Is civility a sham? | Teresa Bejan

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Teresa Bajon argues that civility is not politeness or niceness, but a difficult virtue that enables societies to sustain fundamental disagreement without collapse. She traces how “civility talk” has often been used to silence dissent, yet insists that genuine civility—what she calls “mere civility”—is essential for tolerant pluralistic societies because it keeps adversaries in the room and makes shared civic life possible.

Main Topics: Civility as a real virtue, not empty etiquette (Priority: 5/5): Bajon rejects the idea that civility is merely manners or respect, arguing instead that it is a practical virtue for living with deep disagreement. Why disagreement feels offensive (Priority: 5/5): She explains that disagreement often registers as an insult to intelligence or character, especially on identity, religion, and politics. The history of civility and tolerance (Priority: 4/5): Using early modern England, America, and the Reformation, she shows how civility helped make coexistence possible in tolerant societies. Civility talk as a political weapon (Priority: 5/5): She criticizes modern and historical appeals to civility as a way to avoid argument, claim moral superiority, or exclude dissenters. Mere civility as confrontational coexistence (Priority: 5/5): Bajon defines a harder version of civility: speaking honestly to opponents, staying present, and preserving the possibility of a shared future. Courage and civic disagreement (Priority: 4/5): She links civility with courage, arguing that being civil may require remaining disagreeable while refusing to disengage.

Key Arguments: Disagreement is inherently offensive because people tend to interpret opposition as a judgment on their intelligence or integrity. Tolerant societies do not eliminate hostility; they rely on civility to make coexistence possible despite contempt and conflict. Much of modern civility rhetoric is performative: it often serves to signal virtue, avoid substantive debate, and label opponents as beyond the pale. Historical examples show that calls for civility have repeatedly been used to suppress dissenters, from religious minorities to civil rights protesters. The virtue that matters is not politeness or niceness but “mere civility”: honest, face-to-face disagreement without destroying the possibility of future common life. Civility and courage are linked because staying engaged with opponents while remaining honest requires moral and emotional bravery.

Data Points: Historical timeframe: 500 years ago - Bajon dates the first modern crisis of civility to the Reformation era, when Martin Luther used the printing press to attack the Pope. Historical period: 17th century - She references her study of religious tolerance in early modern England and America as the source of her thinking on civility. Historical examples: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and eventually the United States - Examples of tolerant societies that aspired to protect both diversity and disagreement. Communication technology analogy: The printing press as the “Twitter of the 16th century” - Used to illustrate how new media intensified uncivil public conflict during the Reformation.

Pivotal Quotes: "civility is. .. bullshit" — Teresa Bajon: Her opening joke about why she originally wrote the book, before revising her view through historical study. "Civility isn't bullshit. It's precious because it's the virtue that makes fundamental disagreement not only possible, but even sometimes occasionally productive." — Teresa Bajon: Central claim of the talk, distinguishing civility from shallow civility talk. "mere civility is having the courage to make yourself disagreeable and to stay that way, but to do so while staying in the room" — Teresa Bajon: Her definition of the virtue she says pluralistic societies actually need.

Implications: Listeners should treat civility as a discipline for sustained disagreement, not a demand for conformity or silence. In public debate, the goal is not to avoid conflict but to keep conflict from destroying coexistence.