Embedded Files
FINAL REPORT : Three (or four?) tiers of civility
FINAL REPORT : Three (or four?) tiers of civility
(For the preliminary report, scroll down )
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The three civility polls we did on the George Fox Campus quad on Friday morning April 23, as part of a free crepe giveaway, produced some interesting responses, particularly among the items of advice survey respondents endorsed for hypothetical political candidates facing difficult choices.
We learned that, among the survey respondents (note: results are no generalizable to the general population), most seemed to be comfortably familiar with a conception of civility involving respect and empathy for someone we disagree with. We can call that Tier C Civility: being considerate toward one’s opponent.
But some of the responses contemplated at least two other broad conceptions of civility. The first is built on recognizing disagreements and diversity as opportunities for growth, and for moral and practical improvements in the lives of all concerned. To tap into the potential present when people disagree, civility works toward civil conversation, grace for opponents, and collaborations for better results, including justice, ending suffering, and maximizing opportunities for everyone to have means to meet their needs.
We can label this Tier B civility, marked by the practice of good stewardship of the opportunities present in disagreement. Given the right kind of scenario, our study indicates up to half of the this population of respondents was able to recognize and endorse Tier B opportunities in political conflicts.
We also found evidence that some people, possibly up to a quarter of the group, was prepared to see an even higher civility calling, where conflict and disagreement is an opportunity to strengthen a group’s political culture. By political culture, I mean the relationships, norms, attitudes, and practices that help diverse groups work collaboratively toward truer outcomes over time. Specifically in these scenarios, this Tier A view of civility sees the opportunity as not belonging to a political candidate or party, but to the community, especially the potential voters. The guiding principle in Tier A civility is careful and creative stewardship of disagreement, seeking the health and capacity of the political culture to listen to every voice and help people get information they need to make good choices, whether via negotiation with others, or via election, or any other democratic process.
There is also a very basic Tier D approach, on the boundaries of civility, embodied in a “do no harm” attitude. Although doing no harm is better than doing harm, it is treated here as not being civil when it leaves victims of wrong without a remedy.
These findings are conditioned by the non-random nature of our sample population, and by various prompts and other factors present in the informal setting where the surveys were conducted (ie, while standing in line waiting for a free crepe).
To see a chart and a short-ish (3 page) discussion of the survey results, go to the last three pages of this document, or search “Summary comments on all three polls”. For a full discussion of the results, keep reading here.
THE RESULTS, PART I: Tiers of Civility
THE RESULTS, PART I: Tiers of Civility
We got 249 total responses by lunchtime Friday, April 23 to the Crepes on the Quad civility polls: 115 for #1 (Isabella and Baljit), 63 for #2 (Candace and Buford), and 71 for #3 (Phineas and Ferb). (See "The Plan Going In" elsewhere on this page for the text of each hypothetical case.
Of our respondents, 234 were GF students, 4 were GF faculty, 7 were GF staff, and 4 were "others." (Note: the GFU campus has been generally closed this academic year to all except students and employees, due to COVID.)
For Isabel v. Baljit, where Isabel invited her electoral opponent Baljit to a get-acquainted meeting over coffee, but Baljit hasn't responded., 64.3% of respondents said the most civil approach Isabel could take would be to try again on inviting Baljit. 21.7 % recommended that Isabel leave Baljit alone and explain to anyone who asked that she didn't really know Baljit enough to speculate about his values or motives. The third most common response was "Other" ( 5.2%) which recommended trying again combined with other responses.
For Candace v. Buford, where Buford was ignoring the agreed-upon debate rules by frequently interrupting, etc., 44.4% suggested that Candace should say "Buford, you promised in writing not to do what you're doing now. Is your word worth anything?" 34.9% recommended Candace should ignore Buford and keep talking in a normal voice. 12.6% advised Candace to stop talking until either Buford starts complying with the debate rules, or until the moderator enforces the rules.
For Phineas v. Ferb, where Phineas is concerned that Ferb's campaign isn't helping voters, 39.4% advised Phineas to invite Ferb to join him at a campaign event so voters could meet him. 29.6% thought Phineas could quietly offer to help Ferb get his campaign together. 16.9% advised Phineas to leave Ferb alone.
Most of the crepe-eating promoters of civility science -- 227 of them -- gave a brief explanation of why the option they chose was the most civil. I have gone through all those comments, trying to discern how each respondent was defining civility.
Respondents saw civility as coming into play at one or more of four levels:
A. Civility as stewardship of the election for the benefit of voters -- willingness to put equipping the voters to make good choices ahead of one's own victory.
B. Civility as stewardship of disagreement as an opportunity for an optimal decision -- trying to create or sustain the conditions necessary for opponents to work together to optimal solutions.
C. Personal civility -- treating one's opponent well.
D. Doing no harm -- not making alienation and polarization worse.
Within these four tiers I arranged nearly all the comments into ten types, as follows:
Tier A: Civility as stewardship of the election for the benefit of voters:
10. Expecting the voters (and oneself) to learn from the opponent.
9. Actively working to help voters get the best possible info about all their options.
8. Taking initiative as a steward of the election.
Tier B: Civility as stewardship of disagreement as an opportunity for an optimal decision:
7. Showing grace for opponents -- keeping them in the game.
6. Encouraging collaboration.
5. Nurturing civil conversation.
4. Taking initiative as a steward of disagreement.
Tier C: Personal civility:
3. Showing empathy for the opponent.
2. Being considerate/polite; respecting the opponent.
Tier D: Doing no harm:
Not polarizing, misinforming, mischaracterizing the opponent, etc.
This is the first time I've articulated civility as having four tiers, let alone with 10 ascending levels . Perhaps the idea will open us to new insights. Perhaps it won't thrive in sunlight. Probably it will at least need pruning, splicing, and perhaps some biodegradable spraying for various diseases and infestations One of the big advantages of the Civility Project is we can try things out.
I'll write another update later this week with more details about what can be observed from the many comments, and the how far up the tiers of civility they reached.
THE PLAN GOING IN
THE PLAN GOING IN
The students in the Civility Reading Group decided to end the semester with a bang -- so they hosted a Crepes on the Quad event Friday morning, April 23 for George Fox University students and employees, from 9 am to noon. CRG students made the crepes, giving them out free to anyone who answered one of the following Civility Polls, using a QR code to the link, pick to one of the three polls, complete it, tell the cook, and get their free crepe.
Those who couldn't make it to the Quad for a crepe could still chime in on the civility polls. And you can, too: just click on one of the buttons below to go that poll, read the intro, and use the connected Google Form to deliver your response. If you want, you can come back and do all three.
Remember, we see civility as tending to the health and capacity of our political culture, seeking to resolve conflicts and achieve justice in ways that heal polarization and alienation rather than exacerbating them. So, in the poll you choose, tell us what you think a political candidate committed to civility should do, and briefly explain your answer.
Case #1: Isabella is running for city council. She has one opponent, Baljit. Isabella doesn't know Baljit (it's a different Baljit, I guess), so she doesn't know why he's running, or what he's planning to do. People keep asking Isabela about Baljit but she can't tell them anything because she doesn't know anything about him. She invited Baljit to meet with her, and he seemed open to it, but hasn't gotten back to her. What should Isabella do?
Case #2: Candace is running for the school board against Buford. They agreed to participate in a debate hosted by the local newspaper. During the debate, Buford keeps running over his time limits, constantly interrupts her, and calls her names, all of which violates their agreement. The debate moderator is unable to enforce the debate rules. What should Candace do?
Case #3: Phineas is having a good campaign for state representative. It's hard to get people to pay attention to such a race, but his campaign staff has done a great job. Every week he has three or four events with turnouts sometimes as high as 100. But he notices that Ferb (no relation), his opponent, has been nearly invisible. He learns Ferb is trying to run his own campaign, has no signs, has events where no one comes, etc. What should Phineas do?
Page updated
Report abuse