Civil speech can refer to a civilized discussion or a discourse on civil matters. Civil discourse involves abiding by rules of etiquette, while discourse ethics allows for free expression. Properly conducted discussions set a good example for the audience and challenge the notion that public discourse should be vitriolic. However, there are limits to what civilization can achieve in discussion, and civil discourse may not elicit strong emotions. John Locke differentiated between civil and philosophical discourse, with civil matters affecting everyday life.
There are two meanings of civil speech. The former is a discussion conducted in a civilized manner, and the latter is a discourse on civil matters. A final civil talk could be a civilized discussion of everyday practical matters. Every talk is a search for truth conducted with good critical thinking and communication skills. It is similar to dialectics, but it is different from rhetoric and debates, which are acts of persuasion.
Civil discourse, as outlined by Kenneth J. Gergen, is similar to discourse ethics. However, it’s more simplistic. Those taking part in Gergen’s speech are expected to abide by his rules of etiquette. These rules include being objective, peaceful, non-judgmental, and willing to compromise.
A natural byproduct of that label is self-censorship, where participants try to filter out what they deem inappropriate. This marks a fundamental difference between discourse ethics and Gergen’s ideas. In discourse ethics, a participant feels free to express any opinion he wishes with the understanding that the other participants will allow it. In Gergen’s version, statements that might offend others are cut off before being broadcast.
The social value of civilization is high as far as the public domain is concerned. Properly conducted discussions set a good example for the audience. There is also an argument that squabbling politicians or pundits encourage others to do similarly. Civilization also allows people who don’t like combative discussions to take part without fear of being insulted. It challenges the notion that all public discourse should be vitriolic and biased.
There is some doubt about the possibility of a truly civil discourse; while a noble aim, there are limits to what civilization can achieve in the discussion. First, the discussion may not end with a clear result and may, therefore, confuse the audience. It is disadvantageous for participants in political debates, because it lacks key supporters and does not elicit the strong emotions that draw voters to the polls.
John Locke expounded the difference between civil discourse and philosophical discourse in the 1690s. He believed that civil discourse was about matters of the real, and therefore practical, world. Philosophical discourse, on the other hand, dealt with more intellectual issues such as concepts, ideas, and ethics. Civil matters affecting Lock’s real-world speech included commerce, public affairs, and living conditions—virtually any normal conversation. His focus on the real world that affects all humans also made him a forerunner of Karl Marx; Marxist dialectic is a means of finding truth through the exploration of economic forces.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
