Civility in a non-civil world

Our young granddaughters are constantly hearing us remind them to say “Please” and “Thank you.” These are basic manners that everyone I know would agree with. I also think that when given a gift, a written “thank you” note should be sent instead of a text, but in 2025 I’m probably in the minority. Then there are rules of etiquette. For example, a man should stand when a woman enters a room and a man should take off his hat in an indoor public place.

I was taught that these actions were normal and proper. But given the number of baseball caps that I’ve recently witnessed indoors, I am not sure that everyone would agree.

So, to differentiate, manners are about behaviors, whereas etiquette is about societal norms. Today, some of both would be considered universal (hopefully please and thank you will never change), and others would be thought to be archaic. As a child, I was expected to wear white gloves when I ventured into Manhattan. Can I find those on Amazon now or have they gone the way of buggy whips?

Let me introduce another concept — civility. Has this also evolved in time or are the rules constant? Here’s the answer: Unlike certain evolving manners and examples of etiquette, civility should not change.

As a case in point, in the 18th century, George Washington at age 14 wrote a treatise with 110 rules of civility. (No, not chopping down a cherry tree was not one of them.) His number one rule was as follows: “Every action done in company, ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.”

Even as a teenager, Washington was presidential.

In the present day, Alexandra Hudson, author of “The Soul of Civility” (who, by the way, worked in the first Trump administration), differentiates between civility and politeness, arguing that they are not interchangeable. She defines civility as treating others as our moral equals who are worthy of basic respect. According to Hudson, the motivation behind this behavior is believing that others deserve it.

So, manners and etiquette can be external representations of civility, but civility itself goes deeper. And they do not necessarily go hand in hand. For instance, one can be very polite while simultaneously stabbing someone in the back. That is not civility. On the other hand, being excessively polite and being afraid to offend someone can lead to inauthenticity, which is also not civility.

According to the nonpartisan Institute on Civility in Government, it’s about seeking common ground as a starting point for a dialogue, being able to disagree without disrespect, and maintaining the understanding that everyone comes to a conversation with personal biases.

The Institute states as its premise that a call to civility is a call to our shared humanity. Respect and kindness lead to dialogue with increasing understanding of self and others.

How far astray have we gone and can we go back? We now have the cesspool of social media and daily mudslinging from our president. This is incivility run amok. On the other hand, there are the civility police. Ms. Hudson reminds us of the satiric brilliance of comedian Larry David, who calls people out for violating norms, and is either cringeworthy or hysterical, depending on one’s comedic barometer. Both extremes will never lead to a conversation.

There are people today who are trying to bridge the political divide and cool the temperature. Abby Phillip of CNN, for example, hosts a nightly political roundtable of disagreeing pundits and always keeps the conversation civil. She shows interest and respect for all guests, even those whose views I consider to be abhorrent.

In that spirit we need to talk about how to raise the next generation, a generation clamoring for devices even before they can talk. When these kids come of age there will be a different president, but sadly the pattern of incivility that he has ushered in may become the norm. This cannot be.

In 1988 a minister named Robert Fulghum wrote a bestseller called “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” The book became famous for its simple wisdom. His premise was that the basic rules of living can be easily followed by the average 5-year-old and should become a blueprint for life. For example, under the heading of “social harmony,” he says to “share everything, play fair, don’t hit people, and say you’re sorry when you hurt someone.”

Under the heading of “responsibility,” he says to “put things back where you found them, clean up your own mess, and don’t take things that aren’t yours.”

It doesn’t require too much book learning to transpose these values into a model for adult living. Be kind, be fair, and don’t blame others for your own mistakes.

Unfortunately, in 2025, the simplistic beauty of Fulghum’s logic may just have become too simple.

In an essay by journalist Ezra Klein on Sept. 16, following Charlie Kirk’s murder, he offers some sobering advice: “I want to create a space that takes our disagreements seriously and takes the stakes of them seriously — but does so without deepening our divisions irreparably. We are going to have to live here with one another. We’re going to have to be friends and foes at the same time.”

Klein then proceeds to have a conversation with Ben Shapiro,a commentator with whom he agrees on nothing. They listen to and respond to each other with respect. These days it is a challenge to have a respectful conversation, or any kind of conversation, with someone completely out of one’s echo chamber. It takes effort and self-restraint.

Civility is a choice. We can choose to respect each other or not. We must find a way to disagree and do so in a civil manner. Let us on Shelter Island be role models. We can have all three — good manners, politeness, and civility. I think our founding father would have liked that a lot.

Nancy Green is a social worker and a member of the Shelter Island Health and Wellness Committee.