The term “civility” is taking a real beating lately. We can no longer agree as a society what it means, nor whether we should even engage in it anymore.
It’s just one of many things once thought to be basic that we no longer agree on. This ongoing, multipart saga of disagreement in this country has made us disagreeable, and increasingly unable to move forward on anything. It impedes good governance, good participation in civic life and even good relationships. Even the constant analysis of polarization is exhausting. The wedge driven between us has fallen through the crack it created and now we’re separated by a vast chasm.
Recently, the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the Florida-based nonprofit dedicated to journalism training, ethics and research, convened a group in Chicago to learn about two troubling, dangerous trends: One is Christian Nationalism, which espouses the idea that the United States is a Christian nation, was founded to be a Christian nation and more of its laws should reflect the Bible, rather than the Constitution. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has been linked to it and it is creeping into public life at an alarming rate.
The other is the polarization of … everything. Being journalists, we of course talked about the media’s role and what, if anything, we can do to take focus away from culture wars and X posts and ideological purity tests and toward a union of any sort, let alone a more perfect one.
We agreed there is work to do. Which brings me to this project that I’m debuting today: Between Us. It’s a series of essays about what has brought us here and come between us; who, locally, is trying to make change and what to do using these lessons going forward. The series will publish between now and Thanksgiving. Since a decline in shared, local, trusted news sources and the rise of others that utilize the seemingly tailor-made algorithms of social media to spread messages, it seems there is a role for journalists to play, too. You’ll see my name on a couple of pieces, to provide transparency around some of what we do on the editorial board.
The days of assuming we can all just get along if we try harder are over. We have to pick our battles very, very carefully and be pragmatic for the next few years. An unfortunate casualty in all this is the traditionally defined civility. But we don’t have to like each other to change things. We can find common ground while we look at each other over a fence. But find the ground we must, or this country will be ceded to those who make a pretty good living off making us hate each other.
Let me be clear: This isn’t confined to one party or belief system. Right, left, right-leaning, left-leaning, liberal, conservative or libertarian, most of us have been guilty of not doing our best for the good of all. What’s making it worse is the absolute meanness that is accompanying this slide. The result of the “fear of the other” and constant scapegoating that has crept back into our society has made it fashionable and acceptable to slap convenient categorical labels on people we’ve never met. Do some of them live up to the labels? Sure. Should you assume they always do? No.
New York Times columnist Roxane Gay (whom I don’t always agree with) wrote a searing column about leaving civility in the dust: “The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds, and we can be well-mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are,” she wrote.
In this view, it is no longer a necessary way to get things done. It is instead a kind of capitulation. Now, making nice doesn’t, can’t and shouldn’t disguise the fact that things are not nice at all. But does reaching out in a civil tone to harness energy toward a worthy goal mean you’re one of what Gay refers to as “civility obsessives,” who ”love a silver-tongued devil, wearing a nice suit, sporting a tidy haircut, while whispering sweet bigotries”? Yikes. I hope not.
But things have changed.
A big factor in the disintegration is the loss of a common credibility bank — news sources most people went to for facts, and yes, opinions. Websites that mentioned things like conspiracies and deep states were on the fringe. Local news outlets are shutting down or becoming shells, with decision-makers headquartered far from the communities they purport to serve. The ascendancy of programming dedicated not to newsgathering principles but to outrage, on a 45-minute loop, is another piece. The third is everyone’s favorite villain, social media. It, too, thrives on conflict and in fact, rewards users who spend time on it. That, in turn, rewards advertisers.
Algorithms, which platforms use to determine what users see in their feeds and in what order, don’t always know if you clicked on a Facebook post because you liked it or it made you want to flip the table. (Sometimes, you don’t know either; the title and image lured you in.) They do take note of how much time you spend in a post and whether you comment or indicate that you liked or disliked the post. Then it works to show you more of that type of content, in vast amounts, really fast. Platforms do whatever it takes to keep you scrolling, just like the blackjack tables keep you gambling. Sounds harmless, but the more people engage with content, the more it gets spread and the more reach it has. The algorithm doesn’t distinguish between posts that are true and ones that are not. “But wait, I didn’t ask for this junk!” you may exclaim. Guess what: Now you’re mad, too. All because you looked at a post from someone you went to high school with. If you want to see nothing but Fat Bear Week and the Washington Department of Transportation’s witty weekend traffic alerts, you have to really work at it.
Here’s how you can weigh in: Are you good at navigating hard conversations and hardening personal beliefs to get things done? Do you have any advice for working with people you don’t agree with toward a common goal? Or have you thrown in the towel?
Share your advice/despair in an email to oped@seattletimes.com, with “polarization” in the subject line by 5 p.m. Oct. 21. Keep it to 300 words, please. We’ll publish a selection of responses next month. Include your name, address and phone number for verification purposes. (Your contact information will not be published.)
This project is funded in part by The Poynter Institute as part of its Beat Academy for reaching polarized audiences.
