On Civil Discourse

By Matthias Vorwerk, Ph.D., Provost

There is much talk these days of the need for civil discourse. Yet, what civil discourse is seems to be unclear. Many of our contemporaries use the term synonymously with the more popular phrase “political correctness,” which signifies some sort of social politeness in words and actions. Whatever one may think, say or do in private may not be appropriate in the company of others, lest one cause offense. The standard of what constitutes an offense is set not by objective moral norms or societal principles, but rather by the sentiment of the individual person. Or so it would appear, at least. For a closer look reveals that not every individual’s sentiment enjoys such a privilege, but only that of a specific few who share certain well-promoted values and, allegedly, happen to be standing on the right side of history. Civil discourse in this sense is neither civil, because it disregards the right to free speech of every citizen (Lat. cives), nor a form of discourse, as it does not run through (Lat. discurrere) any argument, but often results in self-curtailment and even silencing.

Civil discourse in the classical sense, on the other hand, is the argumentative speech of citizens about matters pertaining to them as citizens. The primary matter pertaining to all citizens is the flourishing of their “city,” or polis, which presupposes an understanding of true and false, right and wrong, obligatory and optional. In other words, civil discourse is rooted in, and aimed at, the pursuit of wisdom, truth and virtue. Since there is, and has always been, much dispute not only about what, in general, wisdom, truth and virtue are, but also what, in particular, they entail, it is necessary and salutary for a flourishing society to enter into civil discourse; that is to say, into the argumentative debate of all citizens about the common good, as well as about the laws and actions required to achieve it. So much is at stake in this debate that consideration of sentiment and sensitivity must recede for the benefit of the honest pursuit of truth. Neither a claim that the matter has already been decided nor a warning that the debate itself could be impious, or offensive to some, should prevent a society in pursuit of flourishing from engaging in such discourse. Every generation and, in fact, every individual is in need of relearning what has already been learned and of finding the truth in spite of its potential to offend. It is the concord of citizens, the fundamental friendship that exists between members of the political community, that makes this endeavor possible. Respect for the dignity of the human person entails both the observance of mutual friendship as members of one society and the embrace of the love of truth as rational animals in pursuit of wisdom.

This is the educational creed of the University of Dallas, the Catholic University for Independent Thinkers. To put it in the form of the often-cited Socratic maxim: “The unexamined life is not worth living” — neither for the individual nor for society at large. No matter whether inopportune or even offensive, civil discourse is the lifeblood of an intellectually sincere and genuinely flourishing community.

Matthias Vorwerk, Ph.D., Provost