A worthwhile read for all forum members...

[DreamTone7]

...including myself. Not pointed at anyone in particular, but highlites why I generally consider this forum somewhat superior to others...usually.





Text is from: Lay Your Hammer Down



______________________________________________



In 1969 a Stanford University psychologist named Philip Zimbardo set up an experiment. He arranged for two cars to be abandoned — one on the mean streets of the Bronx, New York; the other in an affluent neighborhood near Stanford in Palo Alto, California. The license plates had been removed, and the hoods were left open. Zimbardo wanted to see what would happen to the cars.



In the Bronx, he soon found out. Ten minutes after the car was abandoned, people began stealing parts from it. Within three days the car was stripped. When there was nothing useful left to take, people smashed windows and ripped out upholstery, until the car was trashed.



In Palo Alto, something quite different happened: nothing. For more than a week the car sat there unmolested. Zimbardo was puzzled, but he had a hunch about human nature. To test it, he went out and, in full view of everyone, took a sledgehammer and smashed part of the car.



Soon, passersby were taking turns with the hammer, delivering blow after satisfying blow. Within a few hours, the vehicle was resting on its roof, demolished.



Now at this point, you might be wondering what all this has to do with your graduation from Hillsdale? Why did this man come from Washington to tell us about cars that were abandoned in a psychology experiment 35 years ago?



"clip"



Among the scholars who took note of Zimbardo’s experiment were two criminologists, James Q. Wilson, now Ronald Reagan Professor at Pepperdine University, and George Kelling. The experiment gave rise to their “broken windows” theory of crime, which is illustrated by a common experience: When a broken window in a building is left un-repaired, the rest of the windows are soon broken by vandals.



But why is this? Aside from the fact that it’s fun to break windows, why does the broken window invite further vandalism? Wilson and Kelling say it’s because the broken window sends a signal that no one is in charge here, that breaking more windows costs nothing, that it has no undesirable consequences.



The broken window is their metaphor for a whole host of ways that behavioral norms can break down in a community. If one person scrawls graffiti on a wall, others will soon be at it with their spray cans. If one aggressive panhandler begins working a block, others will soon follow.



In short, once people begin disregarding the norms that keep order in a community, both order and community unravel, sometimes with astonishing speed.



Police in big cities have dramatically cut crime rates by applying this theory. Rather than concentrate on felonies such as robbery and assault, they aggressively enforce laws against relatively minor offenses — graffiti, public drinking, panhandling, littering.



When order is visibly restored at that level, the environment signals: This is a community where behavior does have consequences. If you can’t get away with jumping a turnstile into the subway, you’d better not try armed robbery.



Now all this is a preface. My topic is not crime on city streets, rather I want to speak about incivility in the marketplace of ideas. The broken windows theory is what links the two.



As the head of a think tank in Washington, I work exclusively in the marketplace of ideas. Our job at The Heritage Foundation is to engage in a wide range of public debates about public policy issues. We put forward traditional conservative policy options and ideas with the aim of persuading others to our viewpoint on the whole range of national policies – both international and domestic.



What we’re seeing in the marketplace of ideas today is a disturbing growth of incivility that follows and confirms the broken windows theory. Alas, this breakdown of civil norms is not a failing of either the political left or the right exclusively. It spreads across the political spectrum from one end to the other.



A few examples:





A liberal writes a book calling Rush Limbaugh a “big fat idiot.” A conservative writes a book calling liberals “useful idiots.”



A liberal writes a book titled “The Lies of George W. Bush.” A conservative writes a book subtitled “Liberal Lies about the American Right.”



A liberal publishes a detailed “case for Bush-hatred.” A conservative declares “even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”



Those few examples — and unfortunately there are many, many more — come from elites in the marketplace of ideas. All are highly educated people who write nationally syndicated columns, publish best-selling books, and are hot tickets on radio and television talk shows.



Further down the food chain, lesser lights take up smaller hammers, but they commit even more degrading incivilities. The Internet, with its easy access and worldwide reach, is a breeding ground for Web sites with names like



Bushbodycount.com;



Toostupidtobepresident.com.



This is how the broken windows theory plays out in the marketplace of ideas. If you want to see it working in real time, try the following: Log on to AOL, and go to one of the live chat rooms reserved for political chat. Someone will post a civil comment on some political topic. Almost immediately, someone else will swing the verbal hammer of incivility, and from there the chat degrades into a food fight, with invective and insult as the main course.



This illustrates the first aspect of the broken windows theory, which we saw with the car in Palo Alto. Once someone wields the hammer — once the incivility starts — others will take it as an invitation to join in, and pretty soon there’s no limit to the incivility.



Now if you watch closely in that chat room, you’ll see something else happening. Watch the screen names of people who make civil comments. Some — a few — will join in the food fight. But most will log off. Their screen names just disappear. They leave because the atmosphere has turned hostile to anything approaching a civil exchange or a real dialogue.



This illustrates the second aspect of the broken windows theory: Once the insults begin flying, many will opt out. Wilson and Kelling describe this response when the visible signs of order deteriorate in a neighborhood:



“Many residents will think that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise, and

they will modify their behavior accordingly. They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, silent lips, and hurried steps. Don’t get involved. For some residents, this growing atomization will matter little .... But it will matter greatly to other people, whose lives derive meaning and satisfaction from local attachments ...; for them, the neighborhood will cease to exist except for a few reliable friends whom they arrange to meet.”



The chat room shows us that a similar response occurs when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas. Many people withdraw and tune out, regardless of whether the incivility occurs in a chat room, on a talk show, in a newspaper column, in political campaign ads, or on the floor of the Congress.



This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other’s opinions and viewpoints.



What we see today I am afraid, is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.



Earlier this week I was in London and attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her accession to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. As you know, she is a good friend of Hillsdale College and has visited your campus. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility.



If you want to grasp the nature of civility, try to imagine Lady Thatcher calling someone a “big fat idiot.” You will instantly understand that civility isn’t an accessory one can put on or take off like a scarf. It is inseparable from the character of great leaders.



I also happen to believe that our President, George W. Bush, is a model of civil discourse, and I only wish that everyone else in the political arena would take a lesson from his example.



Incivility is not a social blunder to be compared with using the wrong fork. Rather, it betrays a defect of character. Incivility is dangerous graffiti, regardless of whether it is spray-painted on a subway car, or embossed on the title page of a book. The broken windows theory shows us the dangers in both cases.



But those cases aren’t parallel in every way, and in closing I want to call your attention to an important difference. When behavioral norms break down in a community, police can restore order. But when civility breaks down in the marketplace of ideas, the law is powerless to set things right.



And properly so. Our right to speak freely — and to speak with incivility, if we choose — is guaranteed by those five glorious words in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ....”



And yet, the need for civility has never been greater. Our nation is divided as never before between the left and the right. We are at loggerheads on profoundly important political and social questions. Civilization itself is under barbaric attack from without.



Sadly, too many us are not rising to these challenges as a democratic people. On the contrary, we’ve seen a 40-year decline in voter participation in national elections. In the last two presidential elections, fewer than half of eligible voters even bothered to vote.



Rather than helping to reverse this decline, the rising chorus of incivility is driving out citizens of honest intent and encouraging those who trade in jeering and mockery.



Fortunately, this is not the stuff of Hillsdale.



If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity.

_______________________________________________



I think this snippet highlites why it is necessary in an environment of free-speach that we govern our tongues/fingers...and is also why I personally have issues with the media and its methods, at times. With that freedom comes the responsibility to preserve civility to each other...and not let things tend towards anarchy...which will in turn erradicate this freedom that we enjoy. Niether the media nor politicians are exempt. Peace.



DT

[HKRockChick]

thats a good article DT...



There is one unfortunate statement:

Quote:

---

I also happen to believe that our President, George W. Bush, is a model of civil discourse

---

well, yes he is, cept when he's calling other countries evil and people living in caves etc, or waging illegal wars. Thats not very civil, and just about wipes out all other "civil" behaviours...



But for the rest, agreed, the minute things start degenerating and getting personal...

[Data Thieves]

Quote:

---

Earlier this week I was in London and attended a dinner honoring Lady Margaret Thatcher on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her accession to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. As you know, she is a good friend of Hillsdale College and has visited your campus. She was also a great political leader and has always been a model of civility.

---

I'm afraid that I take exception to this,

You write a great article but taint the piece with this reference.

Thatcher was the enemy of the common man, she increased the divide between rich and poor, the divide between the "haves" and "have no chance",

She only helped those in positions of wealth.

Only those with a right wing agenda benefited from thatcher.

She encouraged consumerism and dismantled the UKs manufacturing industry, and sold the UKs(mainly scots) fishing industry to Spain through the EU in exchange for economic autonomy, The thatcher fiscal policy has resulted in the UK being despised by the other member states and also caused the current blair govt to look impotent and indecisive.



Thatcher showed no civility to the people in my country,



For your thread to hold any credence you must remove the reference to thatcher.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Lady Margaret Thatcher

---

As in Margaret Thatcher who said Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and that anybody who thought the ANC – in her words “a typical terrorist organisation” – was ever going to run the government in South Africa was living in cloud cuckoo land?



Very courteous. Civility incarnated.

[DreamTone7]

I think you two, intentionally or otherwise, missed the point. Civility does not focus on what is said, but how.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Civility does not focus on what is said, but how

---

I see. Calling Rush Limbaugh a “big fat idiot” is then in fact the hallmark of civility or the complete opposite depending on how it is delivered? A lot of scraping of feet and deep bows would make the utterance courteous?

No. The writer clearly states that that is not the case.



I think you need to read the article once again.





The count is neither sad, nor sick, nor merry, nor well;

but civil count, civil as an orange, and something of that jealous complexion. -William Shakespeare.

[HKRockChick]

Whichever way bush delivers anything he ends up sounding uncouth, crass, uncivil, barbaric and illiterate. And coupled with that sneer...



I don't know whether how you deliver anything would change anything if you are going to bomb the hell out of people after that... if intentions are insulting, honeying the delivery will simply be rubbing salt into wounds.



This guy picked two very unfortunate examples, the very last people on the earth one would describe as civil. Oh, I'm sure maggie drank tea very civilly with her little pinkie stuck out an all... hic.



I do agree though that we should stop swooping to personal insults, abuse and threats when we cannot argue our point.

[DreamTone7]

Oh dear.

[Data Thieves]

Quote:

---

I think you two, intentionally or otherwise, missed the point. Civility does not focus on what is said, but how.

---

I think that while you are a great and eloquent writer, you are using a "mythical" viewpoint to emphasise your idea.

If her "civility" put one over you then thats your problem, but

from the perspective of some one who has lived under the thatcher jackboot tyranny I can assure you her methods were far from civil.

Peace to you 2..

[NRKofOver]

I think that the important part of what this guy is saying and the reason he fills it with contentious statements is to show that you can respond in a civil manner to things you disagree with. It's a matter of respect, as in, although I respect your opinion of Margaret Thatcher I think she has been . . ..



If anyone has spent any time on AOL's boards you'd have a better understanding of this. Just yesterday I was on a board discussing current affairs and someone asked if the draft was to be reinstated. I said that there was currently legislation in Congress (and gave the congress.org link to the bill) pending to bring back the draft. My post was responded to with things like:



Pinko commie bastard spreading anti-american propaganda for the benefit of the liberal left.



There is no truth to congress passing the draft, it's political lies.



I simply stated a fact, not even an opinion as to whether the draft would be good or not, and these were the responses I was given. That's the gist of this article, that people are immediately defensive and go on the offensive with nonsensical name calling. And I think DreamTone posted this for the right reason, although there are heated passionate discussions on this board (the very nature of the boards almost demands that) generally we remain civil to each other. There is respect within our differences. I can honestly say that I've never 'argued' with anyone online that I wouldn't buy a beer for in person and do it all over again, . I do have mad respect for the vast majority of opinions here (and some other boards) because they're smart opinions, they're informed opinions, and they are honest passionate opinions. Even when I disagree I still have respect.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[HKRockChick]

sorry DT! I know why you posted this. Maybe I shoulda responded more civilly!



and NRK, I've been to the yahoo boards, and after the indian election news, there was a ton of rubbish, about indians stinking, indian women and what they'd like to do to em, indians being slaves forever, yadayadayadayada. I often wonder how much bigotry there still exists today. Political correctness has pushed it under the carpet, but anonymity brings out all the pent up hate and visciousness.

[questionnaire]

It's actually Baroness Margaret Thatcher, not 'Lady', the rather mean, arrogant and foul-mouthed daughter of an extreme right-wing Grantham grocer. Her first job as an industrial chemist was to invent a way of putting more air bubbles in the fillings of Swiss Rolls to cut back on the unit costs and make more profit.



That just about sums up her and her ilk. Scoundrels who need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.



This grossly stupid woman once said, in her infinite wisdom, that "there is no such thing as society". What she meant was that she and her ilk would use every dirty political trick in the book to make sure that there would be no such thing as society so that social obligations could not get in the way of the acquisitive mania of her and her favoured individuals: such as her husband Denis, a drunken boorish stock-market gambler who never did a day's work in his worthless life.



Recent events suggest that things have gone way beyond moralistic exhortations to civility. So let's stop the pretence. The pressure needs to be kept up so that the global business elite and their right-wing supporters can be exposed for what they are.

[DreamTone7]

There is not excuse for bad manners...for anybody.