from incivility to schadenfreude

Music: Robyn Hitchcock: Queen Elvis (1989) Over the past week leaders in my professional organization, the National Communication Association, were beset with more critical emails from disgruntled members (details are here and here). Perhaps the most damning letter was the one drafted by Art Bochner and posted by Bill Baltrhop in this CRTNET post, which is signed by five past NCA presidents! The letter notes the lack of trust among the Executive Council, NCA staff, and President Braithwaite, the illegitimacy of the appointment of Bach, and calls for the Legislative Assembly to be empowered to conduct a review and recommended policy.

Today or tomorrow another letter will post to CRTNET, expertly penned by Rosechron regular Bryan McCann, that urges members to phone this year's conference hotels to pressure them to resolve a heated labor dispute. The letter also encourages those members of NCA who wish to honor the labor union's efforts to secure benefits and health care for the hotel staff to sign a petition. By signing the petition, one is agreeing not to attend or register for the conference if an amicable settlement is not reached by the union and the conference hotels. (I have signed this petition.)

Things have gone from bad to worse for the national office. I am a strong admirer of how Lynn Turner has been handling these crises, and I know my and others' criticisms of the current and past presidents and national directors do not make her job easier. At the same time, the incompetence and lack of (ethical) common sense by these unquestionably well-meaning people has caused thousands of folks to become witness to an implosion drama---a drama that has been described as "uncivil" by both Bach and Kidd.

I've been wanting to blog about the use of the conception of "civility" by Bach and others for weeks now, but the usual shuffle-o'-busy has gotten in the way. I don't have a lot of time to fill this out and am only stating the obvious here, but: disagreement and critique is civility, if we understand civility to mean "good citizenship." Rooted in the Latinate conception, civilitas, civility references behaving as a good citizen would. In history classes we've been teaching civil disobedience for decades, and in my field debate has been taught since the 1920s as crucial for public deliberation. So, even in its most basic sense disagreeing with cronyism and calling on our professional leaders to behave ethically---even in angry tones---is civil.

Of course, I think what Bach and Kidd mean by "civility" is a much newer notion: politeness. Civility didn't take on this connotation until the 16th century, and in some sense this coincided with the emergence of the conception of "publics" or the "public sphere." What is amusing to me is how oblivious Kidd, Bach and others who evoke "civility" as a requirement seem to the research done in our field on civility. To evoke the concept as a requirement for communication is to ignore a big (and foundational) flank of the field: rhetorical studies. Indeed, one of the basic pickles of democratic theory and for those who study publics and counter publics concerns the ways in which various norms of civility, propriety, decorum, and so forth do the dirty work of ideology. For example, the most recent critique of "invitational rhetoric" by my friends and colleagues Nina and Dana helpfully rehearses decades of discussion and criticism about notions of public deliberation and civility. "Civility," they conclude, "should not be advocated as a stance for feminists or others struggling for change." This is because the "polite" conception of civility masks inequality. To be civil, they argue, communicators must be equal, and history teaches us this is rarely (if ever) the case, even if it is a worthy ideal. "Unfortunately," history teaches us, "invitation and civility are as likely to be bludgeons of the oppressor as resources for the oppressed. . . . The cause of justice may not need a theory of invitation but rather a theory of the uncivil tongue."

The problem with how Bach, Braithwaite, and Kidd (mis)handled the appointment of Bach is that it models---textbook style---the way in which those in power use civility (sometimes in the form of Robert's rules) to silence, oppress, and shut-down conversation. Incivility is clearly code for simple "disagreement," however polite or dirty.

Because this dramatic display in my national organization is so parodic (almost like a sit-com), my worry is no longer a refusal to try on the basis of outrage, which itself has become formulaic. Rather, my concern is that the longer the Criminal Three dig their heels in, the more and more they offer themselves up to the sublimity of Schadenfreude, the jollies we get from the misfortunes of others. I suspect this is the fear of the Executive Committee, that rather than get upset and demand change, the NCA membership is finding the whole situation rather amusing, even comical, like a Ray Stevens song (dunno Ray? Click here). The trouble with a bemused membership, of course, is that our professional organization no longer can fulfill its mission. The problem with a bemused membership is that it becomes fun to watch the thing implode.

Too many people care about this organization (including myself) for it to fail, and too many folks I admire and respect have worked hard to make NCA stronger. As fun as it is to sit back and enjoy the show, I hope more and more folks will continue to put pressure on the leadership to right their wrongs and put this ship back on course.