The Political Uses and Abuses of Civility and Incivility

Abstract

After exploring the challenges involved in defining incivility, this chapter addresses the evolution of the concept, notes the dispute over trend lines, and précises work on its psychological effects. It then outlines some functions that civility and incivility serve, such as the functions of differentiating and mobilizing, marginalizing the powerless, expressing, and deliberating. The use of calls for civility as a means of social control is discussed, and then the chapter flags questions worthy of additional attention.

Virtual Vitriol

“…Papacharissi’s original codebook differentiated incivility from impoliteness, categorizing them as two different concepts. Incivility and impoliteness are somewhat muddy constructs with unclear boundaries—they often merge into each other and are defined in various ways in the literature (Herbst, 2010; Jamieson, 2000). The coding scheme for this study defines incivility more liberally, following the example of several scholars who have studied the construct (Anderson et al, 2014; Coe et al, 2014; Gervais, 2015; Jamieson, 2000; Santana, 2014; Stroud et al, 2016a).…”

“…The current coding scheme identifies seven dimensions of incivility. Name-calling, use of pejoratives, and use of aspersions, which were separate coding categories in Jamieson’s (2000) and Papacharissi’s (2004) studies, were excluded due to their similar meanings; all encompass the use of disparagement and abusive language and are often considered synonyms for name-calling (Brennan, 2012). In some previous studies that have used these categories separately, intercoder reliability has yielded αs between .65 and .72 (Coe et al, 2014; Rowe, 2015a).…”

“…Incivility has been studied in a variety of contexts including Congressional hearings and workplace communications (Forni, 2001; Jamieson, 2000; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). The concept’s definition and dimensions have been debated in the literature.…”

“…But certainly, there are different dimensions and levels of uncivil behavior. In Jamieson’s (2000) examination of Congressional hearings, several dimensions of what the researcher deemed uncivil behavior were observed on the House of Representatives floor—in the form of name-calling, vulgarity, aspersions, and accusations of lying.…”

“…The idea of maintaining social harmony is what drives the conceptualization of incivility in the current study, which does not make a distinction between incivility and impoliteness as some scholars have (Papacharissi, 2004; Porath, Pearson, & Shapiro, 1999). Rather, incivility as operationalized in this study encompasses a wider range of behaviors—such as name-calling and use of vulgarities—following the precedent set by other scholars (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2014; Coe, Kenski, & Rains, 2014; Gervais, 2015; Jamieson, 2000; Santana, 2014; Stroud et al, 2016a). Applying a more liberal definition to incivility is appropriate, as social harmony can be disrupted by a range of behaviors—such as calling someone a name or using a vulgar word—which are considered offensive and disrespectful but do not necessarily threaten one’s democratic rights (Herbst, 2010).…”