Who gets to be uncivil?

The concept of ‘civility’ has historically been approached with scepticism from members of oppressed groups (Zerilli 2014; Zurn 2013). The concern from such quarters is primarily related to how ‘civility’ codes have been used to enact and perpetuate oppressive hierarchies of status (Boyd 2006; Buss 1999). Dissent against such arrangements has, in turn, typically involved the direct subversion of such civility norms, both as a method of drawing attention to unjust arrangements and as a method of shifting norms in a more egalitarian direction (Delmas 2018). Such deliberate ‘incivilities’ tend to fall under one of two categories: First, as ‘impolite’ betrayals of local norms of etiquette (e.g., via use of loud, obscene, disruptive forms of protest) (Edyvane 2020); and second, as expressions of disrespect towards those in the dominant group (e.g., using mockery, ridicule, slurs, etc.). Those who defend such actions argue that they are necessary measures in challenging injustice, especially for those with limited means of enacting social change. This paper adopts a critical perspective on the above framing. I first offer a challenge to the view that norms are enacted in a ‘top-down’ manner by those with greater social power, and instead stress the dynamic and contextually contingent nature of civil norm enactment. Following from this, and building on recent work on the role of affect in sustaining group ties, I argue for a renewed account of the responsibilities of ‘civil’ forms of dissent, one which calls not for politeness or decorum but for the maintenance of practices that emphasise common civic identity. On this view, ‘incivilities’ of concern will be those that tend to create and sustain group identities that are incompatible with the notion of a shared civic project.