In the past several weeks, I’ve been at two gatherings hundreds of miles apart, one for folks who critique the news and one for folks who read the news, and one particular thread of talk showed up in both discussions.
Topic A? The rude, crude brood you can find on the Internet, and what, if anything, to do about it and them.
Three weeks ago, at Harvard University, at a meeting with ombudsmen from around the world, we talked about this.
Four days ago, at Smithfield’s Our Best restaurant, at a meeting with members of Leadership Henry County, we talked about this.
And the day after I met with the good people in Henry County, I took part in another conversation about ‘net manners and the bigger issue having to do with that: how we treat each other, the consequences of respect and disrespect, and how to improve upon what’s working and what isn’t.
This third conversation took place on the Internet, and it featured P.M. Forni, author of Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct and professor at Johns Hopkins University. I had invited him to take questions from Courier-Journal readers, and me, about this issue, and he graciously agreed. Last Thursday morning, he went online with us for an hour.
I’m going to devote today’s column to portions of his answers — which may be found in full at courier-journal.com/forni — for several reasons.
I want to share his words with people who don’t have the Internet, or won’t use it.
I think what he had to say is very important and deserves to have the widest possible airing, because it deals with everything from parenting and teaching, to personal responsibility, to human nature, to democracy.
And in the past several days, like you I’ve read about a local case of road rage, which included a shoot-out in a grocery store parking lot (who needs a gun for a lettuce run?), and I watched video of an Alabama legislator smacking a fellow solon in the face on the floor of the state senate, and I think everyone ought to be talking about this.
Professor Forni on the role of parenting, and the importance of teaching self-restraint along with self-esteem:
” . . . I would say insufficient training in restraint is identified as a cause of rising incivility.
“As a society, we have been very good in instilling self-respect in our children but not as good in instilling self-restraint. When we teach self-esteem but forget to train our children in self-restraint, we create children who are self-centered, who believe the world revolves around them, who are so self-invested that they have little moral energy left for their fellow human beings.
“As I have said many times before, they are trapped in a cage of narcissism that we have built for them. Restraint is an essential component of civility. We are civil when we are aware of others and we weave restraint, respect and consideration into the very fabric of this awareness.”
Professor Forni on how the anonymity offered by Internet communication fosters a “disinhibition effect”:
” . . . Anonymity and stress have long been identified as main causes of uncivil behavior. It is part of our human make-up that we need incentives to be good. We need incentives to be decent, to be considerate, to be kind. Anonymity takes away some of our incentives to behave as decent people.
“Also, since its very beginning, the Internet has projected an image of informality. It has billed itself as a place where maximum democracy could be achieved. Everybody could communicate with plenty of freedom and in very informal ways.
“Now, there is often a thin line between informality and incivility and the communication on the ‘net often crosses that line. It seems that as a society we use very often the ‘net as a dumping ground of what’s least attractive in who we are. However, when we do that, we don’t really free ourselves of those unpleasant thoughts, unpleasant traits, social toxins, because that mode of communication ends up bouncing from the online world to the world of bricks and mortar. So the coarse, extremely informal language of the ‘net provides the new standard for the communication in the real world, and that is certainly a cause of concern.”
(I told Dr. Forni that the talk about anonymity and incentives to be decent helped explain the omnipresent and omniscient aspects of God and Santa Claus.)
Professor Forni, in response to a question about enforcing “quality of life” laws; in effect, enforcing consideration of other people:
“I must say I’m a little ambivalent about quality of life laws. I belong to a long line of people who believe that when we are civil we obey the unenforceable. We obey, that is, an unwritten code of decency because it’s the right thing to do and not because we are going to be put in jail if we don’t. I think we should educate our children, train them in civility, good manners and courtesy, and then hope that will become part of their identity, part of their emotional and cognitive kits. . . . ”
Professor Forni, on the relationship between personal civility and a democracy:
“In its very etymology, civility conveys the notion of community.
“Civility comes from the Latin word for city, not the city of brick and mortar, but the city of flesh and blood, a body politic, a state, a community.
“When we are civil, we not only make our lives better, we make the lives of our family and friends better in the process as well. We are also working for the well-being of society. Civility provides the bricks for the building of civil society, and civil society is necessary for the survival of democracy.
“Indeed, when it comes to civility there is much more than personal wellness at stake. That actually is very evident, if we think that to be civil means to be able to transcend, to go beyond, our own immediate needs and desires, to tend to the needs and desires of others.
“Civility is always a centrifugal force, a force that goes outward, a force that reaches out to family, to friends, to co-workers, but also to strangers and to people in cultures different from our own.
“Civility, therefore, is a necessary component of both personal and social well-being. It is a form of benevolent attention and no matter what we want to build, we cannot build anything without benevolent attention. ”
Professor Forni on the consequences of “happy violence” and “happy rudeness” available throughout media, including television and the Internet:
” . . . Connected to this is the issue of the sheer overwhelming amount of entertainment that television and also the Internet make available, and what that does to the cognitive development of young children.
“Where are our children going to learn to think? Shall we expect once more that our teachers will perform miracles and just by themselves will provide the wisdom and the skills that neither families nor popular culture provide?
“This is a very tough issue. Our children need to learn to think logically, and to articulate clearly their thinking. Certainly, a lot of what’s on television, and on the ‘net today, does not help them very much in achieving that crucial goal.”
Again, for the full questions and answers in this discussion, visit courier-journal.com/forni
The professor’s insights demonstrate how there’s more at stake with sloppy and disrespectful treatment of others than hurt feelings, offended sensibilities, and flying bullets in parking lots.
What the professor talks about gets to the very heart of who we are, and who we want to be, as individuals, as families, as a community and as a nation.
I think it also challenges Internet hosts and outlets, such as The Courier-Journal, to encourage and maintain standards that promote respect and civility. After all, there may be anonymity in these online conversations, but there’s no anonymity afforded the host, and we will be judged by the company we keep.
As proven by the recent conversations I had with ombuds from around the world, with ‘net users and readers in Henry County, and with online posters and the good doctor on Thursday, all this is still very much a work in progress.
