Bring Civility Back to American Society - Essay Example

CIVILITY Carter’s Civility is a work with a basically positive moral message, displayed by several examples in the text. The issue that the seems most concerned with is how to bring civility back to American society. The author’s ideas of morality and social justice can be understood through a careful understanding of this issue. That is, the issue sets the ethical code, in a sense, since it is at least theoretically there to determine a positive relationship between the individual and the society through models of good behavior that does not bring harm upon others, or socially positive behavior in the society. Socially positive behavior may be influenced by moral behavior, which has a more religious semantic connotation, but ethics should not be confused with moral behavior. Ethics is not the same as morality or presupposing moral certitude from a Christian perspective, as some would have it; morality is more of an externalized and often religious response, whereas ethics could perhaps be more readily likened to the basic conscience mechanism of social responsibility. Ethics is something that begins with the individual and acts effectively to represent society in terms of fair and balanced information being presented. It becomes clear when looking at the ethical issues that the working societal environment must also function in this societal space as a greater microcosm than the individual, but a lesser one than the society. Therefore, the rules and codes of the society must be reflected in terms of providing fair and balanced, if physically framed, representations. “Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others” (Carter, 1999). The author’s main arguments do not reflect ethics, however: in his quest for virtue and civility, the author seems to take a moral, religious tone. A problem related to Carter’s field of study is the possible lack of ethical and performance standards within the society, based on internal policy regulation that is designed to solve a problem and achieve a change rather than maintain the status quo. For example, standards derived by regulation for a public organization such a city government are taken from the standard of society, but societies tend to differ just as the individuals within them also differ. The author focuses on a Western, American concept of morality, but it becomes clear that the working environment or organization must function in a larger societal space as a greater state of being than the individual, but a lesser one than the society, and this is particularly true in the case of organizations that provide a vital service with a lot of shareholders at stake. Therefore, optimally the rules and codes of the society in terms of generalized drives towards civility are followed by the public and the individual, in descending order of relative size, to be a reflection of the greater society of which both are a part, in an optimal setting of what the author calls pre-political morality. “Elements of good character that are pre-political, by which I mean that we should all struggle to exemplify them, whatever our philosophical or partisan differences” (Carter, 1999). Discussing issues like road rage and Civil Rights, the author backs up their points strongly. Part of being civil to Carter is being more respectful of diversity, and also following through in actually fighting prejudice. Prejudice is a negatively attributed cultural manifestation that associates in-group characteristics with positive attributions and out-group characteristics with their converse. Discrimination is the application of prejudice in individual, societal, or institutional actions that seek to make the same and belittle the out-group while leaving the in-group free of similar scrutiny or action. Some may argue that this is just human nature, but others have a more positive outlook. Carter shows how discrimination in the US still exists and it still shows a belief that is characterized by or based on the attitude that ones own group is superior is also a social sideline highlighting the tendency of some individuals to view out-groups as being a threat due largely to pervasive stereotyping stemming from lack of experience with the perceived out-groups. Many people who are ethnocentric about their own groups have little contact with the groups they are consciously or unconsciously persecuting. Carter notes how discrimination has effected many issues and themes in the law by, as aforementioned, creating an atmosphere in which the group’s, usually the majority’s, stereotypes of out-groups are used as functions of political legitimacy that targets people based on their race gender or ethnicity or choice of marriage or disability, rather than as individuals. During the Civil Rights era explored by Carter, there was an increasingly national type of political and social involvement that was developing among African Americans in terms of opposition to and agitation against segregation in the government and armed forces, as well as equal opportunity advancement. The abolition of discrimination based on the color line was called for. The schools during this time were often directly involved in these questions of policy and rights, and had to stand at the forefront of democracy and make the right choices. Still other schools fought against progress and instigated cases that often went to the Supreme Court in terms of Civil Rights. Although Carter’s book has many strengths, his reliance on God for answers to morality is somewhat restrictive, and may offend some readers who don’t believe in God, or are not Christian monotheists. This is a sensitive issue, because unlike in some European countries, in America, there is no established history of the society (government, education, etc.) and the religious system being inextricably linked. Therefore, because of the credo of separation of church and state being more of a tradition than the link of church and school to Americans, many distrust any talk of God being the answer, even when it comes to an argument for civility; God can’t be the answer of the state, when the state is separated from the church. “I think it likely that only a resurgence of all that is best about religious faith will rescue civility in America, for there is no truer or more profound vision of equality than equality before God” (Carter, 1999). The side of argument states that the display of such Christian religion oriented rules within a text like Carter’s represents an imbalance in the separation of church and state, and may be alienating to any Hindu individuals, for example, who may be reading Carter’s book, and may see the display of monotheism as being rather narrow in terms of its link between religion and civility. These arguments have their proponents and dissenters, and the argument raised over this issue has in fact started many polemical and absolutist displays. “Only religion possesses the majesty, the power, and the sacred language to teach all of us, the religious and the secular, the genuine appreciation for each other on which a successful civility must rest” (Carter, 1999). Carter views a world where morality is the law, instead of it being the other way around, with the law being based on morality. “If we are to reconstruct civility, especially in a nation that prides itself on being free, we need to do it through better habits, not better laws” (Carter, 1999). The author talks about how they are worried because the society of the present does not hold God and civility in high esteem in terms of moral values and seems to argue against the separation of church and state. The author goes so far as to state that people are being deprived of decent behavior by a lack of religiously inspired civility. The author then finally mentions what they are setting out to do, trying to put forth oppositional value theories in an historical context with the hope that it will get people more interested in the mystery of what happened to civility, and how to get it back. This book also traces the origins of some of the main philosophical concepts that we use today. These roots are traced to ancient Greece and Plato, and divided between politics, ethics, and psychology (an anachronism). The author notes explicitly about God and the soul, and puts morality in parallel with human nature, looking for the roots of our present state of affairs. “I think that Roderick Hart, in his book Seducing America, captures the aspect of these programs that should most worry the student of civility who understands what Erasmus was trying to achieve. Erasmus wanted us to learn to discipline our instincts for the sake of our humanity” (Carter, 1999). Taking from old as well as new sources, the author attempts to explain how we can go about regaining our civility in modern society. “Civility requires resistance to the dominance of social life by the values of the marketplace” (Carter, 1999). It is essentially a conservative, positive moral message that the author is espousing; on the side of drawbacks, the message could be seen as exclusive by some, because it seems to focus rather overmuch on equating general ethics with Christian morality. REFERENCE Carter, S. (1999). Civility. New York: Harper Perennial. (Session 4 Presentation) Read More