3 ways to practice civility Steven Petrow

I want to start by telling you
two things about myself

before I get into the full talk.

And the first is that I’ve been writing
about manners and civility

for more than 20 years,

as a book author
and as a magazine columnist.

The second is,

my friends know to be very wary
of inviting me over for dinner

because any faux pas
that happens at the table

is likely to wind up in print.

(Laughter)

So, I’m watching, I can see back there
and I can see through the portals, too.

(Laughter)

So, speaking of dinner parties,

I want to take you back to 2015
and a dinner party that I went to.

To place this in time,

this was when Caitlyn Jenner
was first coming out,

shedding her identity as a Kardashian

and moving into her life
as a transgender activist.

I wrote a column
in People magazine at the time,

talking about the importance of names

and how names are our identity.

And that to misuse them or not to use them
erases us in a certain way.

And especially with Caitlyn Jenner,

I talked about Caitlyn,
but also the use of her pronouns.

Her pronouns.

So I’m at this dinner –
delicious, wonderful, fun –

when my host goes on a rant
about Caitlyn Jenner.

And she is saying that it is
disrespectful for Caitlyn Jenner

to force her to use a new name
and to use these new pronouns.

She’s not buying it,

and I’m listening,
and because I do meditation,

I took my sacred pause before I responded.

(Laughter)

And I reminded her
that when she got married,

she changed her name,

and that she took the name of her husband.

And that’s the name all of us now use.

We don’t use it just
because it’s her legal name,

but we use it because it’s respectful.

Ditto for Miss Jenner.

She didn’t buy it
and we didn’t speak for years.

(Laughter)

So …

I am known as the Civilist.

And it’s probably a word
that you’re not that familiar with.

It’s not in common parlance

and it comes from the Latin
and the French,

and it means an individual
who tries to live by a moral code,

who is striving to be a good citizen.

The word “civility” is derived from that,

and the original definition of civility

is citizens willing to give of themselves
for the good of the city,

for the good of the commonwealth,
for the larger good.

So, in this talk,

you’re going to learn
three new ways to be civil, I hope,

and it will be according
to the original definition of civility.

My first problem is:

civility is an obsolete word.

My second problem is:

civility has become
a dirty word in this country.

And that is whether you lean right
or whether you lean left.

And in part, that’s because modern usage
equates civility with decorum,

with formal politeness, formal behavior.

We’ve gotten away
from the idea of citizenship.

So, let me start by talking a little bit
about my friends on the right,

who have conflated civility with
what they call political correctness.

And to them, callouts for civility

are really very much like
what George Orwell wrote in “1984” –

he called it “newspeak.”

And this was an attempt
to change the way we talk

by forcibly changing
the language that we use.

To change our ideas
by changing the meaning of words.

And I think my dinner host
might have had some of that

rattling around there.

And I first personally understood, though,

the right’s problem with civility

when I wrote a column
about then-candidate Donald Trump.

And he had just said

he did not have time
for total political correctness,

and he did not believe
the country did either.

And I took that to heart, it was very –

The audience was very engaged
about that online, as you can imagine.

There was a thousand responses,
and this one stood out to me

because it was representative:

“Political correctness
is a pathological system

that lets liberals dominate
a conversation,

label, demonize and shout down
the opposition.”

So I think, to the right,
civility translates into censure.

So that’s the right.

Now, my friends on the left
also have a problem with it.

And for example, there have been those

who have harassed
Trump administration officials

who support the President’s border wall.

They’ve been called out as rude,
they’ve been called out as nasty,

they’ve been called out as worse.

And after one such incident last year,

even the Washington Post –

you know, left-leaning
Washington Post –

wrote an editorial and sided with decorum.

And they argued that officials
should be allowed to dine in peace.

Hm.

“You know, the wall
is the real incivility here.

The tear-gassing of kids,
the separation of families.”

That’s what the protestors say.

And imagine if we had sided,
in this country,

with decorum and courtesy
throughout our history.

You know, I think about the suffragettes.

They marched, they picketed.

They were chastised, they were arrested

for pursuing the vote
for women in the 1920s.

You know, I also think about
the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.,

the father of American
nonviolent civil disobedience.

He was labeled as uncivil in his attempt
to promote racial and economic justice.

So I think you get a sense

of why civility has become
a problem, a dirty word, here.

Now, does this mean we can’t disagree,
that we can’t speak our minds?

Absolutely not.

I recently spoke with
Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer.

She’s kind of the guru
of civility in this country,

and the executive director of a body

called the National Institute
for Civil Discourse.

And she told me,

“Civility does not mean appeasement
or avoiding important differences.

It means listening and talking
about those differences with respect.”

In a healthy democracy,
we need to do that.

And I call that respectful engagement.

But civil discourse also needs rules,
it needs boundaries.

For instance, there’s a difference

between language
that is simply rude or demeaning,

and speech that invokes
hatred and intolerance.

And specifically of groups.

And I’m thinking
of racial and ethnic groups,

I’m thinking of the LGBTQ community,

I’m thinking of the disabled.

We snowflakes
call this speech “hate speech.”

And hate speech can lead to violence.

So, to that point, in the fall of 2018,

I wrote a column
about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

You may remember her,

she was one of the women who accused
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

of sexual assault.

And among the responses,

I received this message,
a personal message,

which you can see here on the slide.

It’s been largely redacted.

(Laughter)

This message was 50 words long.
10 of them were the f-bomb.

And the Democrats were called out,
President Obama was called out,

and I was referred to in a pretty darn
vulgar and coarse way.

There was an explicit threat
in that message,

and that is why my editors at The Post
sent it to authorities.

This came shortly before the pipe bombs
were sent to other media outlets,

so everybody was really
kind of on guard there.

And the larger context was,
only a few months before,

five staffers had been killed
at a Maryland newspaper.

They had been shot dead
by a reader with a grudge.

“Shut up or else.”

And it was around that same time

that a different reader of mine
started stalking me online.

And at first, it was …

I’ll call it light and fluffy.

It was around this time last year

and I still had
my Christmas decorations up

and he sent me a message saying,

“You should take your Christmas
decorations down.”

And then he noticed that my dog
was off leash one day,

and then he commented
that I had gone to the market.

And then he wrote me one that said,

“If anyone were to shoot and kill you,

it would not be a loss at all.”

I wish that were the end of the story.

Because then, a few months later,
he came to my door, my front door,

in a rage and tried
to break the door down.

I now own mace, a security system

and a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.

(Sighs)

“Shut up or else.”

So, what’s to be done

to forestall civility from turning ugly,
from turning violent?

My first rule is to deescalate language.

And I’ve stopped using
trigger words in print.

And by trigger words, I mean
“homophobe,” I mean “racist,”

I mean “xenophobe,” I mean “sexist.”

All of those words.

They set people off.

They’re incendiary

and they do not allow us
to find common ground.

They do not allow us
to find a common heart.

And so to this point,
when John McCain died in 2018,

his supporters noted
that he never made personal attacks.

But his opponents agreed as well,

and I though that was
what was really noteworthy.

He challenged people’s policies,
he challenged their positions,

but he never made it personal.

And so that’s the second rule.

So the problem of civility
is not only an American one.

In the Netherlands, there are calls
for a civility offensive right now,

and as one Dutch philosopher has put it,

the country has fallen
under a spell of “verhuftering.”

Now, this is not a word that I knew before
and I did quite a bit of research.

It loosely means bullying
and the disappearance of good manners.

It actually means much worse than that,
but that’s what I’m saying here.

When you have a specific word, though,
to describe a problem like that,

you know you really have a problem.

And in the United Kingdom,
the [2016] Brexit vote …

you know, has divided
a nation even more so.

And one critic of the breakup
called those who favor it –

I just love this phrase –

“the frightened parochial
lizard brain of Britain.”

The frightened parochial
lizard brain of Britain.

That’s personal.

And it makes me miss “Downton Abbey”

and its patina of civility.

But therein lies the third rule:

don’t mistake decorum for civility.

Even if you have a dowager countess
as fabulous as Dame Maggie Smith.

(Laughter)

[Don’t be defeatist.
It’s so middle class.]

So let me end with one last story.

Not that long ago, I was at a bakery,
and they make these amazing scones.

So, long line –
there are a lot of scones.

And one by one,
the scones were disappearing

until there was one woman
in between me and that last scone.

(Laughter)

Praise the Lord, she said,
“I’ll have a croissant.”

(Laughter)

So when it became my turn, I said,
“I’ll take that scone.”

The guy behind me –

I’d never turned around, never seen him –

he shouted, “That’s my scone!

I’ve been waiting in line 20 minutes.”

And I was like, “Who are you?

I’ve been waiting in line 20 minutes,
and you’re behind me.”

So, I grew up here in New York,

and went to high school
not that far from here.

And I may seem, you know,
very civil here and so on,

but I can hip check anybody for a taxicab
in this room, on these streets.

So I was surprised
when I said to this guy …

“Would you like half?”

“Would you like half?”

I didn’t think about it, it just came out.

And then, he was very puzzled,
and I could see his face change

and he said to me,

“Well, how about if I buy another pastry
and we’ll share both of them?”

And he did, and we did.

And we sat and talked.

We had nothing in common.

(Laughter)

We had nothing in common: nationality,
sexual orientation, occupation.

But through this moment of kindness,
through this moment of connection,

we developed a friendship,
we have stayed in touch.

(Laughter)

Although he was appalled to learn
that I’m called the Civilist after that.

(Laughter)

But I call this the joy of civility.

The joy of civility.

And it led me to wonder,

what is the good we forgo,
not just the trouble we avoid,

when we choose to be uncivil.

And by good, I mean friendship,
I mean connection.

I mean sharing 1000 calories.

But I also mean it in a larger way.

You know, as communities
and as a country and as a world.

What are we missing out on?

So, today, we are engaged in a great
civil war of ideas and identity.

And we have no rules for them.

You know, there are rules for war.

Think about the Geneva Conventions.

They ensure that every soldier
is treated humanely,

on and off the battlefield.

So, frankly, I think we need
a Geneva Convention of civility,

to set the rules for discourse
for the parameters of that.

To help us become better citizens
of our communities and of our countries.

And if I have anything to say about it,

I would base those rules
on the original definition of civility,

from the Latin and from the French.

Civility:

citizens willing to give of themselves
for the greater good.

For the good of the city.

So I think civility, with that
understanding, is not a dirty word.

And I hope the civilist will not become,
or will not stay, obsolete.

Thank you.

(Applause)

在我开始完整的演讲之前,我想先告诉你
关于我自己的两件事

首先是我作为书籍作者和杂志专栏作家撰写
有关礼仪和文明

的文章已有 20 多年

了。

第二个是,

我的朋友们知道
邀请我来吃饭时要非常谨慎,

因为
在餐桌上发生的任何失礼

都可能会以印刷品告终。

(笑声)

所以,我在看,我可以看到后面
,我也可以透过传送门看到。

(笑声)

所以,说到晚宴,

我想带你回到 2015 年
和我去过的一个晚宴。

为了及时发布,

这是
凯特琳詹纳第一次出柜的时候,

她摆脱了卡戴珊的身份

,进入了她
作为跨性别活动家的生活。

当时我在《人物》杂志上写了一篇专栏文章,

谈论名字的重要性以及

名字如何成为我们的身份。

滥用或不使用它们
会以某种方式抹去我们。

尤其是和凯特琳詹纳,

我谈到了凯特琳,
还有她的代词的使用。

她的代名词。

所以我在这顿晚餐上——
美味、美妙、有趣——

当我的主人
对凯特琳詹纳大发雷霆时。

她说

凯特琳詹纳强迫她使用新名字
并使用这些新代词是不尊重的。

她不买账

,我在听
,因为我在冥想,

所以在我回应之前我神圣地停顿了一下。

(笑声)

我提醒她
,当她结婚时,

她改了

名字,取了她丈夫的名字。

这就是我们所有人现在使用的名称。

我们不只是
因为这是她的法定名称

而使用它,而是因为它是尊重而使用它。

詹纳小姐也是如此。

她没有买它
,我们多年没有说话。

(笑声)

所以……

我被称为文明主义者。

这可能是
一个你不太熟悉的词。

这不是普通的说法

,它来自拉丁语
和法语

,它意味着
一个试图按照道德准则生活的人,

他正在努力成为一个好公民。

“文明”一词由此而来,

文明的原始定义

是公民愿意为了
城市

的利益、为了国家的利益、
为了更大的利益而付出自己。

所以,在这次演讲中,我希望

你将学习
三种新的文明方式

,这将
符合文明的原始定义。

我的第一个问题是:

文明是一个过时的词。

我的第二个问题是:

文明
在这个国家已经成为一个肮脏的词。

那就是你是向右
倾斜还是向左倾斜。

在某种程度上,这是因为现代用法
将礼貌等同于礼仪

、正式的礼貌、正式的行为。

我们已经
摆脱了公民身份的想法。

所以,让我先
谈谈我的右翼朋友,

他们将文明与
他们所谓的政治正确混为一谈。

对他们来说,对文明

的呼唤真的
很像乔治奥威尔在“1984”中所写的——

他称之为“新闻讲话”。

这是试图

通过强行改变
我们使用的语言来改变我们说话的方式。

通过改变单词的含义来改变我们的想法。

而且我认为我的晚宴主人
可能会

在那里发出一些嘎嘎声。

不过,当我写一篇关于当时的候选人唐纳德·特朗普的专栏时,我第一次亲自理解

了右翼在礼貌方面的问题

他刚刚说

他没有
时间完全政治正确

,他也不相信
这个国家会这样做。

我把这一点牢记在心

,就像你可以想象的那样,观众非常关注在线。

有上千条回复,
而这一条让我印象深刻,

因为它具有代表性:

“政治正确
是一种病态系统

,它让自由主义者
主导对话,给反对派

贴标签、妖魔化和
大喊大叫。”

所以我认为,在右边,
礼貌转化为谴责。

所以这是正确的。

现在,我左边的朋友
也有问题。

例如,

有人骚扰

支持总统边界墙的特朗普政府官员。

他们被称为粗鲁,
他们被称为讨厌,

他们被称为更糟糕。

在去年发生这样的事件之后,

甚至华盛顿邮报——

你知道,左倾的
华盛顿邮报——

写了一篇社论并站在了礼仪一边。

他们认为
应该允许官员们安静地用餐。

嗯。

“你知道,这
堵墙是这里真正的

无礼。孩子们的催泪弹
,家庭的分离。”

抗议者是这么说的。

想象一下,如果我们
在这个国家,

在我们的整个历史中都以礼仪和礼貌站在一边。

你知道,我想到了参政者。

他们游行,他们纠察。

他们受到了惩罚,他们因

在 1920 年代为妇女投票而被捕。

你知道,我还想到
了美国非暴力公民不服从之父马丁·路德·金牧师

他因
试图促进种族和经济正义而被贴上不文明的标签。

所以我想你

明白为什么文明在这里成了
一个问题,一个肮脏的词。

现在,这是否意味着我们不能不同意,
不能说出我们的想法?

绝对不。

我最近与
Carolyn Lukensmeyer 博士进行了交谈。


是这个国家的文明大师,

也是一个

叫做国家
公民话语研究所的机构的执行主任。

她告诉我,

“文明并不意味着绥靖
或回避重要的分歧。

它意味着
尊重地倾听和谈论这些分歧。”

在一个健康的民主国家,
我们需要这样做。

我称之为尊重的参与。

但公民话语也需要规则
,需要界限。

例如

,粗鲁或贬低

的语言与引起
仇恨和不容忍的言论之间存在差异。

特别是团体。

我想到
了种族和族裔群体,

我想到了 LGBTQ 社区,

我想到了残疾人。

我们雪花
称这种演讲为“仇恨演讲”。

仇恨言论可能导致暴力。

所以,到那时,在 2018 年秋天,

我写了一篇
关于 Christine Blasey Ford 博士的专栏。

你可能还记得她,

她是指控
最高法院提名人布雷特卡瓦诺

性侵犯的女性之一。

在回复中,

我收到了这条信息,
一条个人信息

,你可以在幻灯片上看到。

它已在很大程度上被编辑。

(笑声)

这条信息有 50 个字长。
其中10个是f-bomb。

民主党人被叫了出来,
奥巴马总统被叫了出来

,我被用一种非常
粗俗和粗俗的方式提到。

那条信息中有明确的威胁

,这就是为什么我在《华盛顿邮报》的编辑
将它发送给当局的原因。

这是在管道炸弹
被发送到其他媒体之前不久发生的,

所以那里的每个人都
非常警惕。

更大的背景是,
就在几个月前,有

五名工作人员
在马里兰州的一家报纸上遇害。

他们
被一个怀恨在心的读者枪杀。

“闭嘴,否则。”

大约在同一时间

,我的另一个读者
开始在网上跟踪我。

起初,它是……

我称之为轻盈蓬松。

大约是去年的这个时候


我的圣诞装饰品还在

,他给我发了一条信息说,

“你应该把你的圣诞
装饰品拿下来。”

然后他注意到有一天我的狗
不系皮带了,

然后他评论
说我去了市场。

然后他给我写了一封信,上面写着:

“如果有人开枪打死你,

那根本不会是损失。”

我希望这就是故事的结局。

因为那时,几个月后,
他愤怒地来到我的门前,我的前门

,并
试图打破门。

我现在拥有狼牙棒、安全系统

和 Louisville Slugger 棒球棒。

(叹气)

“闭嘴,否则。”

那么,

如何防止文明变得丑陋
、变得暴力呢?

我的第一条规则是降级语言。

而且我已经停止
在印刷品中使用触发词。

通过触发词,我的意思是
“同性恋恐惧症”,我的意思是“种族主义者”,

我的意思是“仇外心理”,我的意思是“性别歧视”。

所有这些话。

他们让人们离开。

他们是煽动性的

,他们不允许
我们找到共同点。

他们不允许
我们找到共同的心。

所以到目前为止,
当约翰麦凯恩在 2018 年去世时,

他的支持者
指出他从未进行过人身攻击。

但他的对手也同意了

,我认为
这才是真正值得注意的。

他挑战人们的政策,
挑战他们的立场,

但他从来没有把它变成个人的。

这就是第二条规则。

所以文明
问题不仅是美国人的问题。

在荷兰,现在有人呼吁
进行文明攻势

,正如一位荷兰哲学家所说,

这个国家已经
陷入了“verhuftering”的魔咒。

现在,这不是我以前知道的一个词
,我做了很多研究。

它松散地意味着欺凌
和良好举止的消失。

它实际上意味着比这更糟糕,
但这就是我在这里要说的。

但是,当您有一个特定的词
来描述这样的问题时,

您就知道您确实遇到了问题。

在英国
,[2016] 英国脱欧公投……

你知道,
这个国家更加分裂了。

一位批评分手的
人称那些赞成分手的人——

我就是喜欢这个词——

“英国受惊的狭隘
蜥蜴大脑”。

英国受惊的狭隘
蜥蜴大脑。

那是个人的。

它让我想念《唐顿庄园》

及其文明的光泽。

但其中存在第三条规则:

不要将礼节误认为礼貌。

即使你有一个
像玛吉·史密斯夫人一样出色的伯爵夫人。

(笑声)

[不要成为失败主义者。
真是中产阶级。]

所以让我以最后一个故事结束。

不久前,我在一家面包店
,他们制作了这些令人惊叹的烤饼。

所以,排长队——
有很多烤饼。

一块一块地,烤饼消失了,

直到
我和最后一个烤饼之间有一个女人。

(笑声)

赞美主,她说:
“我要一个羊角面包。”

(笑声)

所以当轮到我的时候,我说,
“我要那个烤饼。”

我身后的那个人——

我从来没有转身,从来没有见过他——

他喊道:“那是我的烤饼!

我已经排了 20 分钟的队了。”

我就像,“你是谁?

我已经排了 20 分钟的队
,你在我身后。”

所以,我在纽约长大,在

离这里不远的地方上高中。

你知道,我
在这里可能看起来很礼貌等等,

但我可以
在这个房间里,在这些街道上为任何人寻找出租车。

所以
当我对这家伙说……

“你要一半吗?”时,我很惊讶。

“要一半吗?”

我没有多想,就出来了。

然后,他很不解
,我看到他脸色变了

,他对我说:

“那我再买一个糕点
,我们两个一起吃怎么样?”

他做到了,我们做到了。

我们坐下来聊天。

我们没有任何共同点。

(笑声)

我们没有共同点:国籍、
性取向、职业。

但是通过这一刻的善意,
通过这一刻的联系,

我们建立了友谊,
我们一直保持联系。

(笑声)

虽然他很震惊地
得知我在那之后被称为公民。

(笑声)

但我称之为文明的快乐。

文明的喜悦。

这让我想知道,当我们选择不文明时

,我们放弃了哪些好处,
而不仅仅是我们避免的麻烦

好的,我的意思是友谊,
我的意思是联系。

我的意思是分享1000卡路里。

但我也以更大的方式表示它。

你知道,作为社区
、作为一个国家和作为一个世界。

我们错过了什么?

所以,今天,我们正在进行
一场关于思想和身份的伟大内战。

我们对他们没有任何规定。

你知道,战争是有规则的。

想想日内瓦公约。

他们确保每名士兵在战场
内外都受到人道待遇

所以,坦率地说,我认为我们需要
一个文明的日内瓦公约,

为它的参数设定话语规则。

帮助我们成为
社区和国家更好的公民。

如果我对此有什么要说的,

我会将这些规则
建立在原始的文明定义之上,

来自拉丁语和法语。

文明:

公民愿意
为了更大的利益而牺牲自己。

为了城市的利益。

所以我认为,有了这种
理解,礼貌并不是一个肮脏的词。

我希望文明主义者
不会过时,也不会过时。

谢谢你。

(掌声)