Uncivil Society

Historical Background

In Enlightenment thought, civilization was understood as a gradual process through which interpersonal relations within society became less violent and more polite. Most European societies were considered to be civil societies, whereas barbarous or despotic societies, closer to the state of nature, lay beyond. This internal civilization process had a necessary corollary in war, or at least the threat of war, with others. From Napoleonic times onward, colonial projects were increasingly justified in terms of “civilizing” the natives, even as the methods of subjugation were allowed to be uncivil because the population in question was not yet within the “civil” realm of those who can be expected to understand and respect the modern rule of law. This historical baggage makes any reflection on the meaning of the term civil in civil society—and hence also on what might constitute uncivility—politically loaded. Some authors therefore reject any substantive use of civil as having racist connotations.

Characteristics of Uncivil Society

When the term is not rejected, the most frequently mentioned characteristic of uncivil society is the use of violence. Although not all forms of violence are necessarily considered uncivil, there is a general presumption that violent means are a hallmark of uncivil society. However, Ami Pedahzur and Leonard Weinberg as well as Mary Kaldor and Diego Muro emphasize that there are other elements than violence that render groups and movements potentially uncivil.

Kaldor and Muro mention exclusivism, particularly of an ethnic or religious nature, and fundamentalism: an attempt to impose inflexible doctrines not only on those who willingly adhere to them but on a wider group. The first element, ethnic or religious exclusivism, is found in the extreme right groups studied by Pedahzur and Weinberg and in many of the movements discussed in Petr Kopecký and Cas Mudde. It also figures largely in the literature on African civil society, which emphasizes the pervasiveness of ethnic divisions.

The element of inflexible doctrines is less widely shared. Kaldor and Muro write that it could apply not just to religion and nationalism but also to “secular ideologies like Stalinism or extreme forms of neoliberalism.” They do not, however, give examples of groups that ought to be considered uncivil on this basis. Maha Abdelrahman, on the other hand, does include secular modern groups in her indictment of Egyptian civil society as uncivil, precisely on the basis of wanting to impose inflexible doctrines on others. A dogmatic element of uncivil society begs the question of who decides what constitutes inflexibility.

...