Replacing Civil Discord with Civil Discourse: A Reflection on American Civil Society from Gen Z

Do we value dissenting opinions anymore? This is an important question, for a culture that has stooped to name calling and public shaming over differences in opinion is not a healthy one. Unfortunately this has become commonplace in American culture today. It should not be the case that progressives on the left would denounce and cancel me for disagreeing with them about the concept of gender fluidity or the morality of gay marriage. Nor should it be the case that ultra conservatives would call me a traitor to democracy for suggesting that what happened on January 6th and in subsequent protests regarding election fraud was dangerous and in some instances criminal.?

Militant language promoted by a few leads the masses astray. This language is the primary tool utilized by all political factions today. It is the rhetoric of the ultra conservative NRA lobbyists who insist that any suggestion of gun rights law amendment is an attack on the constitution and the good citizens of our country. It is the rhetoric of the far left “woke” crowd which conjures up language to describe the actions of conservatives, consider the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, for instance. Yet, despite what each group would have you believe, I don’t think that either of those extreme stances defines the majority of those affiliated with a given party. Why then does this majority remain quiet? Today we find ourselves in an America where rational thought is trumped by emotional outcry. Civil discourse is like the early morning mist that vanishes in the heat of opposing opinions, and the reasonable middle majority is silenced by the civil discord of vocal extremists.?

Three recent instances may help to illustrate these points. The multigenerational Star Wars fan club has been excited by the latest galactic show, Obi-Wan Kenobi. However, a recent outcry arose as racist comments were dm’d to a black member of the cast, Moses Ingram. These few extremists cries were loud and unfortunate, leaving wounds that were terrible and needless. Meanwhile others jumped to the extremist’s defense attempting to justify the claims because of her “poor acting.” Then the leftist extremists clapped back. Those who spoke negatively of her performance in the show were denounced as racists. Anyone who suggested that her acting was subpar was slashed down by angry voices. Shouting. Discord. No discourse. I remained silent; what value could my voice add to such a vocal Coliseum? A few days ago was a celebration of the pride community for the Tampa Bay Rays team, and a few players chose to abstain for their religious beliefs. When questioned they tried to explain themselves based on their convictions, but they were quickly silenced and denounced as bigots, narrow minded, and hateful. More shouting. More discord. No discourse. I remained silent; what value could my voice add to such a verbal cage match? Not long ago I was messaging with a friend about news sources. When they asked of my thoughts on a source they are fond of, I decided to share my honest perspective that this particular source is quite biased. I did not receive a response. Yes, there was no shouting. But also, no discourse. I spoke up and only received silence.?

What is the danger in these commonplace virtual interactions that have become the norm for “civil engagement” in our societies today? In the process of expanding our social networks we now tend to recede into echo chambers where dissenting views are only shared for the purpose of mockery and public shaming, kindling outrage amongst our many like-minded “friends.” In an effort to keep freedom of speech for all at a premium, we have allowed the voices of a few to silence and oppress the voices of many. The very factions James Madison warned against in Federalist Paper 10 are so strong that frequently we look like the Fractured States of America. The vibrant civil society, that De Tocqueville praised, which once kept these factions interconnected has seemingly all but disappeared in the last 50 years. Robert Putnam said we were bowling alone at the turn of the 20th century; today no one is bowling at all. Instead, we line up at virtual queues eager to promulgate the most recent clickbait article that we likely didn’t even read.?

Despite this grim assessment, I do not despair. Not all hope is lost. As Jonathan Haidt pointed out in a recent piece for the Atlantic, “Most Americans in the More in Common report are members of the “exhausted majority,” which is tired of the fighting and is willing to listen to the other side and compromise.” If this is true, and I suspect it is, then there may be more people willing to have real discussions with one another than we realize. I suggest we try disconnecting from the devices that lead to the distant civil discord that polarizes us, and reengaging in authentic civil discourse across the kitchen table, at summer cookouts, and around community activities. Let us not fear the disagreement that will inevitably arise from difficult discussions, rather let us engage in it, being willing to consider a viewpoint other than our own. In so doing we may find the ideas to which we are so beholden are not the only ones that are valuable and insightful. Let us remember that we should be willing to tolerate differences of opinion amongst fellow citizens. Toleration need not mean acceptance and support, but rather understanding in spite of differences.?

This summer I am working on a development project in Costa Rica. I have been processing the grim reality of the shootings happening in the US from afar. One night over dinner a Costa Rican friend asked myself and another American friend about our thoughts on gun rights and laws in the US. So there we sat, a Costa Rican, a midwesterner from the buckeye state, and myself, a southerner from the peach state, discussing gun rights. We all shared our opinions. Some things we agreed on and some we did not. The conversation was civil and friendly. At the end of the conversation our minds had been stretched and challenged by each other’s views. The next night, we ate dinner together again. It's steps like these that can help to rediscover the value of unity, thoughtful opinions, and democracy. It’s steps like these that will lead us from a society on the precipice of civil discord to a society characterized by civil discourse.