policy. Because we disagree
with a candidate or another citizen does not mean we should not listen respectfully and
acknowledge that the person is acting with similar motivations as our own—to do what is best
for the community and the country. “
It is toward this aim that we attempt to posit a working theory of what constitutes “civil
speech.” In today’s political world, it is, perhaps, much easier to conceive of what constitutes
“incivility” as opposed to what “civility” actually looks like. Scholars such as Kenski, Coe, and
Rains (2012) have examined acts of incivility in responses to newspaper articles on controversial
issues, detailing such actions as casting aspersions, name calling, non-cooperation, vulgarity,
hyperbole, and sarcasm as acts of incivility. However, civility cannot be merely characterized as
the “absence of incivility.” To say so would mean that “civil communication” is merely the
absence of certain bad behaviors that are widely practiced in today’s society. However, civility
includes specific properties, chief among these “civil listening” skills. As such, rhetors who
practice civil listening skills go beyond what is typically characterized as “empathic listening”
(Howell 1986, Stewart 2011) and seek to discover “how” an other is experiencing life through
particular skills of restatement and questioning. Civil listeners also do not listen only with an ear
toward crafting their own debatable response, critical to one’s burden of rebuttal (Jensen 1981).
Rather, civil listening involves respecting an other’s viewpoint, even when one does not agree,
acknowledging the notion of difference without opposition, but instead seeks to understand not
merely “how” the other is feeling, but moving to specific motivations as to “why” an other is
experiencing a divergent viewpoint. As such, civility involves a balance of both speaking and
listening. In short, civility is as much about listening to divergent viewpoints as it is about
clearly communicating one’s own thoughts and beliefs.
Indeed, civility perhaps begins with an attitude of mutual respect. While participation in
dialogue in today’s hotly contested public sphere, one engaging in civil communication
approaches said dialogue with the forethought that there is likely to be a wide spectrum of
viewpoints and acknowledges those differences. Not all rhetors are willing and/or even capable
of shaping their beliefs into cogent claims, which often results in such incivility as merely
lashing back at an other’s claim, moving disagreements, not by shades or degrees, but instead by
180 degree swipes, even when there might not be complete disagreement with an initial claim.
The mutuality of respect entails that one thoughtfully consider a claim and then instead of merely
reacting to how different it is from one’s own viewpoint, ponders carefully where there may be
premises of agreement before moving to areas of disagreement. In essence, civility involves first
searching for areas of agreement before moving toward areas of disagreement.
While much of argumentation and even persuasion theory seeks adherence, pure
adherence is not the inherent goal of the civil communicator. Embedded in adherence is the
notion that one rhetor must sway others to his/her viewpoint using a variety of proofs (logos,
ethos, pathos), in effect changing the opinion of the other. Given many of today’s deep-seeded
issues and the deep political divide that has engulfed American culture, it is perhaps not even
realistic to even attempt the notion of adherence. While democratic principles necessitate the
casting of ballots for politicians and policies, too often people are left with the candidate with
whom they disagree the least instead of voting for a candidate or policy that fully represents their
own multiplicity of viewpoints, thus voting for “the lesser of two evils” or, given the American
record of voter turnout, not voting at all, thus abandoning the notion of using their political voice
to effect change. Instead, the goal of civility is first and only “understanding,” as only when one
is truly understood can one secondly work to gain adherence. A civil communicator does not
begin with the notion that they are understood or that their arguments automatically will/should
be accepted by others. Instead, the civil communicator seeks first to have his/her viewpoint fully
understood by others through the process of cogent and respectful discourse.
Indeed, civility invites the notion of “dialogue,” yes, even disagreement, which harkens
back to Aristotle’s notion of deliberative rhetoric. While the purpose behind deliberative rhetoric
was to enact policies in a democratic fashion, it focused on fairly airing one’s differences and
moving toward a process of thoughtful discussion of issues. The process of inviting dialogue
involves making claims, understanding shades of agreement and disagreement, and moving
toward the mutuality of understanding which is often lacking in today’s partisan society.
Finally, civility entails the notion of taking responsibility for one’s statements and
opinions, often in front of an audience, whether live or mediated. In today’s heavily mediated
culture, it is often easy for rhetors to lash out at opinions or claims different from one’s own by
hiding behind a pseudonym or on-line avatar which shifts the focus from responsible dialogue to
who can advance the most outrageous claim. While acknowledging that the process of dialogue
can involve shifting opinions when engaging in civil communication, too often rhetors work hard
at merely casting dispersions toward the viewpoints of others, without first taking ownership for
their own viewpoint and the reasoning behind it. As such, civility involves assuming
responsibility for one’s own discourse. It is when one assumes ownership, even in the face of
unpopular public opinion, that one engages in civil communication (i.e. John Anderson in Levey
2000).
Hence the uncivil world in which Barack Obama governs and in which we live presents a
challenge, a challenge to engage in civil dialogue. While Americans, particularly when rocked
by tragedy, fundamentally call out for engaging in civility, despite such national tragedies,
incivility reigns in discourse today. Only when rhetors, from both a grass roots level of the
citizenry to the halls of Congress and the White House, prioritize and practice civility, can our
nation turn the tide from such ugly polarized partisanship, to one which focuses on a civil
disagreement which may result in positive outcomes, both in speech and in policy.
References
Howell, W. S. (1986). The empathic communicator. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Jensen, J. V. (1981). Argumentation: Reasoning in communication. New York: Van Nostrand.
Kenski, K., Coe., K., & Rains, S. (2012). Patterns and determinants of incivility in online
discussions. Accessing civility: Arizona forum on civil communication.
Kolbe, J. (2011, January 16). Toning down the rhetoric a good idea. The Arizona Republic. P.
B11.
Levey, G. (2000, February 29). Q & A with Bob Levey. Washington Post.
Obama, B. (2011, January 13). Remarks of President Barack Obama. The Arizona Republic. Pp.
A13-4.
O’Connor, S. D. (2011, January 12, 2011). Justice O’Connor on Giffords. Azcentral.com.
“Our Model of Civility” (2011, January 16). Editorial. The Arizona Republic. P. B10.
Stewart, J. (2011). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication. 11th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Valdez, L. (2011, January 23). Time for a quieter discourse. The Arizona Republic. Pp. B11-2.