Much of the scholarly literature in political theory and philosophy views civility as a virtue linked to etiquette and good manners. Derek Edyvane, for example, argues that ‘civility is bound up with the idea of what it means to be civilised, to be well-mannered or polite; its focus is on standards of behaviour in our dealings with others in everyday life’.
8 Likewise, Cheshire Calhoun refers to ‘polite civility’, which ‘has been understood as the mark of the competent participant in the social settings of everyday life’.
9 According to her, ‘polite civility enables the social participant to avoid barbaric and potentially disgusting bodily displays’.
10 In line with these accounts, we view politeness as a feature of speech or action that complies with certain social norms prescribing appropriate modes of exchange and interaction.
A key feature of civility as politeness is that it is intrinsically dependent on ‘generally agreed upon, often codified, social rules’.
11 Importantly, such rules are always contextual, since they are based on norms and customs that vary between (and within) different societies. Furthermore, these norms constantly evolve.
12 Partly for these reasons, Strachan and Wolf observe that ‘measuring the level of civility present in society…is especially difficult because the specific behaviours defined as appropriate in one culture, or even in different settings within the same culture, can be inappropriate in others’.
13 Likewise, in his analysis of what he calls ‘republican civility’, Daly observes that ‘the bodily and linguistic techniques that constitute civility [as politeness] are highly encoded partly because they embrace a situational or cultural specificity which will appear arbitrary and perhaps incomprehensible to those not already endowed with it’.
14 In summary, civility as politeness is grounded in cultural and social norms that vary between contexts and may evolve over time, sometimes rather quickly.
The politeness dimension of civility involves both structural and agential elements. We will examine them in turn in the following subsections.
Structural Elements of Politeness
The social norms of politeness constitute its structural elements. These norms are generally based on social or cultural identities, as well as on social actors’ role(s) and context, and may reflect different degrees of formality depending on the situation.
Social identity is a clear source of politeness norms. As individuals, we all occupy multiple and simultaneous identities. These include identities based on gender, race/ethnicity, class, religion, culture, and language, among others. These different identities can be sources of various politeness norms. For example, a person’s religious faith may contain norms of politeness concerning how one should relate to or greet other individuals (both co-religionists and not) or how one should dress when entering a place of worship.
15 Some of these norms may interact with gender dimensions of identity, establishing more specific guidelines on how one should relate to people of the opposite sex or how men and women should dress in public.
16 And gender itself can be tied to politeness norms independently of religion.
17 Language may also be a source of politeness norms, by providing its speakers with socially legible ways (e.g. through its lexicon, grammar, idiomatic expressions, or even the tone and pitch in the way we speak) of expressing politeness.
18
Norms of politeness also arise from the many social roles that we occupy, regardless of whether they are connected to specific social identities. For example, particular norms often guide our interactions with family and friends. Those norms may differ from those of other families or other groups of friends, for example with regard to eating times and etiquette, or the way we make interpersonal requests.
19 Similarly, norms of politeness also exist in the workplace. Co-workers greet each other on a daily basis following specific norms, and may adhere to politeness norms that regulate the use of a shared kitchen or a shared printer. Norms of politeness can regulate interactions between employers and employees, in ways that may reflect the hierarchical relationship between them.
20 Furthermore, politeness norms may influence forms of participation in political and social movements
21 and can structure the relationship between leaders and followers.
22 For example, followers may be expected to bow or not turn their back to leaders in public/official settings and those same leaders must abide by norms of politeness to maintain status and respect. This may involve restraint in speech or behaviour, acknowledging and greeting their followers, and more generally maintaining the so-called ‘dignity of the office’.
23
In addition to social identity and roles, the context of politeness matters too. In the above situations, different factors affect how much, when, and where different social norms apply. Context involves, first of all, power and authority relations. These clearly affect the intensity with which different social norms apply in asymmetrical contexts, such as the aforementioned workplace context and leader/follower relationships.
24 The latter may affect the predominant direction and quality of politeness norms, regulating the behaviour of those in subordinate positions more (or, at least, in different ways) than in the case of those who occupy dominant positions.
25 In summary, power and authority affect the form of, and compliance with, social norms.
Politeness is also linked to environmental considerations. For example, since politeness is often understood as regulating social distance (as well as psychological distance), spatial considerations are relevant,
26 especially in public spaces and urban environments.
27 In this sense, different norms of politeness may often apply in physical as opposed to digital spaces. Moreover, even though norms of politeness often mandate maintaining a certain distance from other people in public spaces (unless other constraining factors—e.g. a crowded bus—prevent one from complying with them), maintaining too much distance from others may sometimes also be perceived as impolite, as when someone decides to sit in the last row of an empty seminar room during a talk.
Furthermore, one might speculate that certain features of our environments can constitute an affront to senses (e.g. loud noises, unwelcome sights, or bad smells), something that Joel Feinberg famously labels ‘offensive nuisances’.
28 This seems to suggest that politeness norms may also be tied to the design and form of that environment, and that certain buildings, materials, and colours (and not only the people who act within them) could sometimes be perceived as offensive or impolite. And, indeed, Welsh architect Trystan Edwards once famously claimed that we could distinguish between ‘rude’ and ‘polite’ buildings.
29 Take, for example, the so-called ‘Walkie Talkie Building’ in London, which has been criticized for reflecting intense sunlight off its glass windows.
30 Likewise, the use of certain colours in the visual environment might be perceived as more or less impolite in different contexts depending on the relevant social and cultural norms.
31
Digital spaces may also involve different degrees of spatial proximity. For example, recent research has shown that the kind of online forum through which people interact creates higher or lower levels of virtual spatial proximity among users, resulting in different levels of politeness and impoliteness. More specifically, forums to which users contribute anonymously and on a one-off basis create a greater virtual spatial distance between them, resulting in higher levels of impoliteness. Conversely, forums in which users engage in more individual one-to-one iterated interactions tend to result in higher levels of politeness.
32
Norms of politeness also vary in their degree of formality and informality. Most politeness norms tend to be informal, and violations are only accompanied by social sanctions. Think, for example, of norms concerning the practice of gift giving at Christmas.
33 In other cases, politeness norms may become codified via law and rigid etiquette (or protocols within organizational contexts). Consider, for instance, norms of etiquette preventing people from accessing certain venues unless they wear a suit and tie, or laws that make swearing illegal.
34 In some cases, informal or non-legal social norms may gradually acquire legal status, as when norms that attach impoliteness to certain behaviours in relation to sacred places become legally enforced. Moreover, norms of politeness may include norms of display and norms of concealment, where one can be polite either by saying/doing something or by refraining from doing so.
35
Finally, we should consider two additional dimensions of politeness norms. First, so far we have focused on norms that are linked to specific social identities and roles, and which are in many ways contextual. There is general consensus around the view that politeness norms are socially and culturally specific.
36 However, one might argue that at least some politeness norms have a (nearly-)universal scope. Some scholars, for example, have pointed to a universal desire for not ‘losing face’ as evidence of the presence of universal norms of politeness.
37 Furthermore, one might also argue that some of the aforementioned affronts to the senses
38 may also constitute instances of impoliteness across different social and cultural contexts, perhaps because they are generally types of offenses not mediated via culturally specific beliefs. Second, politeness norms are not static.
39 The structural factors that we examined in this section are not fixed or rigid—politeness norms continually evolve. The actors involved, whether in a family, a workplace, or a broader political community, continually (re)negotiate those norms. The next section focuses on these agential dimensions of politeness.
Agential Elements of Politeness
In addition to the structural elements of politeness—i.e. the sources of social norms that define what it means to be polite—scholars must recognize the role of agency in acting politely. Not only do norms of politeness change and evolve, but individuals also need to navigate such norms. As one scholar observes, civility [as politeness] is the ‘practical ability of individuals to distinguish between different social roles and contexts and to differentiate their behaviour accordingly…[which] crucially involves an element of judgment.’
40 So, how is this practical ability or judgment exercised?
Agents need to exercise a degree of critical engagement in order to be polite. Humans learn what norms of politeness are and subsequent practices usually reinforce expected behaviours.
41 Under normal, everyday circumstances, politeness norms are reasonably clear. People mostly understand the demands of a situation and how to interact with others. Decisions about how to comport oneself on public transportation
42 or how to greet a stranger can be routine in familiar contexts and require minimal reflection.
43 Yet, some situations prove more challenging to navigate. For example, travelling to culturally distinct tourist destinations or attending an unfamiliar religious site during an interfaith wedding ceremony may introduce moments of uncertainty regarding polite behaviour. The uncertainty and challenges can become even more pronounced in moments of crisis that disrupt social life in unprecedented ways—the COVID-19 pandemic is one of those moments.
Critical engagement requires recognising and learning new politeness norms, as well as how they apply when we interact with others across a range of contexts. This involves several dimensions. First, people need to undertake information-seeking actions that include identifying, studying, and questioning new behaviours. They also need to observe and interpret the actions or others. Furthermore, critical engagement involves self-awareness and the ability to identify and rationally assess one’s own behaviour and how it relates to old and new expectations. Novel circumstances demand that individuals reflect upon new conditions before they take action, rather than simply relying on disposition or habitus.
44
Second, people need to become aware of and overcome additional cognitive limitations and information access issues. For example, motivational and confirmation biases, framing effects, and information processing capabilities may present obstacles to learning and adaptation in these environments.
45 Access issues related to information infrastructure, technology, and language issues—as well as imperfect information or overt attempts to mislead the public—could all complicate the transmission and adoption of new politeness norms. Situational tendencies related to risk assessment further complicate decision-making and behaviour.
46
Third, an absence of scientific consensus regarding which information is accurate and appropriate may inhibit the adoption of and adherence to some politeness norms. People internalize and observe a wide range of normative social behaviours, and science may support or refute the assumptions behind those behaviours. For example, party etiquette might ask that attendees refrain from ‘double-dipping’ a chip into salsa after taking a bite, and we are encouraged not to eat food that has fallen on the ground based on a ‘five-second rule’. However, it seems that research findings confirm the social harms only for the former scenario,
47 but not for the latter.
48
Finally, other people and institutional structures may affect the way in which people navigate norms. This might take the form of political leaders intentionally passing along biased or distorted information based on politicized or self-interested agendas. For example, the prominent Italian politician Matteo Salvini, as well as some Italian right-wing media, often accuse their critics of being impolite.
49 This is problematic since the ability to discern when norms of politeness ought to be complied with and when they might be breached should be central to our critical engagement with such norms. Indeed, in some cases incivility expressed as impoliteness can be used as a tool for signalling and contesting unjust policies or institutions.
50 Public accusations of impoliteness, while technically correct (e.g. Salvini’s critics may well be impolite when they swear at him), might delegitimize some people’s use of impolite speech or behaviour in ways that prevent the audience from critically assessing their appropriateness in certain circumstances (e.g. protesting against restrictive policies targeting migrants, such as those Salvini himself endorses).
Various forms of censorship could prevent people from learning about relevant politeness norms as well. Those who lack exposure to norms of polite behaviour or speech, for instance, could (un)intentionally stigmatize others. Education levels, generational gaps, and class divides could hinder people’s ability to identify and fully understand the content and meaning of different norms of politeness. For example, older white residents in the American South may not observe shifts in politically correct racial references to blacks.
51
Overcoming all these obstacles involves individual costs, both financial and in terms of time and effort. Learning new things when filling a new role or in the context of cultural difference may require significant investment in time and information-seeking activities. Intercultural competencies are crucial in many settings, including tourism, where a traveller or volunteer may need to acquire translation dictionaries or take short language courses in preparation for a visit.
52 Alternatively, the investment in training for scenarios like international disaster deployment
53 or relationship-building during counterinsurgency campaigns
54 can have much higher stakes. There are also various kinds of social and cultural costs. These may involve ‘individual compromising’ if certain actors temporarily give up preferred norms to comply with those that apply to the relevant situation they find themselves in. Individuals might also incur social and political opportunity costs associated with various forms of in-group stigma and loss of legitimacy or authority within their group. For example, some former white supremacists are often stigmatized by other extremists when they attempt to politely engage with members of minority groups they used to target.
55
The Functionality of Politeness: Signalling and Social Cooperation
The politeness dimension of civility serves an important function in social and political life. Acts of politeness can be used as a signal. For example, for Edyvane, civility as politeness represents a mode of interaction that displays or communicates a recognition of ‘one another as people among whom [we] must live’,
56 through compliance with a particular set of social norms. Furthermore, some expressions of politeness norms can move beyond simple recognition and communicate respect to others and acknowledge their dignity.
57 For example, Calhoun argues that politeness ‘involves a display of respect, toleration, or considerateness’.
58 Central to Calhoun’s conception of civility is the idea that ‘civility…is an essentially
communicative form of moral conduct’.
59
The signalling function of politeness is important for several reasons. While there are obvious implications for economic exchange, we focus on the social and political aspects. Politeness norms facilitate and reinforce social cooperation in the presence of disagreement—they allow for and promote a healthy and well-functioning society. Sune Lægaard actually describes this aspect as the primary function of civility; it has the pragmatic role ‘to ease social tensions in order to facilitate social interaction and collaboration across differences and the resulting disagreements’.
60 Civility as politeness essentially acts as a ‘lubricant’ for social cooperation.
61
The politeness dimension of civility affects social interactions and behaviours across a range of sites including the home,
62 the workplace,
63 educational settings,
64 and public places in the community.
65 Politeness also influences interactions in familial, friendship, romantic, and business relationships. For example, (im)politeness in the workplace can have significant and far-reaching effects on important outcomes like team cohesion,
66 as well as employee productivity.
67 Furthermore, polite behaviours can reinforce cooperative relationships in an office setting, while incidents of impoliteness can harm prospects for ongoing productive exchange.
68 Overtly rude behaviours have also been shown to reduce performance levels and helpfulness in experimental settings.
69
There are also implications for (im)politeness in the political realm. Politeness can have direct effects on outcomes related to specific election debates,
70 along with how the public reacts to politicians' behaviours in electoral politics.
71 Perceptions about even ‘minor incivilities’ can have far-reaching effects on public perceptions and fears, as well as subsequent policies.
72 Impolite political discourse can have lasting effects on matters of decorum that help to structure party politics, and a political atmosphere of ongoing impoliteness can further reinforce entrenched political positions.
73 However, an insistence on polite behaviour could also stifle acts of dissent aimed at unjust policies that threaten desirable political ideals.
74 We should also recognize that political interactions can take place in public or private spheres and in physical or virtual spaces.
75
Politeness is also important for diplomatic relations,
76 as well as for the efficacy of foreign policy
77 and prospects for international cooperation more broadly. How states treat migrants and asylum-seekers during processing may affect their international and domestic reputation. For example, polite or impolite behaviour by officials at border checkpoints or during processing can provide an indicator as to whether a state lives up to the fair assessment of applicants and to practices expected from liberal democratic countries.
78 In the realm of contentious politics, the form that civil resistance movements take on, including how they may or may not comply with social expectations regarding strategy, influences the likelihood of their success and failure.
79 Even in extreme circumstances like violent armed conflict, civilians can create institutional mechanisms to encourage polite and respectful behaviour by insurgent and counterinsurgent forces.
80
The COVID-19 crisis has disrupted politeness norms across the globe in economic, social, and political spaces. These disruptions will undoubtedly have implications for how people and states interact with each other. When politeness norms are uncertain or changing, as during the current pandemic, it is more difficult for people to comply with them. This will in turn also affect their ability to use polite speech or behaviour to effectively signal their commitment to social interaction and cooperation, thus potentially creating or exacerbating social tensions. We will return to these points in the next chapter.