Appendix 3: Civility Guidelines for (Online) “Third Places”
Appendix 3
CIVILITY GUIDELINES FOR (ONLINE) “THIRD PLACES”
The qualities and habits of community are shaped by the qualities and habits of communication, and by the overall character of communicators. This is important for understanding the “moral ecology” conditions that create an environment of authentic civility. In other words, to appreciate the nature of civility, one cannot abstract it from factors like the value of community, communication, and character. These are not the only conditions that resource civility. But they are certainly most relevant when seeking to gain a perspective of how civility might work in online discussion contexts. What follows in this appendix is only a sketch; a way of trying to paint with some fairly broad strokes in order to possibly envision further fruitful thought and work in this area. First, let us consider the value of a particular kind of place, and indeed, placement of community that would be a conducive environment for regular, substantive discussion.
“THIRD PLACES” AND COMMUNITY FORMATION
“Third places” refer to those common or routine places for gathering with others that are “between” and can sometimes even mediate socializing between work and home. Perhaps common for members of a local community would be coffee shops, parks, or malls as third places; these are common meeting points for all types of people and not just people with a particular demographic background.
Third places “allow people who live or work in the same neighborhood to get to know one another in a nonthreatening way,” writes pastor Eric Jacobsen in his insightful book The Space Between: A Christian Engagement with the Built Environment. These kinds of places can both (1) reduce estrangement and (2) encourage the development of old and new relationships. Jacobsen goes on to say, “Third places help create connections among residents in an area, they create places where strangers can feel welcome, and they help to socialize us to the rules of our communities.”1
How might the value of third places enable contexts conducive for conversation and discovery of community? Here are some considerations in light of Jacobsen’s observations:
1. A third place is a neutral context. It is not inherently partisan or “directed.” That is, one does not have to be a member of x, y, or z in order to inhabit and cultivate relationships in this kind of place. It does not matter who is the host or the guest. On that count, a third place is not home, but can be like a home-away-from-home by virtue of similarly experienced feelings of comfort and support.
2. A third place acts as a leveler of social distinctions. This is not to deny that such distinctions may have place in the larger society, but for the purpose of experiencing conversation and sharing in the experience of mutuality in the environment of a third place, social distinctions are not significant identity-markers.
3. A third place’s distinctive character is in virtue of “the regulars.” This does not mean that only regulars are welcomed. There should exist a significant degree of openness and invitation to belong for any newcomers, especially for any newcomers to become regulars.
4. A third place exists for a main activity: ongoing lively conversation. This place is not for entertainment purposes (e.g., compared to a sports stadium), nor is it a selling environment (e.g., compared to a retail store) or even a dominant messaging context (e.g., a lecture hall). It is a place where we can be welcomed to be ourselves in conversation with others who are regulars and newcomers.
5. A third place offers accessible and accommodating hours of operation and a winsome mood. The goal is to stay open with relatively long hours for the sake of permitting regulars to join in at any opportune time during their week. A lighthearted mood can be disarming even for seriousness of conversation.
ONLINE DISCUSSION CONTEXTS AS A QUASI “THIRD PLACE”
Consider the words of Sherry Tuckle, psychology professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection….
Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.
We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places—in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation….
FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.”
And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection. These days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect. …
WE expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful fantasies: that we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and that we never have to be alone. Indeed our new devices have turned being alone into a problem that can be solved.2
Social media platforms are arguably the most popular to date modes of online communication, and increasingly so in an always-on, always-connected, 24/7 mobile-device-mediating world. So, I have that in mind mainly when I talk about online communication.
Increasingly, such platforms (e.g., Facebook, Google+) are acting like third places, or at least contexts for informal meet-ups among friends, associates, and colleagues. In this appendix, I try to sketch a perspective for fostering a civic-minded question-answering environment in online third-place contexts.
At the time of this writing (autumn 2012), Christians and non-Christians alike in many cases are still attempting to understand how online communication shapes our interaction and free associations and the possibilities of experiencing community together in a digital environment. The challenges and opportunities afforded by communication technology will likely increase in the years to come. It is important to think innovatively, clearly, and soberly about such challenges and opportunities.3
More than ever, Christians will benefit from theological and ethical understanding wisely applied to this area. While my goal here is not to articulate an explanation or defense of that understanding, I do want to suggest some guidelines for how we might go about thinking of the opportunities and challenges for answering and discussing people’s questions in online environments. In one sense, I am attempting to offer a framework, and in another sense, I am trying to offer some recommended practices. But first, I want to draw attention to a behavioral challenge.
THREE BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS THAT MAY SHAPE ONLINE DISCUSSIONS
Here are some common negative scenarios (behaviors, in many respects) that commonly shape interaction in online environments. Keep these in mind since they tend to dominate much but certainly not all of what is experienced in online discussion contexts.
A. The “got you” scenario, resulting in “protesting.” This is where some individual, group, or organization makes it their intent online to air dirty laundry; to expose in order to distract, alienate, or cause pressure to mount against a person, their associations, or their ideas. It has a decisive campaign feel to it, whether rallying the troops in support of, or in opposition to, x, y, or z. What’s being exposed may be full-blown sin, or heterodox or heretical ideas, but how it is done online, has a particular “got you” texture and tone to it.
B. The “informationally overwhelming” scenario. This is where an approach to a discussion involves “data dumping” arguments on an individual instead of being measured, interactive, and responsive to an inquirer in light of their actual process of understanding. In many ways, this scenario treats others as mere consumers of information. A main practice in this scenario is to basically blast inquirers with information but with no (or very little) guidance, direction, and context.
C. The “reductionistic” scenario. This is where attitudes and practices of naming, framing, and categorizing others and their ideas come into play by the tendency of taking up a reductionistic account of another, especially an opponent with whom there is a disagreement. For example, a constant challenge with hotly debated topics is to view people as, essentially, just the sum of their ideas or beliefs, and that’s all they really are, and to then draw identity-boundaries around that kind of characterization of them. So, for example, it’s one thing to label someone a Calvinist because (a) they self-identify as such or (b) it is practically useful in order to help draw a distinction between their viewpoint in contrast with non-Calvinist viewpoints. But it takes labeling to another level when such descriptors are meant to pigeonhole or strictly define the scope and nature of one’s identity (acting as if they are, as individuals, not any more definable than the sum of their ideas or beliefs).
If civility is to have a chance at becoming even a foothold in online discussions, it seems like one would have to try and maintain a particular vigilance against the above three scenarios. They do not help, but only hinder conditions for civility. How? They fail to treat fellow human beings with respect and dignity.
Moreover, with respect to (A) scenarios, one can bring awareness and understanding of views that are not only disagreeable but are in fact aberrant by not doing so in a “got you” vein. It can be done for whoever is willing, and it can be mostly accomplished effectually through private, behind-the-scenes kinds of conversations with others. Online engagement is an engagement with, and an encounter in, multiple publics. It is made for a kind of spectator viewing and performative participation. We have to decide if what is to be exposed really does merit this medium and its values that shape communication practices, message, behavior, and outcomes.
With respect to (B) scenarios, treating inquirers as if they are mostly or only consumers of information, even with valid and sound information, is not dignifying to an inquirer. For they most likely need more than just information; they need care, guidance, wisdom, and understanding. It’s not either/or. Inquirers deserve more than mere data-dumps as solutions to their questions.
Finally, with respect to (C) scenarios, labeling or describing someone that goes beyond mere contrasting to comprehensive identity-defining can be unfruitful and damaging. Prudence, not trigger-happy impulsiveness, should guide our naming/labeling. Even if someone does merit the title “heretic,” for example, it does not follow that using it in an online discussion is the best use and place for that descriptor. In other words, there are contexts, subsidiary relationships, that may be more conducive to applying that term with an understanding of the significance of that descriptor’s meaning.
TEN FACTORS TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR CIVILITY
How might Christians think about civility in the context of real and felt disagreements with fellow Christians and non-Christians? What should go into that thinking about civility? I suggest the following ten considerations. These factors are not intended to be comprehensive but hopefully representative of how one might develop thinking in this area for a particular implementation of a framework in distinct context.
1. Civility is not about mere niceness of manners alone nor is it a kind of rhetorical decorum to public speech. Civility is “a republican virtue that is a matter of principle and a habit of the heart. It is a style of public discourse shaped by respect for the humanity and dignity of individuals, as well as for truth and the common good.”4 Understanding a “common good” can be discoverable through a common vision involving a shared “agreement about the rights, responsibilities, and respect that form the common bonds” within a society.5 Moral knowledge shapes our understanding of a common vision. Disagreements and differences of worldview and different ways of life are inevitable. The question is, how do we live with these differences? Civility—and its relevant framework—can help toward negotiating our differences and settling peacefully. Civility is as much about our philosophy of society, governance, and laws as it is about the manner in which people deal with their differences in a particular context.
2. Knowledge of reality does not entail cockiness or dogmatism. Rather, knowledge involves a responsibility to share what is known, lived, and communicated in a non-defensive confidence. Discussions and disagreements as a result of just shared opinions or preferences are more prone toward dissension online. Reducing people’s claims to only being “everyone’s opinions” does not foster dialogue or understanding of disagreements. The solution to cockiness or dogmatism is not ignorance. Nor is the solution, necessarily, to be less committed to what one knows and believes to be true. The solution is to foster and have understanding in humility; of knowledge in love. An indispensable goal of discussion, and especially discussion involving disagreements, is to come to an understanding of each other’s perspective or outlook on the world. And if understanding is our goal, we need not fear what other people contribute to our knowledge of what is real.
Of course, to merely claim knowledge of reality is not adequate. Even reality is testable. We can weigh its evidence or reasons or accuracy of how well it represents reality. It is not the same as having mere beliefs, religious or otherwise, that can readily motivate our actions. For we can live consistently with our beliefs even if they are not true beliefs or regardless if they are rooted in good evidence or method, etc. Beliefs, profession, or one’s commitment to some conviction can be helpful for identifying what moves us or how we wish to present ourselves before others. But they alone are not an adequate basis for deep discussion, if in fact the goal is to move dialogue toward an understanding of reality.6
3. Truth-seeking and truth-telling are not optional but essential for having a sustainable discussion, especially a discussion involving disagreements. It is not enough to be committed to seeking truth; we want to be able to seek knowledge of what is true. We want to be able to not only tell the truth, but tell the truth knowingly. This does not mean that only one person or group has a monopoly on knowledge of what is true. Rather, it means that if we know anything about what is true, we have a responsibility to share what we know with others, even if only we “know in part” or know without certainty or even know without full assurance of reasons for how we know and why. Knowledge of the truth is made for sharing.
4. People being made in the image of God demands mutual respect for each other. Human dignity is not a social construction; it is not the result of personal preferences or agreement of wills as in the case of contractual arrangements. Dignity is pre-contractual. Moreover, it is essentially not the result of State pronouncement and enforcement. It is a pre-State fact of human existence. It is what I am owed from another human being and it is what I am obligated to give to another. It is inherent to the moral obligation that I have toward another human being by virtue of us simply being made in God’s image. Dignity and respect is the proper response due. The image of God puts the humane in human. It speaks to the dignity of human embodiment, of having and experiencing each other’s personal presence in the world through our encounter with each other’s embodiment.
This is what we encounter when we are in the company of other human beings: we experience their integrated embodiment of body and soul.7 And, although, human beings are corruptible and finite, and act contrary to the image of God, God’s mission is to redeem and restore that which is fallen.
5. Human finitude and fallenness are sufficient reasons for being open to the fact that one could be mistaken and incomplete in their knowledge and beliefs of reality. Open-mindedness as a virtue is relevant here. But open-mindedness is not the same as being anti-intellectual or unthinking, or wishy-washy, or cowardly in the face of opposition to one’s beliefs or knowledge, or unwilling to compromise, morally or spiritually speaking. Open-mindedness involves “an ability and willingness to transcend a certain default cognitive standpoint in order to take up or take seriously a distinct cognitive standpoint.”8 It is at one level a kind of intellectual motivation; a “transcending” for the sake of understanding standpoint that is distinct from my own default standpoint. How might that look? Maybe in mutual dialogue it looks like “holding” my standpoint more like a hypothesis and another standpoint also as a hypothesis to be tested, and not merely tested for the sake of being assessed but to be understood. But if a discussion context is characterized as inherently combative, intellectually speaking, it is difficult if not impossible for mutual open-mindedness to be experienced.
6. It is beneficial to operate with a thick notion of “free exercise,” and not merely some thin concept of tolerating differing viewpoints. Tolerance has come to mean not much more than a willingness (if that) to put up with someone, if one has to do so. In its extreme, contemporary expression, it is tantamount to anarchy; everyone is permitted to do whatever he or she wants. These thin concepts of tolerance are woefully inadequate to foster a free and just society. They often operate with a thin view of freedom too, where freedom is just the ability to do whatever one wants. Whereas, a thick notion of freedom is that freedom is not itself a virtue but a condition for virtue; it is ordered unto a purpose. A thick view of tolerance is not indifference, “but a generous regard and even provision for those who differ from us on points we deeply care about … it is not a lack of something, but the expression of a positive vision of what is good and right, a vision taken to be solidly grounded in knowledge of how things really are.”9 A strong basis for a “civil public square” (in the context of a civil society) is a robust notion of a “free exercise” of conscience and the responsibility to respect that individual exercise. But just because people are free to believe it does not follow that what they believe is correct or that one is obligated to accept such beliefs as correct. Moreover, “respect for freedom of conscience” means that one has “a responsibility to be right, but with modesty; for we, too, may be wrong. Arrogance is not the claim to be right, but the refusal to admit even the possibility that we might be wrong.”10 Finally, even with respect for freedom of conscience, sometimes we have a duty to disagree with someone (e.g., their claims or actions are unjust or morally reprehensible). But even here, our responsibility is to disagree with them civilly and persuasively, and not as a result of being vindictive.11
7. How one communicates is as important as what one communicates and why. Communication, online or offline, is a stewardship with responsibilities. Having correct beliefs or representing reality correctly is not the only matter worth our attention. We must also attend to how we communicate, including both our speech and action. We must give due attention to how communication forms what we communicate and why. Form can include everything from the texture and tone of our communication to the very medium or modes of communication. Communicating online through some sort of chat environment is different than communicating the same content face-to-face. These different experiences are widely recognized but often do not enter into the intentionality and plan for means of communicating with people. But we must be thoughtful about what we say, how we say it, and where we say it.
8. Devotion and inquiry are not mutually exclusive. It is not an oxymoron to be devoted to deep convictions about how things really are and yet genuinely open to inquiry, criticism, and new or fresh understandings of reality. Another way to say this is that maintaining tradition is not opposed to research and discovery. In fact, inquiring from within the scope of a tradition can be most illuminating. As a Christian, I find the Christian tradition to be positively inspiring, animating, and cause for all sorts of entrepreneurial thinking and inquiring. Being faithfully obedient to Jesus and His mission in this world is not in principle at odds with growing in understanding of reality from non-Christian sources of knowledge. In fact, as historian Mark Noll seems to suggest in his Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Jesus stands as both a motivation and guidance for serious learning; He is the center that permeates all kinds of opportunities to integrate knowledge of reality.12
9. Self-regulation through fostering virtues of humility, courage, patience, and love are empowering for fruitful engagement in meaningful disagreements. Content managers and creators, especially as Christians, should lead in fostering relevant moral virtues and character development education that is integrated with the experience and practices of being a contributor to an online discussion context. This is, in my estimation, one of the most undeveloped contexts for education in moral formation. But consider how opportune such an education could be: training in the craft of web communication and discussion-fostering that is integrated with character formation and training in virtue as a core competency for communicating well.
10. The power and presence of the kingdom of God is bigger than our differences and the mission of God is the best context for understanding progress and success in dialogue. We must learn to be open and willing to give place for God to work by His Spirit to convict, convince, and compel people to be transformed, including us, and not just those with whom we disagree. If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and wisdom, and all truth is God’s truth, this should embolden us to have a significant degree of trust in the Spirit to deliver the goods as He sees fitting. This does not mean that we have no part to play or that we are but mere passive agents in the process. If anything, we are called to be active cooperators with His work.
The above considerations are by no means comprehensive. They are meant to help surface relevant factors for thinking and acting toward a relevant framework for civility. Various communication contexts may wish to emphasize and prioritize these in different ways.
TWENTY GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS TOWARD A MORE CIVIL ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
In light of the above framework and in view of the three scenarios also mentioned above, I suggest the following general principles to be kept in mind when fostering online contexts for dialogue and responding in those environments. I encourage content creators, managers, and commenters to consider these recommendations both as a discipline in self-governance and as a means for fostering positive discussions among disagreeing people online. It is my hope that the points below may be a helpful resource toward a new manifesto of online civility among different groups of people. Specifically, I have in mind Christian content creators, managers, and moderators of blogs, forums, and discussion/sharing-oriented platforms (e.g., Facebook).
On the Medium of Communication
1. Discern the value-laden features of communication technology platforms and devices and how they shape our ability to reflect, respond, and relate to each other. One of the most important lead questions to ask before communicating something online (e.g., whether as a comment, an article, or the beginnings of a discussions thread) is this: What are the opportunities and limitations of communicating what I want to say in this context (e.g., online “group”) with this platform (e.g., Facebook) on this device (e.g., an iPad)? Any of these areas have values associated with them, whether at the level of expectations of use(r), or at the level of how the medium shapes the message to be conveyed, both for the recipient and the author.
2. Where possible, offer occasion to move a discussion from online to offline contexts (e.g., a local “third place”), or if not possible, at least from a text-only communication context (e.g., blogging) to audio-video contexts (e.g., a Skype discussion). All mediums of communication are not equal. We often belong to multiple kinds of public, whether on Facebook or at our routine third place like a local coffee shop. They each present opportunities but also challenges and even limitations to achieving a desirable communication experience. If so, then we must be intentional and honest about what we can or cannot meaningfully achieve as a result of online discussion and community-building. We each need to reckon with what are the limitations and opportunities for online discussions with respect to them being enhancements, initiations, and shapers of our conversations, if not contexts for working out our disagreements. Frequently, the problem is not a lack of options for moving online conversations to offline environment. Rather, the problem is often no desire to self-discipline our desires to want the ease of online contexts over and above offline contexts. It might be our default preference to want to pontificate behind a screen rather than before the face of another. But is that preference conducive to the aims and desired outcomes of a conversation? We need to be intentional about reckoning with that question before we get knee-deep (or to change metaphors, “screen co-dependent”) in our online engagement. In short, we need to discern the instrumental value of online means for communicating, and understand which platforms are more likely to help or weaken interim occasions for communicating between offline and online “meet-ups.” If we cannot ever connect with someone face-to-face, or connect them face-to-face with others we trust, then could it be that such a limitation should shape the scope and intensity of what we communicate online, especially if it is a discussion regarding disagreements?
3. Realize the increasingly slim line between “private” and “public” in an age of social media and the fact that we are known to belong to multiple publics. It is foolish to think that you can easily shoot your mouth off in one context and not be discovered to do so in another context. As much as one may want to compartmentalize their private life from their public, in an always-on and always-connected sort of world this is becoming more and more challenging to accomplish. Our online insighting and behavior catches up with us offline.
On Dealing with Disagreements
4. Abide by the Golden Rule. As simple as it is, “do to others what you would want them to do to you” can be a resourceful and memorable way to be mindful of the humane in human communication. Stewardship of our online behavior is essential and not optional. At the very least, content creators and managers alike should aspire to this value, both as a practice to encourage and reinforce among online discussion contexts.
5. Implement a covenant framework as a structure for dealing with disagreements. It is not enough to cast a substantive vision for civility. We must also try to articulate in specific ways how we might address disagreements. With the anticipation of disagreements and disputes commencing in an online context, content managers would be smart to strategically develop a basic framework for addressing disagreements so that there is meaningful discussion for the sake of understanding. That framework could have a covenant or contract-like stature to it, perhaps with different contributor incentives and disincentives built in.
6. Recognize that disagreements are inevitable and uniformity of thought is not the ultimate goal in a discussion mode. “Resolving conflict” in a discussion does not necessarily mean achieving uniformity of thought. Perhaps a way to detect the purpose of conflict resolution here is to discern whether resolution is mainly for the sake of fostering homogenized thought and conformity or is for the purpose of fostering belonging with authentic differentiation of viewpoints.
7. Avoid entering or stirring up controversies for the sake of entertainment or “newsy” value. Everyone tends to like (if only secretly) some degree of fireworks when controversy looms over a discussion. The controversy doesn’t even have to be of a scandalous sort. The controversy could be personality and cause driven (e.g., “Theologian’s book boycotted for heretical views about God”). The goal is not so much to avoid or deny controversial issues. Rather, the point is this: it’s one thing to soberly and carefully understand how a view is “heretical” on its own merit. It’s another matter to understand and generate news (read: social pressures) about a view because of the “controversial” nature of the view. Moreover, it’s one thing to assess the weaknesses of a view on its own merit. It’s another matter to assess it in a group mob-like mentality. The “controversial” is often what can energize online discussion of a topic or perspective. People can actually become addicted to the energy of the newsy quality that controversy exudes. It’s like being on a drama(tic) high! All that to say, the phenomenology of controversy as experienced in online discussion contexts will shape in a significant way how a controversy is understood, let alone judged. As content creators and managers, we must be mindful of this reality and help others understand its significance.
8. Be discerning of the difference between these two goals relative to a heated discussion: reconciliation to God versus resolving a conflict. If we as Christians are only stuck in “discussion mode,” to borrow from philosopher Paul Moser, we might be more likely to think that we ultimately bear the burden of “resolving” discussions/conflict, or as a result of our discussion efforts, will make/break whether people come to God. This is not to say that Christian witness and presence are inconsequential. Rather, it is an attempt to understand what might be the ultimate goal when discerning the work of Christians in discussion with non-Christians. It’s conceivable, and sometimes it is actually the case, that Christians can become so preoccupied with “having the answers” that we can begin to act as if the eternal destiny, or at least the destiny of one’s worldview, is somehow in our control to determine by virtue of our ability to answer correctly, comprehensively, certainly, and completely. But is that a worthwhile goal, let alone a realistic goal?
9. We are first and foremost gospel-shaped people—then we are x. Disagreements and disputes, whether among Christians themselves or among Christians and non-Christians, can be identity-forming in at least one crucial way: we can tend to label and reduce people to their ideas and associations. For example, let’s say that there is a disagreement among two groups of people that could be self-described as theologically “conservative” and “liberal.” But let’s say that both groups of people are earnest to follow Jesus and desire to do so. If so, shouldn’t that shape how one frames and understands contributors of these groups? For example, even if someone self-identifies as a “conservative” it does not follow that all that they believe nicely fits into the category of what might be described as a conservative orientation to x, y, or z. That is, they could be “conservative” on most theological issues, except one or two matters (e.g., they have a stronger affinity to theistic evolution than creationism). Given such complexities, it may or may not be useful to hold them to the label “conservative.”
But here’s an even more important point to consider: are they seeking to have their life be gospel-shaped? If so, shouldn’t that value as a label (insofar as labels can be valuable) take precedence or have some sort of priority in identifying them above and beyond a more tertiary descriptor like “conservative”? Why does any of this matter? Because of how we name things, including why we name what we name, has consequence for shaping how we see ourselves in relationship to others. Moreover, such naming shapes how we envision our service to the “other” in our midst who is also under the care of God. Simply put, it may be prudent to let people in discussion, and especially disagreements in discussion, disclose how they would self-identify themselves and their overall perspective. If so, then maybe a goal in this context is to help them realize where their core identity resides relative to a more tertiary self-identification marker.
10. Foster environments with thick notions of freedom and responsibility. Generally speaking, free expression of speech can be experienced online in most Western contexts. But expression, if not expressionism, can remain uncultivated and undisciplined. “Users” often want to feel like they can freely express themselves, regardless if what is expressed is achieved irresponsibly. This is a persistent challenge for discussion online. But for discussion to be a conduit for understanding, the freedom to do it must be bound by a moral responsibility that does not see a disconnect between speech and virtue.
11. Recognize that the strength of civility will be in proportion to the richness of our associational life. A rich associational life is not merely equivalent to being a socialite, a social bug, or a social media maven! It is deeply related to how we are present to our neighbors with skillful and attentive care. Moreover, a rich associational life can include an ability to relate to a variety of people in their circumstances and background that are different than ours or of our family. But this is about more than just being an adept communicator. It is as much about the manner in which we are in the world, communally, as a way of life through relevant, life-affirming mediating institutions (e.g., a church) and the manner in which we gather with others in our third places. I mention all this to make this simple observation: how we respond and react in dialogue or dispute with others is often a microcosm of a broader ecology of associations. A challenge with online communication is the temptation to think that we can virtually abstract our “exchange of information” with others from our habits and qualities of our associational life.
12. Understand how practicing civility is an exercise in self-discipline and care for another. Dialogue, even with a civil tone, is as much about practicing the skill of being a good conversationalist as it is learning to practice self-restraint at a variety of levels: curbing our inclination for self-interested question-asking and answering (e.g., somehow making the conversation about ourselves or our own significance); self-controlling the impulsiveness to react to something that you find disagreeable. Civility is about not only freely giving a positive good but refraining from unleashing negativity (e.g., a critical spirit, which is different than exercising moral discernment).
13. For the sake of mutual understanding, endeavor to clarify and articulate one’s presuppositions, their relevancy, and why they are found to be compelling or convincing. Most conversations about questions that matter most, if they are to proceed beyond shallow or surfacy dialogue, need to enter into the context of people’s presuppositions; of those areas taken as “first principles,” “givens,” “starting point,” or assumptions taken to be true. These are often what reside behind a discussion, especially a discussion related to a dispute. But when presuppositions are not clarified and articulated in this context, there is more likelihood for a discussion to miss the point and for dialogue partners to talk past each other even if they are sincerely intended in their communication. Moreover, it is often the case that the mutual sharing of presuppositions is benefited by contexts where real belonging can be experienced and cultivated. This takes time and patience.
14. Network with others versus having to be the person who answers all questions. When contributing answers to an online forum or a small group, it might be easy to take on the reputation of being the go-to person who can answer all the questions. But even if one can answer all of them, is it fruitful to do so? In one sense, it can be helpful to an inquirer to know that someone they know can reliably offer answers on a regular basis, or at least stand as a routine conversation partner. On the other hand, even for contributors who are able to answer all questions, it might also be in the interest of an inquirer to benefit hearing answers to their questions from others even if they have a similar point of view. Contributors can do well to try and connect inquirers to other contributors within a group or community. This approach has the added benefit of enabling the contributor to perhaps have a more realistic view of their work in community with other contributors who can support the learning of inquirers.
15. Avoid trigger-happy “naming” and “framing.” When controversies and provocations erupt online, it is very challenging to avoid reacting with impulsive naming (e.g., “Liberals are socialist wolves in sheep’s clothing”) or framing (“Arminianism is a failure because it does not take seriously divine sovereignty in the way that Calvinism does”). Such acts are, at the very least, conversation-inhibitors, if not conversation-stoppers. They are cheap shots that do not enable the spokesperson to gain credibility among objectors. Sometimes it is the case that impulsive naming and framing acts as a particular blind spot of character or of mental outlook. If that is the case, helping someone become aware of this must be done with intentionality, patience, and gentleness.
16. Have zero tolerance for informal fallacies and jargon. Is there anything more that really does need to be said? Online contexts for discussion can be poised to educate others in this area if content creators and managers were to take seriously their stewardship of content as a public good. Can you imagine how much understanding might be made accessible if our discourse were not cluttered by informal fallacies and jargon?
17. Offering a perspective, not mere opinion, is more conducive to dialogue. For the purpose of dialogue, opinions, especially “educated” ones, are more useful than mere guesses or implausible speculations. Nonetheless, opinions, even shared opinions, are not all that worthwhile as a basis for dialogue, especially if a discussion amounts to not much more than a dispute about opinions. One can start off with their opinions, but discussion will not likely be sustained for the sake of growth in understanding if all that contributors articulate are their respective opinions. To elevate the discussion, encouragement should be made for communicating a point of view. That is material from which much work can be accomplished. A point of view, observes essayist Joseph Epstein, “is a reasonably settled sense of what is and isn’t significant in life.”13
18. Listen first, then foster dialogue by practicing “perspective-taking.” The experience of interacting online is, generally speaking, not all that conducive to forming listening habits. The orientation of “everyone is a first-responder” (which pretty much sums up most of the habits of discussion mode online) whenever something appears to be “breaking” in the news, trending in society, or initiated as a hot button topic, is fuel for all sorts of impulsive thinking and reacting. But how might our discussions be better served by learning to value the practice of perspective-taking? “Central to perspective taking,” write communication experts Tim Muehlhoff and Todd Lewis, “is an attempt to distance ourselves from our views long enough to explore and understand the views of another.”14 Can you see how authentic open-mindedness is a virtue, and empowering to perspective-taking?
19. The value and significance of prudential judgments in “public.” In heated online discussions and disputes, prudence and a measured tone are often the first casualties. Perhaps what replaces them can include a personalization of claims or objections and brash either/or thinking. But prudence honors realism about the world, accurate perception, and honest representation. Prudence discerns whatever good can be accomplished. Prudential judgments involve a willingness to discern that good, to decide to take right action and implement such decisions effectively.15 Can you imagine how much more valuable and effectual discussions about disagreements would be if they were salted with prudence? Imprudence is the cause of all sorts of noise in our very tone-deaf world.
20. Discern the power of peer feedback prior to posting content online. How might a peer-review process shape the content and tone of discussions of disagreement in an online context? There are various ways that this could be administered. For content managers of a forum or a blog, why not have reviewers available to assess solicited or unsolicited contributions? This is not rocket science, but it is a value that can and needs to be nurtured. If done effectually, some sort of filter like this can go a long ways toward minimizing “group think” and egregious mistakes of content and presentation in an online environment.
GENERAL TIPS FOR FOSTERING ONLINE “THIRD PLACES” FOR CIVIL DISCUSSION
Depending on our vocation, most of us spend major chunks of our week either at some place of employment or at home or both. But we also meet with others in third places. Sometimes, though, these contexts are an online environment, such as a Facebook group, a group blog, a forum, a chat room, etc. These different contexts have different factors associated with them that may or may not be conducive to what you want to accomplish. Here are some features to foster for an online third place:
1. It is moderated and monitored. The goal is not to micromanage discussion or even to direct it in some way as much as to encourage engagement, to act as a referee amidst warring parties where necessary, and to reinforce any framework for civility.
2. It can be either open or closed in its group membership but developed with earnest intent to not allow mere “trolls” to enter and disrupt.
3. It is intent on engaging all who are willing to engage (the smaller the group, the more likely for this to be feasible), and not content to settle with either having dominant voices alone or dominant onlookers.
4. It fosters an environment of belonging in mutual trust.
5. It encourages transparency of identity.
(a) It refuses to see freedom as a virtue, but a condition for virtue, indeed, virtuous conversations.
(b) It is maintained by an effectual insight and posting policy/contract among contributors and readers alike (see below for an example).
There is very little hope for sustainable “civic” discussions in online contexts if contributors do not have the character to morally discern the opportunities, challenges, and limitations of these contexts and their relevancy for our common public life. The above recommendations and overall framework are an attempt to help shape how online environments might become more conducive and effectual for dialogue, inquiry, and discussion of disagreements that would be befitting to human dignity. Our common public life together, whether online or offline, and the manifold instances of dialogue within that shared life, require a particular moral ecology. That is what I have tried to give attention to and hopefully sketch in this appendix.
EXAMPLE OF A COMMENTING POLICY
(with fun, from JPMoreland.com)
We encourage your routine, thoughtful, and constructive comments about all of the content at J. P. Moreland’s website.
Posting a comment is not a right but a privilege. If you think it is a right, then you have a sordid view of freedom and entitlement (read relevant parts in Kingdom Triangle to understand the distinction between classical and contemporary views of freedom).
J. P. Moreland or Eidos Christian Center are free to reply to comments through whatever communication means they wish and they are free to ignore comments as they see fit. Posting an insight does not guarantee a response from them. Absence of comments does not mean that they have not read a comment or have not adequately considered its meaning and significance. But due to Dr. Moreland’s schedule and family commitments (he has four grandchildren now!), he has adopted a general policy not to comment on things online unless there are significant overriding reasons to do so.
In order to help facilitate civility, the following policy and perspective will be enforced.
1. All comments must be encouraging and for the purpose of edification, even if they are “critical” comments meant to question or challenge what someone thinks or believes (read The Lost Virtue of Happiness for the importance of having a healthy background tone to our lives).
2. A comment will not be posted, and either deleted or asked for a revision, if it is
• Loquacious
• Off-topic from a post/page’s focus.
• Contains profanity, vulgarity, or harsh or demeaning speech.
• Attacking someone’s character instead of dealing with the merit of a claim.
• Exercising guilt-by-association reasoning or exhibiting conspiratorial thinking to any degree (brush-up on your reasoning by reading the chapter on Logic in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview).
• A comment that is better handled by private communication due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
3. Usage policy: By commenting at the website, you are giving J. P. Moreland and the Eidos Christian Center global permission to present, utilize, and duplicate your remarks, however they wish to do so without end (on the basis of an A-theory of time and the endurance of personal identity through time).
1. Eric Jacobsen, The Space Between: A Christian Engagement with the Built Environment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 245–46. For a snapshot of some of Jacobsen’s main themes, see my interview with him for Christianity Today’s “City Project”: http://bit.ly/CTJacobsen. Moreover, Jacobsen is drawing upon the conceptualization of Ray Oldenburg, The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day, 2nd ed. (New York: Paragon House, 1997), 20–42. In my estimation, third places can be more fully appreciated by understanding their broader historical and societal antecedents and values, by considering the purpose of free associations, subsidiary relationships, and institutions, and the purpose of fraternal societies. For more on this, see David T. Beito’s From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2000), chapters 1–2, and then, with delight, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, historical-critical edition of De la democratie en Amerique, Eduardo Nolla, ed., James T. Schleifer, trans., vol. 3 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2010), chapters 4–5, 7.
2. Sherry Tuckle, “The Flight from Conversation,” New York Times, April 21, 2012, http://bit.ly/NYTuckle.
3. One of the best books in recent years on this topic is John Dyer’s resourceful and accessible From the Garden to the City: The Redeeming and Corrupting Power of Technology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2011).
4. Os Guinness, The Case for Civility (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008), 151.
5. Ibid., 141.
6. For more on any of this, please see Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today, especially chapters 1–2.
7. “This connection of body and person, so taken for granted in our experience, is crucial for our coming to know other persons and respecting their dignity. The body is the place of their personal presence. We know them only there, as they likewise know us only as embodied persons.” Gilbert Meilander, Neither Beast Nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person (New York: Encounter Books, 2009), 27.
8. For more on this important conceptualization, see Jason Baehr, “Open-Mindedness,” in Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 36. Baehr’s entire chapter is illuminating and merits serious consideration.
9. Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 29.
10. Guinness, The Case for Civility, 156.
11. For a model attentive to civility in a pluralistic society, please see the “Williamsburg Charter: A Celebration and Reaffirmation of the First Amendment” (from The Case for Civility, 177–98).
12. Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).
13. Joseph Epstein, “A Man without Opinions,” The Weekly Standard, July 14, 2003, 4.
14. Tim Muehlhoff and Todd V. Lewis, Authentic Communication: Christian Speech Engaging Culture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2010), 59.
15. Clarke D. Forsythe, Politics for the Greatest Good (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009), chapter 1.