‘Choose Civility’? Choose Citizenship.

I recently encountered a bumper sticker that read ‘Choose Civility’. Turns out, its the tagline for a local library initiative in Howard County, MD that culminated in an October 8th symposium keynoted by one Jack Marshall, the president and founder of ProEthics Ltd, a professional ethics consulting firm. Alum of Harvard and Georgetown, Marshall has also co-authored a book on Clarence Darrow, the civil libertarian of Leopold & Loeb and Scopes Trial fame.

Reviewing Marshall’s exhaustively detailed symposium handout, he suggests that the basic ethical values upon which civility and professionalism rely are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. With the exception of citizenship, Marshall delineates the many aspects of each of his ethical pillars. For example, caring includes charity, benevolence, consideration, empathy and generosity.

It is compelling in a presentation so carefully detailed – whose subject matter is, in fact, civility – that citizenship should appear acceptably uncertain. Civility is civilized conduct. Citizenship is a most basic element of civilization. It defines how an individual is a member of society, thereby determining what counts as civilized conduct.

Indeed, understanding civility by way of citizenship invites some measure of moral relativism. One civilization’s rules of membership may be anathema to another’s (think the cannibalism of the Aztecs or any tenet of National Socialism). In an attempt to avoid this problem, we might claim that Marshall’s five other more ample ethical flash points mean more to civility than citizenship. But, it stands to reason that the way a society understands such terms as trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, and caring inevitably depends on that society’s understanding of citizenship.

After a summer of tea parties and a fall of political fatigue, healthcare-related bartering seems to be coming to a close. As was immanent from the start, the bill will be some hodgepodge of compromises that won’t affect the day-to-day lives of citizens for many years to come. To reflect on the debate in detail would be a tedious task without the promise of enlightenment. Contemplated in the abstract, the late morass of healthcare reform does reveal how Americans are essentially at odds over issues of civility and citizenship.

For those opposed to a public option, fairness, responsibility, etc means making sure the government gets out of the way of capital so that individuals may benefit – however unevenly – from competition. For those in favor of a public option, fairness, responsibility, etc means making sure the government follows through on its promise to treat all citizens equitably, respecting the inalienable rights of all. These two opposing views can be boiled down to opposing notions of citizenship. The former implicitly regards the relationship between individuals and society to be a calibrated and flexible exchange between sacrificed freedom and anticipated benefits. The latter regards the relationship between individuals and society as more than ad hoc, based on a philosophical understanding of the fundamental and equal rights of human beings.

The healthcare debate is essentially a clash between those Americans who – consciously or not – advocate for a quid pro quo view of citizenship and those Americans who see citizenship as a part of a social contract. As our founding fathers envisioned and our founding documents enshrine, American citizenship is based on non-negotiable rights and individual equality. Choosing civility in America means standing up for the American brand of social contract citizenship.

Advertisement