An ambivalent civility

Social and political theorists have increasingly celebrated civility as a civic virtue that is sensitive to value pluralism and yet has the potential to ameliorate deep differences. Using the insights of Norbert Elias, this paper makes three points: first, civility is marked by a deep-seated ambivalence that emerges through historical processes of pacification and distinction; second, we find this ambivalence manifest in the contemporary tension between individual desires and social expectations; and third, current uses of civility exhibit this ambivalence insofar as civility is used both as a means of distinction that authorizes certain forms of dialogue at the expense of others and as a mechanism of pacification whereby constraints are placed on dialogue to give voice to the marginalised. This ambivalence is illustrated by the work of Edward Shils, Mark Kingwell and Benjamin Barber, each of whom advances a conception of civility that responds to the perceived stresses of social conformity in a social milieu that stresses individuality.