One evening, I found myself staring at a letter from a lawyer, informing me that my neighbors, along with anyone they hired, would be on my property the next day to trim branches from a tree near the property line. The letter concluded with a stern instruction to secure my so-called vicious dog for the safety of the workers.
This letter marked the culmination of months of simmering tension. My family’s boisterous rescue dog, though full-grown, often behaved like an excitable puppy. She required basic training and socialization, frequently slipping through gates to explore and pulling at her leash to greet other dogs. Her antics led to an incident in my neighbor’s backyard one evening, where she disrupted their grill night, barking excitedly around their patio table.
The initial incident and its aftermath
As a moral psychologist specializing in civility and conflict resolution, I was initially unconcerned. I prided myself on my ability to engage with others respectfully, even in the face of disagreement. However, my attempts to mend the situation—such as baking cinnamon rolls as a peace offering—were met with cold responses and eventually a note asking me not to bring over any more baked items.
The situation took a turn for the worse when I received a letter from a lawyer, instructing me to restrain my dog. This was a stark reminder that civility requires the willingness of both parties to engage. My neighbor’s refusal to communicate directly, instead routing all interaction through a third party, highlighted a critical aspect of civility that I had overlooked: the necessity of mutual engagement.
The realization about civility’s prerequisites
This experience led me to a profound realization: civility isn’t just about the techniques and strategies for respectful dialogue. It also requires a certain motivation—a willingness to engage with others, even in the face of disagreement. This motivation stems from two key factors: respect for others and comfort with disagreement.
Research shows that Americans are becoming increasingly disengaged with their fellow citizens, with declining participation in community activities and a growing tendency to view others as immoral. This lack of engagement creates a downward spiral, reducing meaningful interactions and making it more difficult to practice civility.
Rethinking conflict as a competition
To foster a willingness to engage, I began to reframe disagreements as a form of competition, akin to a game of tennis. In this metaphor, rivals respect each other’s roles and participate fully, giving their best and allowing the other to respond. This approach can help lower the stakes of disagreement, making it feel more like a shared activity than a threatening experience.
By structuring conversations in this way, we can encourage people to see those they disagree with as fellow participants in a process of presentation, analysis, critique, and revision. This dynamic can help build respect and understanding, even if positions aren’t changed or views aren’t clarified.
Unfortunately, contemporary society allows people to filter and personalize their experiences, often avoiding serious and meaningful disagreements. This avoidance can lead to a lack of familiarity and comfort with disagreement, making it more difficult to engage civily.
My personal journey with civility has taught me the importance of developing the willingness to engage. This willingness can be nurtured through guidance, reinforcement, and practice. Like any virtue, civility grows stronger through repeated performance and dwindles through disuse. The first and most important step is the willingness to engage, even when it’s uncomfortable.
