What do you think?
Rate this book
Civility
Something horrible has happened to civility. We can no longer hold political discussions without screaming at each other, so our democracy is dying. We can no longer look at strangers without suspicion and even hostility, so our social life is dying. We can no longer hold public conversation about morality without trading vicious accusations, so our moral life is dying. All the skills of living a common life-what Alexis de Tocqueville called -the etiquette of democracy'-are collapsing around us, and nobody seems to know how to shore them up again.aStephen L. Carter, author of the bestsellerThe Culture of Disbelief, argues that civility is disintegrating because we have forgotten the obligations we owe to each other, and are awash instead in a sea of self-indulgence. Neither liberals nor conservatives can help us much, Carter explains, because each political movement, in a different way, exemplifies what has become the principal value of modern America: that what matters most is not the needs or hopes of others, but simply getting what we want.aTaking inspiration from the Abolitionist sermons of the nineteenth century, Carter proposes to rebuild our public and private lives around the fundamental rule that we must love our neighbors, a tenet of all the world's great religions. Drawing on such diverse disciplines as law, theology, and psychology, he investigates many of the fundamental institutions of society-including the family, churches, and schools-and illustrates how each one must do more to promote the virtue of civility.aThrough it all, Carter emphasizes that loving our neighbors has little to do with how we feel and everything to do with how we choose to act. The true test of civility is whether out of love and concern for others, we will discipline our individual desires and work for the common good.
338 pages, Paperback
Published March 3, 1999
11 people are currently reading
518 people want to read
About the author
Stephen L. Carter
27 books454 followersStephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale where he has taught since 1982. He has published seven critically acclaimed nonfiction books on topics ranging from affirmative action to religion and politics. His first novel, The Emperor of Ocean Park (2002), was an immediate national best seller. His latest novel is New England White (Knopf, 2007). A recipient of the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Literature-Fiction, he lives near New Haven, Connecticut."
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 2, 2013
Nothing in Stephen Carter's Civility struck me with the force of revelation. But it did strike me as a clear, succinct, and insightful summary of some of the most important habits of citizenship that people in the United States have never been very good at and that we seem to be getting worse at all the time. Carter starts with a clear and valuable definition of "civility" as "the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together." Civility, in other words, encompasses all of the concessions that the natural animal makes to the social animal. We must be civil because there is no other way for very different people to live together in the same society.
This definition of civility obviously includes all kinds of non-political aspects of life, and Carter touches on lots of them: driving, giving gifts, gawking at people in restaurants, and all of that stuff. But Carter really wants to write a book about political discourse, which is perfectly fine with me, since that is what I want to read. And he sees civility as the key to meaningful political discourse. Like most people, I agree. But the general agreement about this fact does not seem to be producing much civility in civil discourse; mainly, it just produces testimonials about how the other side can't ever seem to be civil.
Carter gives us some good analysis about why this might be. in the first place, many people misunderstand the function of civility. It is not to prevent argument, but to encourage it. The fairly minor concessions that we make to civility when we are talking to people that we disagree with allows the conversations to continue, the dialogue to deepen, and the arguments to become even fiercer than they could be otherwise. When civility breaks down, all we have is anger and shouting, and, for all of their benefits, neither one leads to anything like a sustained engagement with ideas that we do not accept.
Civility does not even equal niceness. And it certainly does not mean friendship. There is no need, really, to be civil to our friends, as the discourse of friendship is generally more respectful and more supportive than the discourse of civility. Civility is for strangers and opponents. it does not seek try to send the message, "I like you." It simply says, "I acknowledge your right to exist and to think as you think." We violate the standards of civility when we try to take certain themes, ideas, or arguments off of the table--when we refuse to acknowledge the right of certain perspectives to exist or to be articulated. Carter calls this "bounded discourse," and I agree with him that it is a real problem in political discourse today.
Perhaps the most important point that Carter makes about civility is that it is a moral issue not a policy consideration. There is simply no way to require people to be civil. For democracy to work, people must have the right to free speech, which includes the right to treat other people badly. We can defend this right, but we should not celebrate it. And we should recognize that moral censure is not the same thing as political censorship. As citizens of a democracy, we have the right to act like idiots and make self-government virtually impossible. Carter would just rather we choose to do things differently.
Civility was written in 1998, and it shows its age. Much of what Carter says is timeless, but some of his discussions of the Internet, of cyberspace, and of online discourse really show their age. Many of the drivers of public discourse did not exist 15 years ago. There were no blogs, no social media sites, no RSS feeds, and far fewer people in the fray. Carter's arguments anticipate pretty much everything about how the online world turned out, but it would be interesting to see what he might do with a revised 20th anniversary edition in 2018.
This definition of civility obviously includes all kinds of non-political aspects of life, and Carter touches on lots of them: driving, giving gifts, gawking at people in restaurants, and all of that stuff. But Carter really wants to write a book about political discourse, which is perfectly fine with me, since that is what I want to read. And he sees civility as the key to meaningful political discourse. Like most people, I agree. But the general agreement about this fact does not seem to be producing much civility in civil discourse; mainly, it just produces testimonials about how the other side can't ever seem to be civil.
Carter gives us some good analysis about why this might be. in the first place, many people misunderstand the function of civility. It is not to prevent argument, but to encourage it. The fairly minor concessions that we make to civility when we are talking to people that we disagree with allows the conversations to continue, the dialogue to deepen, and the arguments to become even fiercer than they could be otherwise. When civility breaks down, all we have is anger and shouting, and, for all of their benefits, neither one leads to anything like a sustained engagement with ideas that we do not accept.
Civility does not even equal niceness. And it certainly does not mean friendship. There is no need, really, to be civil to our friends, as the discourse of friendship is generally more respectful and more supportive than the discourse of civility. Civility is for strangers and opponents. it does not seek try to send the message, "I like you." It simply says, "I acknowledge your right to exist and to think as you think." We violate the standards of civility when we try to take certain themes, ideas, or arguments off of the table--when we refuse to acknowledge the right of certain perspectives to exist or to be articulated. Carter calls this "bounded discourse," and I agree with him that it is a real problem in political discourse today.
Perhaps the most important point that Carter makes about civility is that it is a moral issue not a policy consideration. There is simply no way to require people to be civil. For democracy to work, people must have the right to free speech, which includes the right to treat other people badly. We can defend this right, but we should not celebrate it. And we should recognize that moral censure is not the same thing as political censorship. As citizens of a democracy, we have the right to act like idiots and make self-government virtually impossible. Carter would just rather we choose to do things differently.
Civility was written in 1998, and it shows its age. Much of what Carter says is timeless, but some of his discussions of the Internet, of cyberspace, and of online discourse really show their age. Many of the drivers of public discourse did not exist 15 years ago. There were no blogs, no social media sites, no RSS feeds, and far fewer people in the fray. Carter's arguments anticipate pretty much everything about how the online world turned out, but it would be interesting to see what he might do with a revised 20th anniversary edition in 2018.
April 8, 2025
First read: the single best book I've read this year.
Very inspiring take on our society's urgent need for civility from an intelligent and articulate law professor. I highly recommend this book. (Yes! Believe it or not, a book on civility written by a lawyer! LOL) And that snide, side comment, Carter might say, is the very type of thing that undermines our world. Sorry. Apologies to all lawyers. No more sarcasm. No more cynicism.
Very inspiring take on our society's urgent need for civility from an intelligent and articulate law professor. I highly recommend this book. (Yes! Believe it or not, a book on civility written by a lawyer! LOL) And that snide, side comment, Carter might say, is the very type of thing that undermines our world. Sorry. Apologies to all lawyers. No more sarcasm. No more cynicism.
November 18, 2017
It's a mixed bag, but it's absolutely fascinating to read now, twenty-odd years after it was written. I couldn't help thinking, over and over again, "Wow, if he was this upset about the state of civility in politics in the '90s, what must he be thinking now? This poor man." Not generally the way one thinks of bestselling authors/Yale law professors....
I liked his overall idea—civility is a form of sacrifice, as we give up the pleasure of indulging our urges in exchange for civilized relationships with others. It's a way of showing respect for each other as humans, of expressing generosity and trust. He traces the history back to Erasmus, connects it to events large and small, from the civil rights movement to a kind neighbor in his own childhood, and generally makes an interesting, useful argument about the nature and importance of the idea.
My problem was that he insists on grounding this idea in religion, which I simply don't find necessary (disclaimer: I'm about the least spiritual person I know). The Golden Rule doesn't need God behind it; I (try to) treat others as I wish to be treated because that's a good, sensible, and (ahem) civilized way to live, full stop.
I did like the argument he made, about people who condemn religion for having been the cause of so many wars (a point I've certainly made, myself). Carter says, well, in recent centuries nation/countries have been the belligerents in most wars, so if you're going to be mad at religion for this, logically you should also be mad at the concept of nation-states, for the same reason. I don't totally buy the argument (few nations hold themselves up as moral arbiters, the way religions do, which I think changes the calculus), but I'm interested by it.
My other problem was editorial: There was so much repetition! I lost count of the number of times he repeated some form of, "and, as I've said, civility is a form of sacrifice..."—enough already. I get it, I believe you, move on.
I liked his overall idea—civility is a form of sacrifice, as we give up the pleasure of indulging our urges in exchange for civilized relationships with others. It's a way of showing respect for each other as humans, of expressing generosity and trust. He traces the history back to Erasmus, connects it to events large and small, from the civil rights movement to a kind neighbor in his own childhood, and generally makes an interesting, useful argument about the nature and importance of the idea.
My problem was that he insists on grounding this idea in religion, which I simply don't find necessary (disclaimer: I'm about the least spiritual person I know). The Golden Rule doesn't need God behind it; I (try to) treat others as I wish to be treated because that's a good, sensible, and (ahem) civilized way to live, full stop.
I did like the argument he made, about people who condemn religion for having been the cause of so many wars (a point I've certainly made, myself). Carter says, well, in recent centuries nation/countries have been the belligerents in most wars, so if you're going to be mad at religion for this, logically you should also be mad at the concept of nation-states, for the same reason. I don't totally buy the argument (few nations hold themselves up as moral arbiters, the way religions do, which I think changes the calculus), but I'm interested by it.
My other problem was editorial: There was so much repetition! I lost count of the number of times he repeated some form of, "and, as I've said, civility is a form of sacrifice..."—enough already. I get it, I believe you, move on.
February 11, 2019
Let me give you 3 good reasons to read this book:
1. Stephen Carter is a brilliant African American Yale Law Professor, who clerked for Thurgood Marshall.
2. This gives him a unique perspective on the Civil Rights Movement (which happened during his youth, I believe), Racism, Law, etc. as it relates to civility.
3. He advocates, get this, for civility(obviously), diversity, and disagreement.
I picked the book up as a secondary recommendation from Jonathan Sacks and was not disappointed. In typical legal fashion, he explores every possible facet of our democratic (lack of?) civility. And, even though it was written over twenty years ago, not much has really changed (for the better).
I thought it was especially well done because I did not 100% agree with everything that he said.* But he expressed his thoughts so civilly that I saw his point of view. And it was legitimate. And I wanted to be his next door neighbor, and invite him to dinner, and pick his brain, and find out where else we disagreed so that I could have the privilege of listening, not arguing, to him.
It was just beautiful.
*Abortion somewhat and the Defense of Marriage Act (I think. Like I said, seeing his point of view expressed so well, I'm not quite sure he doesn't have a valid argument. But mine might(?) be better)
1. Stephen Carter is a brilliant African American Yale Law Professor, who clerked for Thurgood Marshall.
2. This gives him a unique perspective on the Civil Rights Movement (which happened during his youth, I believe), Racism, Law, etc. as it relates to civility.
3. He advocates, get this, for civility(obviously), diversity, and disagreement.
I picked the book up as a secondary recommendation from Jonathan Sacks and was not disappointed. In typical legal fashion, he explores every possible facet of our democratic (lack of?) civility. And, even though it was written over twenty years ago, not much has really changed (for the better).
I thought it was especially well done because I did not 100% agree with everything that he said.* But he expressed his thoughts so civilly that I saw his point of view. And it was legitimate. And I wanted to be his next door neighbor, and invite him to dinner, and pick his brain, and find out where else we disagreed so that I could have the privilege of listening, not arguing, to him.
It was just beautiful.
*Abortion somewhat and the Defense of Marriage Act (I think. Like I said, seeing his point of view expressed so well, I'm not quite sure he doesn't have a valid argument. But mine might(?) be better)
July 26, 2017
In the era of modern, instant and incessant telecommunications, it has become all too commonplace to grandstand, villify, and simply outshout one's opponents. Dialog and compromise seem so weak, even defeatist. It need not be so. Carter is that rare writer whose appeal not only to civility but to morality strikes one as a rallying cry, and never comes off as preachy. If only all aspiring politicians would take his words and those of writers like Jim Wallis to heart...
May 24, 2022
Made me think about my interactions and obligations to others.
Our duty to be civil toward others does not depend on whether we like them or not.
Civility require that we sacrifice for strangers, not just for people we happen to know.
Civility has two parts: generosity, even when it is costly, and trust, even when there is risk.
Civility creates not merely a negative duty not to do harm, but an affirmative duty to do good.
Civility requires a commitment to live a common moral life, so we should try to follow the norms of the community if the norms are not actually immoral.
We must come into the presence of our fellow human beings with a sense of awe and gratitude.
Civility assumes that we will disagree; it requires us not to mask our differences but to resolve them respectfully.
Civility requires that we listen to others with knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.
Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others.
Civility requires resistance to the dominance of social life by the values of the marketplace. Thus, the basic principles of civility - generosity and trust - should apply as fully in the market nd in politics as in every other human activity.
Civility allows criticism of others, and sometimes even requires it, but the criticism should always be civil.
Civility discourages the use of legislation rather than conversation to settle disputes, except as a last, carefully considered resort.
Teaching civility, by work and example, is an obligation of the family. The state must not interfere with the family's effort to create a coherent moral universe for its children.
Civility values diversity, disagreement, and the possibility of resistance, and therefore the state must not use education to try to standardize our children.
Religions do their greatest service to civility when they preach not only love of neighbor but resistance to wrong.
Our duty to be civil toward others does not depend on whether we like them or not.
Civility require that we sacrifice for strangers, not just for people we happen to know.
Civility has two parts: generosity, even when it is costly, and trust, even when there is risk.
Civility creates not merely a negative duty not to do harm, but an affirmative duty to do good.
Civility requires a commitment to live a common moral life, so we should try to follow the norms of the community if the norms are not actually immoral.
We must come into the presence of our fellow human beings with a sense of awe and gratitude.
Civility assumes that we will disagree; it requires us not to mask our differences but to resolve them respectfully.
Civility requires that we listen to others with knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.
Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others.
Civility requires resistance to the dominance of social life by the values of the marketplace. Thus, the basic principles of civility - generosity and trust - should apply as fully in the market nd in politics as in every other human activity.
Civility allows criticism of others, and sometimes even requires it, but the criticism should always be civil.
Civility discourages the use of legislation rather than conversation to settle disputes, except as a last, carefully considered resort.
Teaching civility, by work and example, is an obligation of the family. The state must not interfere with the family's effort to create a coherent moral universe for its children.
Civility values diversity, disagreement, and the possibility of resistance, and therefore the state must not use education to try to standardize our children.
Religions do their greatest service to civility when they preach not only love of neighbor but resistance to wrong.
March 11, 2021
What I read was well written, credible, & clear. I chose to DNF because I agree with all evidence that we've lost the civility needed for our demacracy and I didn't want to read another 100 pages validating the current state....nor was I in the mood to endure a proposed solution based in Christianity. That said, I might come back to this book in the future.
March 3, 2018
Civility is needed in our society now more than ever and Carter's thoughts on the subject, although now 20 years old, are just as relevant today. Recommended reading for anyone who thinks we need a more civil society.
June 17, 2020
A thoughtful and insightful meditation on the virtue of civility. Much needed for our times.
January 13, 2013
I had low expectations for this book but have been very pleasantly surprised. I don't understand why some reviewers are rating it so low. Thus far I would recommend it not just to some but to all. I'm not reading it lineararly, which may be why I like it more than some other people do. Good spoiler alert: He relies heavily on an 1815 sermon about loving one's neighbor & what that does & doesn't mean in a would-be civil society (or civil people in any society). I found his chapters on this sermon, the role of civil listening to others, & the importance of open dialogue rather than zero-sum debates most useful. I think it is very accessible, readable, and helpful in our age of cynicism, FB memes, & bumper sticker zingers. Many great quotes. I highly recommend to all.
August 18, 2015
Thoughtful and exemplifies well what a "faith informed" perspective on public life that takes evangelical Christian faith seriously but without the triumphalism, heavy-handedness, or lack of respect for difference that marks the public stereotype of evangelicals that speak on public and political matters. Secular progressives and religious conservatives I'm guessing will be tempted to find fault and dismiss Carter's arguments too quickly, but for the most part I think that says more about their perspectives than his. His views of the public role of religion here are developed more fully in _God's Name in Vain_, and his general cultural diagnosis is similar to those offered by Allan Bloom and Neil Postman.
July 7, 2017
This book is an analysis of what has happened to civility in the U.S., why it matters, and what can be done about it. Carter believes that civility is a a moral issue but tries to balance the discussion between philosophy and theology, with examples drawn from law, politics, and everyday life. He begins by making the observation that civility calls on us "to sacrifice for others as we travel through life... that this makes the ride tolerable." "We care less and less about our fellow citizens because we no longer see them as fellow passengers" [as we did when traveling by train, before automobiles.]
August 7, 2014
Written in the late 1990's the book holds up well as a description of political and social dysfunction, but his remedies -- basically a return to religious and moral training of children -- seem unlikely to be applied. Reading it is still worthwhile for a self-inventory as well as to discover Carter's unusual constellation of values and enjoy his legal/logical reasoning, even when it is very selectively applied. It was not as compelling, to me, as The Culture of Disbelief.
January 23, 2008
Carter makes salient points about the need for civility, but it is often obfuscated under a supposedly informal style of writing. I had to take numerous breaks while reading this, not to absorb his points (which he reiterates once too often), but to stay awake. If you can get past his writing, you may find something with which to agree or disagree with civility.
December 13, 2012
The "Rules" that Stephen Carter wrote about in this book at first seemed like a great concept, but it was followed by points that were not backed up with any sort of a valid argument. I found the author to be very hypocritical, by portraying the complete opposite of "civility" in which the title suggests. Would not recommend.
February 10, 2009
Very interesting examination of what it means to be civilized and how our culture is losing this characteristic.
April 22, 2017
This is a very good book where Professor Carter lays out the reasons for a civic and political culture that allows for fierce disagreement, but observes certain bounds, and what that might look like in practice.
It would do a disservice to his arguments, which are detailed, draw from history, philosophy, religious values, and the like, to summarize them. Sufficie to say, he believes that many "rules" that are often labeled "stifling" "outdated" or even "racist" have their roots in preserving a civic culture that leads to greater freedom, understanding and tolerance in the long run.
It's well worth reading, even re-reading. It's been several months but, flipping through the book again, I was struck by his ideas as much as the first time I read them.
It would do a disservice to his arguments, which are detailed, draw from history, philosophy, religious values, and the like, to summarize them. Sufficie to say, he believes that many "rules" that are often labeled "stifling" "outdated" or even "racist" have their roots in preserving a civic culture that leads to greater freedom, understanding and tolerance in the long run.
It's well worth reading, even re-reading. It's been several months but, flipping through the book again, I was struck by his ideas as much as the first time I read them.
Currently reading
August 8, 2018I have skimmed most of the comments and read only to Chapter 2 where the tenants of the book are laid down. First thoughts: 1. His work really needs to be taken to the morning talk shows because I agree with Claudia "...what must he be thinking now?" and 2. Michael would like to see a revised version; I would rather see, perhaps we desperately need, a la Paul & Elder's "Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking", perhaps a primer, since, I believe, civility is an active behavior.
Ruminations: We all drag human history around behind us. Mostly we are not aware, and sometimes, if aware, we do not acknowledge it. Shaking hands, men and ladies wear with opposite button placement, forks and so forth. Opening doors for others is especially important as a sign that you acknowledge the present needs of others over your own; known today as "random acts of kindness". Chapter skipping instead of reading kiver to cover is likely a good idea.
Ruminations: We all drag human history around behind us. Mostly we are not aware, and sometimes, if aware, we do not acknowledge it. Shaking hands, men and ladies wear with opposite button placement, forks and so forth. Opening doors for others is especially important as a sign that you acknowledge the present needs of others over your own; known today as "random acts of kindness". Chapter skipping instead of reading kiver to cover is likely a good idea.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews