How to be civil even if you disagree (w/ Alexandra Hudson)
27:45 Share

You're listening to How to Be a Better Human. I'm your host, Chris Duffy. What do you do when you disagree with someone? I'm not asking what you're supposed to do. I'm asking what you actually do. Personally, a lot of times I give a kind of strained smile and I try my best to change the conversation topic as quickly as I possibly can. Or if it's a person who I don't know very well and they're being particularly strident, I will sometimes make a little mental note to say, never hang out with this person ever again.

To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing. I think it is bad to only talk and spend time with people who 100% agree with me. But if I'm being honest, it is hard to push past those boundaries. And I think that one big reason why it feels so hard is that there aren't all that many good models right now of civil and constructive disagreements.

Most of the examples that I see are of people disagreeing very loudly and very angrily. There's not a lot of calm, respectful listening happening. As a result of that, having conversations across difference feels scary and dangerous. Today's guest, Alexandra Hudson, is the author of the book, The Soul of Civility, Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.

Alexandra believes that the answer is a lot more civility in our lives. But she also believes that many people don't understand exactly what that means. Here's a clip where Alexandra tells me what that word civility means to her. This is both the challenge and the opportunity in writing about a topic like civility. Everyone thinks they know what civility is. And my argument is that actually very few people do. It's not just civility.

Manners and etiquette, it's actually much deeper, much richer. It's a civic virtue and an ingredient in the timeless principles of human flourishing that have helped communities across time and place thrive across deep difference. So I argue that civility is, again, different from your politeness. Politeness is etiquette. It's technique. It's external stuff. It's manners. Where

Whereas civility is an internal disposition of the heart. It's a way of seeing others as our moral equals, worthy of a bare minimum of respect just by virtue of our shared moral status as members of the human community. And that crucially, sometimes actually respecting someone, actually loving someone well is

means foregoing the rules of etiquette and propriety and politeness for a greater good, to tell a hard truth, to engage in robust debate. That's breaking the rules of politeness, but that is engaging in true politeness.

civility, seeing someone saying, like, I see you as my equal, and therefore I'm not going to patronize you, and pretend that a difference doesn't exist, or a disagreement doesn't exist. I respect myself enough. Civility has a mutual obligation. It's about respecting others, but also having a basic respect for ourselves, and that means...

speaking up sometimes, telling hard truth, not remaining silent, and actually broaching an uncomfortable conversation, actually risking offending people by saying no. And I think we're really uncomfortable with that sometimes. So civility is different from mere politeness. It's not just the form of an act, the technique, the external stuff.

It is the internal disposition, the fundamental orientation that actually informs when we break the rules of propriety, norms of etiquette in order to actually help us thrive across deep difference. We are going to have much more civil discussion with Alexandra in just a bit. But first, a quick break.

How to be a better human is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. What if comparing car insurance rates was as easy as putting on your favorite podcast? With Progressive, it is. Just visit the Progressive website to quote with all the coverages you want. You'll see Progressive's direct rate, then their tool will provide options from other companies so you can compare. All you need to do is choose the rate and coverage you like. Quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive.

Hello, hello. I'm Malik. I'm Jamie. And this is World Gone Wrong, where we discuss the unprecedented times we're living through. Can your manager still schedule you for night shifts after that werewolf bit you? My ex-boyfriend was replaced by an alien body snatcher, but I think I like him.

World Gone Wrong, a new fiction podcast from Audacious Machine Creative, creators of Unwell, a Midwestern Gothic Mystery. Learn more at audaciousmachinecreative.com.

Find World Gone Wrong in all the regular places you find podcasts. I love you so much. I mean, you could like up the energy a little bit. You could up the energy. I actually don't take notes. That was good. I'm just kidding. You sounded great. So did you. Today, we're talking about civility with Alexandra Hudson.

Hi, my name is Alexandra Hudson. I'm the author of The Soul of Civility, Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves. So, Alexandra, at the start of this podcast, we played a clip of you defining civility. And I think that definition that you give is really interesting because you draw this distinction between what it means to be polite and what it means to be civil. And in your book, you say that one of the ways you learned that distinction was you had this job in politics. It's one of your first jobs. And

What you saw was that there was this group of people who were really rude and aggressive to other people to try and get them to do what those people wanted them to do. And then there was this other group that were just as aggressive, I guess, in in using other people, but they were doing it under the guise of politeness. And you said that at some point you realized that both outcasts.

Outward aggression and enforced politeness were two sides of the same coin and that neither of those modes was actually being civil to other people. Exactly. Like at first when I saw these two modes, the extreme hostility and bellicosity and aggression and that on one hand and then the extreme politeness and kind of suave polish on the other. I thought they were polar opposites.

But I actually realized at a deeper level, they're very similar. They're again, like as you mentioned, two sides of the same coin because both modes...

see other people purely in terms of means to their selfish ends. They see them as instruments to their aims, their goals, as opposed to seeing others as ends in and of themselves, worthy of respect just because they're human, full stop. I saw that happen. It happened to me. And I realized that both—and this is really the crisis that we face as a society as a whole—

that we insufficiently appreciate the gift of being human. My book is in many ways a humanistic manifesto extolling the gifts of being human, which is the antidote, which is exactly what we need in these deeply dehumanizing times. We're very inclined to diminish the value, the inherent moral worth of people we differ from, we disagree with. It's one of the big things that I took away from engaging with your ideas is that we really have to find ways to see people

Who we disagree with. And in fact, people who we really may not like as still being people.

fully human in all the ways that that makes them complicated and nuanced. And let's put it in low stakes terms. You have a sandwich in front of you and I steal it from you and it's your sandwich. And then you say, give that back to me. And I say, you didn't say please. So actually you're being rude, not me, the person who stole the thing from you. And you very much say like, that's politeness, right? That's like using these weaponized norms.

rather than thinking about this person is a complete person, right? Like, tell me what's wrong about my example, because I'm sure there's lots of things that I'm missing. No, it is good. I think today we see people too often content with themselves and others settling with the norms of politeness and propriety, doing and saying the right things. And we're content with just people going through the motions, right?

There's this great line by the English playwright George Bernard Shaw that I'll paraphrase. It says, you know, you can get away with murder as long as you do and say the perfectly correct thing. You know, that it's entirely possible to actually be ruthless and cruel and manipulative and to debase others, to dehumanize them while smiling. And, you know, that what we see is

is not all we get. How people appear, how the people present, how they dress, the things they do and the things they say, that too often as a society we're content with just that superficial artifice, the stuff of politeness and etiquette. And I argue that no, we should not just go by what people do and say. We should actually care about what's going on in people's hearts. What is their motivation for doing this thing? And is it actually respecting others? Is it seeing, knowing, loving them? Is it seeing them in the fullness of

of who they are. It seems to me like one of the differences in terms of how they're used is that politeness is often used by people in power to put people below them in their place. And I put in their place right in big quotes. You know, there's this idea about like, what does it mean to look dressed professionally for an interview? And often that's like used to select for people who are like you, right? Like dress the way you dress for that interview, as opposed to like

Looking at people as humans would say that like the external appearance is not very relevant to the sort of like what the job is going to do. So I'm going to try and see your deeper humanity rather than just how well you perform these norms in a way.

It's a great point. So there are two core contingents, two voices in our public life today. There's one that says, you know, we just need more civility and politeness in public life. And they often harken back to this bygone era of comity and harmony. And they say, oh, if we could just, you know, revive this bygone era of gentility and chivalry, then it'll solve all of our problems, you know? And there's another contingent that says, to the point of your question,

No. Civility and politeness are part of the problem. They're tools of the patriarchy, the powerful, the white supremacists, the people in positions of authority to keep the powerless, to silence, to suppress. So we need to burn it all down. We need less civility and politeness in public life to

bring forth greater justice and equity in our world today. And again, both these contingents miss this essential distinction that I argue for throughout the book about what civility is and what politeness is. And in fact, true civility sometimes requires

speaking truth to power sometimes requires protest. And I'll just make one more comment about the difference. My distinction honors the etymology of these words. The etymology of our word politeness is the Latin word polier, which means to smooth or to polish. And that's what politeness does. Again, it connotes external stuff, right? Staying at the superficial, artificial. It polishes over papers, over difference. It sweeps it under the rug.

as opposed to giving us essential tools to grapple with difference head on. Whereas the etymology of civility is the Latin word, which is the etymological root of our word, citizen, citizenship, the city and civilization. And, and of course, civility. And,

And this is what civility is. It is the duties, the mores, the conduct befitting of a citizen in the city that especially a democracy like our own demands that we bring our deeply held values and notions and beliefs to the fore and not just sweep the difference under the rug. It demands sometimes, especially in the American context, protest.

The right to civil disobedience is enshrined in our founding documents and that is part and parcel with the true spirit, the true soul of civility. When you framed this as like there's kind of two sides, right? There's the side that says like we need this and there's the side that says we don't need this.

The examples that you gave of people who say we don't need civility, you kind of located those people on one side of the political spectrum, right? People who are like fighting patriarchy and white supremacy. And I think that actually a thing that is really compelling about this idea is that there are just as many people on the other side of the political spectrum who also don't believe in civility, who think that it's kind of like for suckers or like a form of wokeness. And I think that

The idea that civility is actually politically neutral. And I think you make such a compelling argument for how throughout history and in this moment across all countries, one of the most important skills and values we can do is to see other people as human. And that that is why civility is necessary, right? Like that there's this idea that we can only conquer the ills of society, whatever we perceive those ills as if we are not civil. And in fact, it's the opposite. We can only do it if we are civil to each other.

An idea in your book that I have really has stuck with me because I had never ever thought about it in this way is that I think all of us are familiar with the idea that there can be a just or an unjust law.

But you talk about how there are also just or unjust norms and that that is equally important and also much more directly relevant. Right. As an individual, we probably have way more ability to influence just and unjust norms than we do to repeal a law that we feel is unjust. What exactly you mean by that? What is a just or an unjust norm?

This is a question that people have engaged with across the millennia, and I bring that to bear in my book. But it was especially a close rereading of Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail that brought a lot of clarity to me on this topic and about the difference between civility and politeness and, to your point, just and unjust laws and norms. So he makes an observation. How do we distinguish between a just and unjust law?

A just law squares with the eternal moral law. It uplifts human personality. It affirms humanity.

human dignity. And an unjust law does the opposite. It doesn't square with the eternal moral law. It degrades human personality. It corrodes and undermines human dignity. That's the litmus test he uses as to whether or not we should consider engaging in extra legal means of civil protest, of engaging in civil disobedience. If there is a law that doesn't square with the moral law, then we sometimes have an obligation to take action in the face of that injustice.

And I realized the same is true with our social norms. We do have more power. Maybe not all of us want to spearhead a letter writing campaign or, you know, picket and protest. You know, that's not the spirit or the ethos or the calling that some of us do have that calling that other of us don't. Our everyday actions are

in ways great and small, they matter way more than we realize. Little things that we do that affirm the dignity and the personhood of those around us have great power. Just choosing to acknowledge our Uber driver, our clerk at the cashier, choosing to know our neighbor's names and maybe even invite them over, that has many practical benefits.

It's just inherently good to know the people that you share, that you do life together with, that you share a vicinity with. I have this metaphor of the front porch. The porch is just a metaphor for a way of life. And the way of life is choosing to use what we do have

to create community and to create relationship and this feeling of choosing to make people feel seen and known and loved wherever we are. We can have a front stoop. We can have a lawn party. Some people have supper clubs. I met people in the course of writing this book who host office hours at a coffee shop. It's not about what you have. It's about how you choose to use what you do have.

We have a profound crisis of alienation where people are alone and they want friends. They just don't know how. And we underappreciate, and this is the whole body of research that backs this up, how much our small bids of affection matter to people. We often underappreciate that. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.

Warmer, sunnier days are calling fuel up for them with factors. No prep, no mess meals. You can meet your wellness goals. Thanks to this menu of chef crafted meals with options like calorie smart protein plus veggie vegan or keto and factor has fresh never frozen meals, which are dietician approved and ready to eat in just two minutes.

That sounds like a dream come true. I cannot wait. So no matter how busy you are, you will always have time to enjoy nutritious, great tasting meals. Make today the day that you kickstart a new healthy routine. What are you waiting for? Head to factormeals.com slash betterhuman50 and use code betterhuman50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month. That's code betterhuman50 at 50%.

factormeals.com slash betterhuman50 to get 50% off your first box, plus 20% off your next month while your subscription is active.

Support for the show comes from Brooks. My friends at Brooks sent me amazing new Go 16s that I have been running with. The Go 16 has made me feel lighter and more energetic when I run out the door in the morning. They have soft cushioning through a technology called the Nitrogen Infused DNA Loft V3. It offers just the right softness.

There's also engineered air mesh on the upper side of the shoe that provides the right amount of stretch and structure. It'll turn everyday miles into everyday endorphins. That sounds good, right? Let's run there. Visit brook'srunning.com to learn more.

And we are back. When we're thinking about some of these big societal issues, how do we rebuild civil society? How do we make it so that people can talk to each other against political divides, against ideological divides, and talk to each other in a way that they're heard and feel safe and respected? I do think that

Technology has really changed a lot of this because we both feel constantly connected all of the time and extremely disconnected and isolated from each other. I'm just going to quote from the book. When you interact with people in a digitally mediated way, either online or over the phone with customer service representatives, remember the human on the other side. Digital interaction makes it easy to forget another's personhood. I certainly know that this is a challenge.

How do you actually put that into place? What are things that people should be practicing and trying to do? Well, one thing I've personally done right now is like I've deleted all social media apps off my phone. I'm in like a zero digital interaction kind of phase where I'm just kind of limiting it to email and texting. I have a lot going on in life. But the point is, I'm just like trying to focus on what's in front of me and people who are in front of me right now. And I think that we underappreciate how

our energy is like sapped by just the constant connectivity and we're drained. I think it's only when we actually disconnect and kind of digitally detox, which I do, I try to do quarterly a little retreat where there's 24 hours I'll go into the woods and just like be totally alone with my thoughts, with my journal, with prayer, with stillness.

silence. And it's only after we digitally disconnect and have that detox that we realize how refreshed we feel. And so I'm trying to kind of protect my mental health headspace, my bubble of peace. My friend Sherry Turkle, she's at MIT, but a lot of her career, she's been tech skeptic. And her next book,

is about how technology is not neutral. Actually, we underappreciate the way in which we are changed. Our humanity is altered by our interaction with technology. And she's interviewing these people that are choosing to have relationships, like either through therapists or actual romantic relationships with AI. This is increasingly common, but it's emblematic of

of our desire to escape vulnerability. Like, we'll never be rejected by a computer. You know, we'll never be dumped by an AI. And a therapist, an AI therapist is only going to affirm us and tell us who we are. They're not going to challenge us, you know? And that's not neutral. She's exploring the way in which our humanity is corroded, is actually diminished by these interactions with these virtual mediums.

You know, I think we all learned during the pandemic that virtual interactions with others was a cheap substitute. It was an imperfect replacement for the power of the irreplaceable magic, I like to call, of the corporeal, the embodied, the in-person experience. There's just something magical that happens when you're just sharing a moment in time with someone else that's good for its own sake.

You have a section in the book where you talk about how to restore trust, civility and civil society and save democracy. And, you know, just a small prescription there. But you have a list of things that regular people can do to help accomplish those goals. And it feels very related to this. So can you tell me some of the those that kind of stand out to you as like the steps that regular people should be taking to achieve?

strengthen and encourage civil society. Yeah, I and I wrote a lot about this during the pandemic, actually, where we were hearing so many stories of gloom and doom and of crisis and despair. It was, you know, without question, a very devastating time for the world. But this is the remarkable thing about the human condition and how we respond in times of crisis. It brings out the worst in us. And we definitely saw that in Volta's play The Pandemic, but also brings out the best in us.

I reported on just stories of ingenuity and resiliency and people rise to the occasion to meet the needs of those around them, whether it was restaurants who are delivering food to the elderly or people who are not immunocompromised, not able to go to their home or just people who volunteered to deliver groceries or to check in on people in their vicinity.

I wrote about stories of families who had been pulled in a million different directions. Then all of a sudden during lockdown, they're just rediscovering the beauty of just sharing a meal together. And there was this untold story of like a hidden silver lining during the pandemic of people just rediscovering the people closest to home, you know, where we are so digitally connected in new and new and new and beautiful ways. So we can often miss the opportunities to invest and give and receive from the people right around us. There is a,

Much that is the same about this problem of civility. This is actually, you know, not a new problem, not a problem of Twitter, not a problem of Donald Trump or democracy or America. Like, this is a timeless human problem. This question of how do we flourish even when we differ and disagree? This is one, it emerges from a part of the human personality we all share. We're profoundly social as a species, but also defined by diversity.

Self-love and inordinate self-love is the timeless threat, the perennial threat to flourishing human community, choosing to put our own needs before the needs of others. Is civility for everyone or is it just for rich people? Right. Like it's civility. Does civility apply if you are living paycheck to paycheck, working multiple jobs and struggling to make ends meet?

For some people, the challenge of civility is getting people to view you as a fundamental human rather than you viewing other people as fundamental humans. So how does it apply or does it apply across the board?

So it's a great question that reminds me of this fabulous etiquette manual that I write about in the book called Il Galateo, which is by a guy from the Italian Renaissance called Giovanni della Casa. And I encourage everyone to pick up the copy of this book. It's just delightful and hysterical. Giovanni della Casa, you know, he's in this long line of etiquette writers who just have a very particular sense of social justice and social etiquette and propriety, how the world should be. And, you know, he just has lots of funny insights about

He says that life can really be death by a thousand paper cuts. If we're just walking around doing and saying whatever we think that like life can either be inherently ennobling or degrading. Everything we do matters in ways great and small. And his general ethos of his book, El Galateo is just like, consider life.

the basic needs and well-beings of others and don't be disgusting. You know, people can be pretty gross and be pretty inconsiderate. And he's like, just modulate your interactions with others enough to just not repulse those around you. And that's like a pretty low bar to have a decent, you know, flourishing society.

And so I really love this, you know, parsing out how do we disambiguate the norms that silence and oppress and do divide? Are we so focused on people doing and saying the right things and following the rules of propriety that we're actually inhibiting open and honest conversations about really important questions and dialogues of our day?

Can you maybe give me just a sentence or two each for what are two things that people listening should start doing to encourage the practice of civility in their lives? I love that question. I'll leave listeners with two thoughts. One, recover the power, the superpower of the 21st century, I call it, of unoffendability.

we have way more power when it comes to our lives with others to choose whether we are offended or not. I love this line from Marcus Aurelius. He says this exact same thing as in his meditations. And again, former emperor of Rome who said, you know, just remember that in our interactions with others, we always have the chances. It's not about what someone else does to us. It's how we choose to respond and interpret what someone does. And I

And I love this line from my friend Daryl Davis. He's an African-American jazz musician who has for 40 years sought out and befriended members of hate groups, members of the KKK and white supremacist groups. Take them for dinner, take them for a drink. And he's like morally converted three, four hundred people away from these hateful groups.

detestful views and bigoted views by just befriending them and asking questions about them. So what he would say, and this leads me to my second point, is don't get furious, get curious. Curiosity is also an underrated superpower in our world today. I think this, we have, unfortunately,

we succumb to a really kind of cheapened view of others in the world around us, where we see others in the world around us in terms of these simple dichotomies of right or wrong, you know, good and evil. Like, and we assume that we know everything there is to know about a person based on one aspect of who they are. You know, who do they vote for in 2016? What was their view on the pandemic and vaccines or this one issue, you know? And that in our minds is enough to say, okay, I don't want you in my life, or I know everything there is to know about you, or okay, you're on my team.

That is so harmful and reductionistic and degrading to the human personality. We are all so profoundly complex. We come to our views about the world for many different reasons, and we have many different experiences that lead us to how we view the world. And I argue for this idea in my book called

unbundling people? Can we see the part of someone that their bad view that we might think is disgusting and morally abhorrent, even the mistake that someone's done, the bad tweet, the tasteless joke, or even the really bad thing from way back in their past, can we see the part of them in light of the whole, the irreducible dignity and worth of

that they have, they possess inherently for just being human. Because too often we see the part and define the whole by that. But can we invert that, honor people with a bare minimum of respect that they deserve by virtue of our shared dignity? And can we be curious about the stories? But to say, actually, that's so interesting. I would love to hear more. But I think a little bit more of curiosity and unoffendability and unbundling people. The idea of unoffendability, to me, I guess I would say like,

I think that there are lots of things that it's really good or important to be offended by and yet to find a person's idea or action offensive and not their being offensive. You know, there's an idea we talked about on the podcast with Dylan Marin that empathy is not endorsement.

In other words, like you can have empathy for a person who is expressing something that you find vile and disgusting and that you could still have empathy for them as a person without endorsing their idea. And that to me is amazing.

I mean, I think this is a really challenging thing. And so I think this is at the core of what I find so important and interesting about your work and about the idea of civility, because it is it's really countercultural. The idea that we would be civilized.

respectful and see people who we don't share beliefs or values with as humans who are worthy of respect and care. That is very countercultural and it's really important.

Thank you. Countercultural and important. I love that. It's going to go on the cover of my next book if it gets reprinted. So I love that. Well, Alexandra Hudson, thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you. And if I may make a shameless plug or invitation to your audience, I have a publication, a substack called Civic Renaissance, and it's about reviving the wisdom of the past, as my book and my work does, to help us lead better lives today, to help us be better people in the present. So everyone's welcome to continue learning and talking about these things, about beauty, goodness, truth.

respect we owe to others across difference over there. So thanks again for having me, Chris. A real pleasure. That is it for this episode of How to Be a Better Human. Thank you so much to today's guest, Alexandra Hudson. Her book is called The Soul of Civility. I am your host, Chris Duffy, and you can find more from me, including my weekly newsletter and other projects at chrisduffycomedy.com.

How to be a better human is brought to you on the Ted side by a group of Renaissance thinkers, Daniela Balarezo, Ban Ban Chang, Chloe Shasha Brooks, Lainey Lott, Antonia Leigh, and Joseph DeBrine. This episode was fact checked by Julia Dickerson and Mateus Salas, who know that there is nothing civil about getting your facts wrong.

On the PRX side, our show is put together by a team who are known in the biz as the soul of audio. Morgan Flannery, Nora Gill, Maggie Gorville, Patrick Grant and Jocelyn Gonzalez. And of course, thanks to you for listening to our show and making this all possible. If you are listening on Apple, please leave us a five star rating and review. If you're listening on the Spotify app, answer the discussion question that we put up there on mobile. It is so fun every week to read your answers and your thoughts.

We will be back next week with even more episodes of How to Be a Better Human. In the meantime, be civil to each other, be better than civil, and take care. Thanks for listening. PR.