Rough Draft of Research Paper

A Country of Growing Incivility

            Newspapers, news programs, media, and all forms to transfer media show the growing trend in the United States for incivility. This is demonstrated in Congressmen being at each other’s throats over differences in opinion, the tragic shootings at public schools that have happened in the recent past, as well as the simple case of road rage. Incivility is found in all facets of American society and daily living, but what exactly is incivility? To understand what incivility is, it is necessary to understand what civility is. Sarah Sobieraj and Jeffrey Berry say in their article, From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News, discuss the definitions of civility and incivility, and of civility they say that, “Civility has been defined many ways, but is understood by us in this context as political argumentation characterized by speakers who present themselves as reasonable and courteous, treating even those with whom they disagree as though they and their ideas are worthy of respect.” However Sobieraj and Berry quote another source that qualifies incivility to involve, “gratuitous asides that show a lack of respect and/or frustration with the opposition,” (Sobieraj). This concept of incivility is especially true politics. The candidates name calling and mudslinging, congressmen shouting at one another, this is a catalyst for what incivility is passed on to the general public for their daily lives. Incivility in politics and incivility in America is a cyclical problem, one that feeds into the other to make incivility an increasingly noticed part of society. Now with the understanding of what incivility is defined as another question remains. When did incivility begin, what are the factors that have contributed to the decline in civility, especially in politics, and what consequences are there from that decline?

            Despite the popular opinion, incivility in the United States’ politics is not a new trend. There are examples of incivility begin early in the United States’ history, consider, “the warning the Connecticut Courant issued about the consequences of a Thomas Jefferson victory in the presidential election of 1800: “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. . . . The soil will be soaked with blood.” Or the taunt in 1884 arising from allegations that Grover Cleveland had had an affair with a young widow and fathered an illegitimate child: “Ma, Ma, where is Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha! Ha! Ha!”” (Lindberg). Incivility is shown through the actions of the people who are unhappy with the current condition, whether it is because of wanting the position of a presidency, or just to make another person seem better than another for future benefit. The reason to be uncivil is seen to win the argument. Popular cultural beliefs reinforce incivility that it is a sign of personal weakness if a person is civil to another. Instead civility and incivility are used as appeals. Regarding Sarah Palin’s attempts to defend herself from claims of being uncivil and Obama’s speech at University of Notre Dame in 2009 as dipping with civility is said that respectively “civility and incivility [were used as] rhetorical moves with consequences,” (Perrin). This is especially true when it comes to politics. The leaders of a society are involved in politics and will demonstrate incivility in their debating tactics. As Benjamin DeMott asserts in his article, Seduced by Civility, the leaders in the society determine the degree of civility in society by their actions, and that as such people will generally follow the actions of the leaders. These actions affect the perception beliefs, morals and values play into the integration of either civility or incivility into society, and popular culture has much to do with the acceptance of such factors of determining civility or incivility.

                Since incivility is not a new ailment of society, it did not just magically appear within the last few campaign and election cycles, the change is that now the average American has taken notice of the growing decline in civility, particularly when it comes to incivility in politics. Validating this concept, a person said that, “from time to time, I go back to find the golden age of civility and it has proved elusive,” (Shea). A survey of American’s quality of life’s data shows American fears of daily living becoming worse as a result of incivility and the related issues. The data showed that 89 percent of Americans think that incivility is a “serious problem,” and 79 percent of Americans feel that in the past 10 years the problem of incivility has worsened, (Marks). This explains the discrepancy between when incivility began, and the general public beginning to notice incivility more in isolated events, especially because of the new media available to inform the average American about the political occurrences that involve incivility. However, incivility in politics has many factors that one would not necessary anticipate to correlate with the increasing problem of incivility politics.

                 Schools play a role in the development of a person’s learning of civility or incivility. As a rule, parents and teachers from each end of the country “complain of the lack of civility among children and the disrespect they show their elders.” Unfortunately, this of a lack of civility and disrespect toward elders is a “problem [that] cuts across all class and racial lines.” Further, it was noted by a survey by the American Association of School Administrators that the golden rule, (of do unto others as you would have done unto you,) is at a high demand to be taught to students in schools due to the rising numbers of students being uncivil (Marks).  Is it the role of schools to teach civility to students? Is the growing rate of incivility in politics due to the politicians learning incivility throughout their childhood and teenage years?  Is the rising rate of incivility in politics due to the fact that generations have been brought up lacking the learned trait of civility? While these questions do not have answers in the various possible forms of data, surveys, studies, or other such, they do present a dilemma for the problem of incivility in politics. However, schools are where children learn physical incivility, such as shoving, and are exposed to rumors, gossiping and bullying. Some of things very things are seen in the tactics of politicians in trying to discredit their opponents or to make them appear better than the other candidate for whatever purpose. One student’s comment about incivility in the hallways of his school is a perfect parallel between incivility in schools and incivility in politics, he said, if someone’s coming your way, you should move “because if you don’t, they’re just going to take you down and keep going,” (Marks). Same concept with politics, stay out of the bigger politicians way and there will be no need for the use of incivility, however, if the bigger politician feels inconvenienced they will show that through their uncivil actions.

                People do not watch the words that proceed from their mouth, “self-scrutiny doesn’t exist,” (DeMott). The words in which people choose to use determine the meaning in which other people give them.  How then do people not think before they speak, especially in a public position of being in politics? Does the position in which a person is elected to mean that they have the right to choose the degree of civility or incivility they use? In some cases, yes, there are no legal rules to compel delegates, politicians, or congressmen to conform to a politeness scale in their speeches, debates or discourses. However, just because there are no “legal sanction[s] for speech mostly doesn’t exist in America, social sanctions do continue to have great effect in forestalling incivility,” meaning that if public, (or widely seen), political discourses were subjected to the same limitations of private, (interpersonal conversations), that political discourses and politics itself would become more civil (Lindberg). However, one such legal sanction to prevent raging incivility is that of the decision of the Supreme Court to not have the First Amendment protect certain words. These are known as “fighting words” and their sole purpose and what they are defined as are words “that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” (Lindberg). However, a more aggravated form of incivility exists in the political world; this is termed as “outrage.” Outrage is more than incivility, outrage is a “reference to a particular form of political discourse involving efforts to provoke visceral responses (anger, righteousness, fear, moral indignation) from the audience through the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and partial truths about opponents,” (Sobieraj). Outrage is incivility left unchecked, and outrage only came from the words of a person who thought more of how to accomplish their agenda than to scrutinize the words they chose to use.

                Popular culture and the ideals of it are a factor in the decline of civility. Movies, video games, books, songs, and other forms of popular culture promote the ideal that the most masculine man resorts to violence or incivility and is rewarded for that through the that portrayal. With that concept a man named, Ron Faucheux, who is a  political consultant and who is the former publisher and editor of the political consulting industry’s Campaigns and Elections magazine, argues “there is a declining sense of civility in our politics, an abandonment of standards . . . It’s an abscess that has oozed its toxin throughout the political system. And it’s getting worse,” (Brooks). Unfortunately, those violent concepts will sometimes take root in the actions of people who are not lead by the moral compass of civility, a recent story about a health care bill in Tampa Florida demonstrates this concept of active violence taking place in politics:

“In early August, for instance, a health-care town hall was held in Tampa, Florida. It was sponsored by Democratic representative Kathy Castor and Florida state representative Betty Reed. A massive crowd, upwards of 1,500 people, packed the meeting room and spilled into the street. As Castor began to speak, scuffles broke out as people tried to get into the meeting room. Her introductory remarks were drowned out by chants of "Read the bill, read the bill!" and "Tyranny!" An event organizer came to the microphone to admonish the crowd: "If pushing and shoving continues, we will have to clear the room. The police will make the decision if it is still safe." At one point, a freelance videographer was pushed to the ground. Another man was treated for minor injuries after a scuffle left his shirt partially torn from his body. "That's the most violent anyone has been towards me," noted the man. "It was surprising, to say the least,”” (Shea).

Obviously this is an extreme case, and would be considered just an anomaly in actions in society; however, many other cases like this exist and have been acted upon in many different ways. Fights breaking out in the delegation rooms of congress, threats of violence, riots, and other forms of violence are in the shadows of politics and as a result of that, violence is also in the shadows of societies. Positive values and beliefs in civility are the strands that hold the fabric of society together, without them civil society will be easy torn apart by the inherent incivility in people, especially that of incivility regarding political topics, debates or political endeavors. Incivility in politics and popular culture of societies, “avoids basic elements of civility such as considerateness, modesty, faith in the rough rightness of democratic values-items readily comprehensible and well suited to plain speech,” (DeMott). In fact, Susan Herbst views incivility in politics as just a, “strategic weapon,” to be used at the whim of the person who employs the use of incivility in political discourse. If it is truly the case that incivility is used as a tactic for achieve one’s goals in political discourses, why does it then have a greater effect on the general public than just allowing the person to win their own agendas?

Research Paper

The thesis for my research paper for Honors 101 is “what are the factors that have contributed to the decline in civility, especially in politics, and what consequences are there from that decline?” From there I will look at a few facets of society that effect civility or incivility and comment on how they impact incivility as well as how incivility impacts that facet. I think that I will cover incivility in schools, popular culture, as well as politics. Also I will pay particular attention to how incivility in schools and popular culture affect incivility in politics. I will discuss how incivility in politics has changed throughout the years because that is the main part of my thesis. I will also look at the average American’s perception of incivility and how that has developed and progressed through the years. I will do this, but I will also note in my essay that incivility in politics, including the United States’ politics, is not a new phenomenon, but is being more noticed by the average American.  This means that incivility is becoming more aggravated for the public to notice it more often in political discourses particularly. Finally I will discuss consequences from the decline in civility and how most people are reacting to it. The argument I intend to support in my final essay is that incivility in politics is affecting the United States, but further that the problem of incivility is rooted in the values and concepts of daily living in the United States. In one of the beginning paragraphs I will use a quote from one of my sources that explains what civility versus incivility is that way it will be easier to draw from that definition throughout the rest of my essay. This quote is by Sarah Sobieraj and Jeffrey Berry from their article, From Incivility to Outrage, of civility they say that, “Civility has been defined many ways, but is understood by us in this context as political argumentation characterized by speakers who present themselves as reasonable and courteous, treating even those with whom they disagree as though they and their ideas are worthy of respect.” Whereas they quote another source that said that incivility, “involves gratuitous asides that show a lack of respect and/or frustration with the opposition.” Incivility in politics and incivility in America is a cyclical problem, one feeds into the other to make incivility an increasingly noticed part of society.

 

Rough Draft of Politcs Essay

Political campaigns are about a dime a dozen. Many have the same features, and the same development. If the party wants a candidate to look good to the American voters, the advertisers will highlight the good qualities a particular candidate possesses. However, if it is the design of the advertisement is to make a candidate look bad the advertisers will highlight the flaws of that candidate. The reasoning behind this is simply to get more votes than the rivaling party. If a candidate can be portrayed as either right or wrong for certain reasons, it makes all voters despite their voting background vote one way. Such is the case for the political advertisement against Jeff Flake entitled, “Jeff Flake’s Out of Touch, Extreme Record is Wrong for Arizona.” The makers of this political attack advertisement used many popular cultural beliefs and values embedded in American society to further the effectiveness of the idea that Jeff Flake would be the “wrong” choice for Arizona for voters of both liberal and conservative views.

            The advertisement does this by targeting key topics that transcend the lines of political affiliation. For instance, in the video it states that Jeff Flake voted against funding for child abuse prevention. Despite what political affiliation a person may have, all people are expected by popular cultural values to believe that child abuse prevention is important. With this in mind, this political attack advertisement challenges people to still want to vote for a person who voted against protecting innocent children from abuse. It plays off of the pathos of parents, grandparents, and others to seek for another candidate that will vote in favor of protecting children. Highlighting that Jeff Flake voted against funding child abuse prevention implies that Jeff Flake does not care about standing up for children and protecting them. Further denying a cultural belief embedded into society to correct wrongs by being a voice of change. The advertisement continues and points out that Jeff Flake has voted against college aid. Showing the audience that he does not care if people are able to be educated, leading them to find the candidate that will vote for those particular groups to have their voices heard because, as implied by the actions of Jeff Flake, he will not vote for what the voters want and need.

            Unfortunately for Jeff Flake and his campaigners, the political attack continues alarm many other people by the content of the advertisement, “Flake voted against bulletproof vests for local police.” Safety is a big cultural belief. Americans believe in the right to be safe in many forms. As people, want to be guaranteed safety, and this is through the ability that local policemen have to fully perform their duties as public defenders. However, this value is something that it seems that Jeff Flake does not believe in the way the American people do. As portrayed in the attack, a vote for Flake is a vote for less safety because the policemen ensuring safety will not be as protected as they could be. Overall safety is an issue that popular values instill in Americans to allow for the most protection available to those who ensure societal safety. This idea continues into the next issue of the attack is that Flake voted against the GI bill for veterans. Every attack targets different and special group’s interests, such as the interests of those who have served the country being supported by the country to be able to support them after they served the country. Here, Flake is shown as not being loyal to those who have loyally serving the country. The attack implicitly targets Flake’s credibility to be loyal to those who vote for him.

Rough Draft

Here is a very rough version:

At some point in their life, a person has witnessed two or more friends gathered in order to spend quality time together. In past years this meant seeing the friends participate in board games, sports, movies or other activities. However, today friends gathering to spend time together may be a variety of activities, however, at the center of the friends’ interactions will be the time for all of the friends to text another person who is not there. Texting has shifted what friends do together, and even more so how people interact. Texting targets a demographic of people whose ages range anywhere from twelve to thirty-five. Why has society been encouraging interactions through texting more than interactions face-to-face with another human? Whatever the reason, the increased amount of texting as the message of the media has had profound impacts on the interpersonal relationships of those who engage in it, such as weaker friendships, less social skills and the inability to connect with other people.

            While texting has the ability to connect people to one another, popular culture ideas of texting do not promote the ability for closer relationships over texting. For one, texting connotes the convenience of the other person. Unlike other forms of communication, especially interpersonal, texting places the receiver solely in control of the situation. Instead of trying to meet the needs of a friend when they need help, texting sends a message that a person can answer whenever, and that it is completely acceptable. The medium of texting sends the message that convenience of responding whenever trumps the friend’s needs, even if it is an emergency situation. Texting causes problems in communication because of its innate nature to cause misunderstandings. With the words people choose to send in their texts, the diction and connotation of the meanings of the content of the text can be misinterpreted. In changing to a form of communication that is faster and convenient, the message of the medium states the variety of interpretations that can be taken from a simple and well-meaning text.  Further it promotes the popular cultural value of popularity. Popularity has always been based off of how many people a person talks to as well as how much information the person knows about different situations. With texting, a person can give the illusion of accomplishing both requirements for popularity. Firstly, a person would be in public, possibly even with friends, but be bombarded by messages from other people all at the same time. Second, with all of the messages from other people, the individual would be well informed about what is going on in the lives of those around the individual. However, even though the person would be so informed, they would miss out on the one-on-one person interactions that are invaluable.

            Texting may be affecting many people in their ability to have social interactions with the people around them. People learn to interact with one another through interactions that are unscripted, in person, and once done cannot be undone. However, texting is changing that system dramatically. It appeals to the popular cultural narrative of being able to control the situation around one’s self. In texting, it gives the ability to phrase, organize and develop messages to be sent over time that a person can be in control of any situation. This concept also connotes empowerment that a person uses words well. However, in a person’s daily interpersonal interactions there is hardly ever a choice to craft one’s words to make the ideal impression. The new media medium of texting changes how people interact from face-to-face to over screens where body language, intonation of voice, and other indicators of certain feelings, concepts or ideas are taken out of context.

News Broadcast

As stated in the well named, but blunt article, “Man Shoots Self Fatally on Live Tv after AZ Car Chase,” news covers these sorts of stories for a momentary boost in ratings. However, as evident in the outcome of this certain car chase, filming and broadcasting live car chases to get ratings may have severe consequences. It may have value to show car chases live for such reasons as seeing how good the police are at doing their job, getting some entertainment out of someone breaking the law when you happen to be bored, or for critiquing what the person did wrong and figuring out how to seamlessly steal a car. Regardless of the reason new stations decide to broadcast a live car chase, the real reason and motive for showing it is for the ratings. Ratings equal money, and they mean that the news stations competitor has one less person watching their new broadcast.

New broadcasts showing things like this shows that the news is obsessed more with showing the bad in the world and allowing the driver to have a few moments of fame, (though in this case the driver would never know that he did get his fifteen minutes if fame). News broadcasts need not be all sunshine and smiles, there are harsh realities that happen every day that should not be ignored, but the news needs ensure that if children are watching the news with their parents that they will not be witnessing things that will damage them. Personally, I avoid the news for this reason. When I watch the news, it always tends to highlight the negative things going on in the community, nation, and world. I think news stations have found a niche and are stuck. With so much that goes wrong in the world it would be nice to hear about the good.

The Reality of Advertisements

Popular culture would not be the way it is now without commercials and the advertisement industry. Let’s face it, the advertisement industry is huge, and it makes its money off of the beliefs and values that are established as valuable by popular culture. Advertisements and advertisers have had a trend toward making the consumer not have as much control on their privacy, especially while being online. In the article, “Advertising Gets Personal,” the author, Samuel Greengard, makes it a point to show how exposed consumers really are when they go looking online at different websites. He does this by introducing a very intrusive thing called a “cookie.” Since most websites now have cookies to gather information about the person, advertisers have the potential to make much more money because they will have tailored their advertising to the right consumer. But that is not all, advertisers for products do not just simply say, “This product is good because it works better than all the other products,” or anything rational along those lines. Instead advertisers decide to focus on showing images that are not necessarily accurate of how a product will make you feel. For example, Coca Cola commercials always show that people are happy and friendlier when they drink Coca Cola. Is this really true? Obviously not, to be happy and friendly is an individual’s choice, not an influence of a very fizzy, dark colored beverage. But this shows how advertisers use ideas, beliefs, or notions of pleasure to sell us on the product. In some ways we become mentally dependent on the product to make us feel a certain way because we now have that product. This is a very harmful way to go about reinforcing stereotypes and status quos. I do not think there is ever a time when a person can look at an advertisement and that advertisement is not selling notions with their product.

For many women, looking into the mirror each morning can be a challenge. For me, it was a nightmare. Growing up was rough, I always saw pictures of gorgeous models, and women whose beauty surpassed that of an awkward teenager like me. Many people have heard of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. I first saw this advertisement when I was about thirteen, and it definitely changed my perception of me and the world around me. There have been many advertisements concerning the Dove campaign, the first one I saw was a video of the process a model’s picture goes through before it is seen by the general public. This advertisement is just of normal women showing that beauty is normal and broader than first thought. Popular culture has reinforced certain traits in a woman that determine a woman’s beauty, and on a connotative level, their value. There have since been other’s that show normal women with normal body types compared to those of the infamous Victoria’s Secret models in an effort to enforce a new acceptance for more than one type of beauty than what is stereotypically considered beautiful.

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty has come to influence younger girls from developing a toxic idea of body image and trying to change the popular cultural ideas surrounding what body image is ideal. This add definitely reinforces the concept that more than one does not have to starve themselves, or be upset about not being a size ‘0,’ ‘2,’ ‘4,’ or even ’10,’ that they can still be beautiful even though they may not conform to popular cultures ideal women’s dress size. That a woman can feel good about herself despite her size.