Lapsed Civility

There can be serious, long-lasting consequences to an acceptance of lack of civility as a normal way in which a society goes about its business. A lapse in civility can fairly swiftly lead to degraded values altogether. Which leads invariably to something else, such as a lapse in moral values. One collapse leads inevitably, it would seem, to another.

And that's truly a pity. Since a civil society is much easier to take and to appreciate than one that lacks civility. Something as simple as politeness. As concern, even on a superficial level, for others. We do live, after all, in communities. Smaller communities placed within larger, extended ones.

And each community has its own defined, distinct character. People inhabiting their small communities get along well together when they observe civil behaviour. Something as ordinary as acknowledging the presence of another human being. A nod, a smile, a brief greeting. It's enough to make anyone feel part of a civil order.

Stare straight ahead, fail to offer to open a door, or to express appreciation for someone who did that for you, and you're uncivil. Refuse to acknowledge someone's presence. Light up a cigarette in an enclosed bus stop. Don't bother offering to help someone who obviously could use some. Have pesticides sprayed on your lawn so the chemical can drift into your neighbour's house.

Good anti-social formulas for disassociation and lack of social responsiveness. All of them. So if you choose not to know your neighbour on the most superficial of levels, you don't owe them anything. You owe nothing to anyone; not your neighbour, your neighbour's children, your neighbourhood.

Small acts of defiance, of dislike at the presence of people who live adjacent where you do, because you choose not to become involved, seem all right. Young people, because they have no 'connection', following the example of their parents, see nothing wrong in destroying public property; see no connection in their act and the diminishment of public trust.

No respect for other people translates to dislike for others. Dislike can be quickly transformed to resentment and aggression. With no constraints of civil discourse and responsibility there is no emotional investment, no sense of personal responsibility. Infringing on the rights of others is simply translated as assertively protecting your own rights.

Driving too fast, imperilling others is one indication. Not far from that to driving aggressively, to exhibiting real loss of control with what is considered to be public rage. And inflicting real physical damage on others. Don't like the thumping of loud music? Don't complain, you might get your windows smashed.

Lax attitudes toward once mandatory societal norms of civility has led through the intervention of cultural liberalism, to the degradation of normal modes of civility.

When children, for example, are no longer taught to address their elderly neighbours by their properly respectful surnames, but given permission instead to address them by first name, it's a loss of civility that grows with them.

Casual is fine, but it should be mutually agreed upon, and there is a right time for expressing it and a decidedly wrong time. A receptionist in a medical professional office takes the short step of addressing a client by first name, without invitation to do so. Elementary school children addressing a teacher by first name. Wrong, wrong.

Basic respect is lacking, and with it the opportunity to learn reciprocally respectful interchange between people. It's nice to feel free and relaxed, without restraints imposed by a Victorian mind-set, but moderation is the key to success in all things, and relaxation of social mores should take place when it's appropriate.

Otherwise we end up with distrustful individuals who don't know how to interact respectfully with others. Society becomes disorderly, vandalism occurs, and everyone loses.