Rediscovering Civility: The Sacred in Our Shared Humanity

“…I had walked into an uncivil work culture where bullying, rudeness, and other forms of incivility ran rampant. The actions of a narcissistic, dictatorial boss trickled down through the ranks.”i Christine Porath's words vividly illustrate a troubling reality mirrored widely in our current culture. Indeed, we find ourselves navigating a landscape increasingly marked by coarseness, spectacle, and polarization. Our words and actions reveal more than declining manners. They signal a crisis in our collective moral imagination. At stake is not mere politeness, but our very capacity to recognize the sacred worth inherent in every human being. At first glance, coarseness might seem little more than a matter of personal style or blunt honesty. Yet beneath its surface lies something troubling.

Chronic incivility gradually undermines our capacity to empathize, subtly training us to perceive others as objects rather than individuals worthy of respect. Alexandra Hudson argues insightfully that contemporary discussions of civility too often fail to ground it deeply in questions of human dignity, personhood, and flourishing. She observes, "Modern writers have tended to define civility as being 1) purely manners, 2) a network of 'communicative norms,' 3) a concept somehow related to democracy and civil society, 4) a 'strategic tool,' or 5) they've avoided defining it at all".ii As Hudson rightly notes, this superficial approach neglects civility’s essential moral and philosophical foundations, contributing significantly to the current climate of incivility.

Hudson’s critique underscores an essential truth: civility must be more than mere etiquette or polite behavior. It must arise from a recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, deeply tied to our understanding of what it means to be fully human. By reconnecting civility to these fundamental ethical and philosophical questions, we reclaim its vital role in preserving the sacredness of our shared humanity, even and especially, in moments of profound disagreement.

When civility erodes, caricature flourishes. Caricature reduces others to simple stereotypes, neatly placing them into labeled boxes. Philosopher Martin Buber describes this mindset as treating another as an "It" rather than recognizing them as a sacred "Thou." Buber writes explicitly:

"IF I FACE A HUMAN BEING AS MY Thou and say the primary word I–Thou to him, he is not a thing among things and does not consist of things."iii

True engagement with others, therefore, requires openness to complexity and a willingness to suspend assumptions, encountering each person as irreducibly unique.

Psychological research consistently underscores how empathy serves as a powerful antidote to prejudice and stereotyping. Todd Nelson, drawing on Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, highlights Atticus Finch's insight that many conflicts and misunderstandings can be avoided, and healthier relationships fostered, if we intentionally consider another person's perspective. Nelson affirms this insight through substantial empirical support: Nelson notes: “Research has shown support for the idea that when one feels more empathy for another individual, they will be less likely to express prejudice.”iv

This foundational insight helps explain why genuine civility goes beyond superficial politeness—it requires an active emotional investment in others. Civility, rooted in empathy, makes prejudice less likely because it moves us toward recognizing the inherent dignity and humanity in each person.

Nelson further clarifies empathy’s specific dimensions:

“Empathy is comprised of three elements: 1) the ability to recognize emotions in oneself and others, 2) perspective-taking—the ability to imagine and understand another person’s life through their eyes, and 3) the capacity to experience similar emotions with others”.v

By clearly outlining these elements, Nelson gives us a concrete framework for understanding civility as fundamentally empathetic. Recognizing our emotions and those of others (the first dimension) lays the foundation for self-awareness and mutual respect.

Perspective-taking (the second dimension) actively moves us beyond our subjective experience into the lived realities of others, making stereotypes harder to maintain. Finally, the capacity to share similar emotional experiences (the third dimension) fosters emotional connections essential for deep human interactions and meaningful dialogue.

Ultimately, Nelson emphasizes perspective-taking as especially powerful:“Of the three components, perspective-taking has been shown to be the most relevant to efforts to reduce prejudice”.vi This critical emphasis aligns directly with civility’s ethical imperative: to treat others not merely as polite obligations but as individuals whose unique experiences merit genuine understanding. Perspective-taking challenges us most profoundly because it requires deliberate suspension of our judgments, assumptions, and biases. By stepping into another’s reality, even momentarily, we begin to dismantle simplistic caricatures, creating genuine communion and deeper humanization.

Nelson’s empirical framework for empathy reinforces the notion that true civility is rooted in active, intentional engagement with the fullness of another person's emotional and experiential life. Far more than politeness, civility grounded in empathy provides a meaningful path toward greater human connection, flourishing, and mutual respect.

Much of today’s public discourse embraces provocative transgression primarily as a form of spectacle, often disconnected from genuine moral critique. Angela Nagle provides crucial historical context for understanding how our current moment evolved. She begins by referencing Christopher Lasch’s critique:

“The reformist-left writer Christopher Lasch applied the Freudian conception of transgression as anti-civilizational to his critique of the vacuous nihilism and narcissism of post 60s American consumer society.”vii

Lasch’s perspective reminds us that transgression was not always celebrated uncritically, even on the political left. His description of transgression as “anti-civilizational” highlights a concern that abandoning shared moral frameworks could lead not toward freedom, but rather toward societal emptiness and narcissism.

Nagle continues by noting how this critique shifted over time:

“But since the 60s the norm has until now been that critics of transgression have generally come from the right.”viii

This observation reflects a fascinating cultural shift. Historically, conservative voices have often positioned themselves as defenders of traditional norms, portraying transgressive behaviors as harmful or destabilizing. Understanding this historical dynamic helps explain why transgression was traditionally seen as a politically loaded act, associated primarily with the cultural left’s resistance to established moral orders.

She further references Daniel Bell’s critique, capturing the conservative unease clearly:

“Theorist of post-industrial society Daniel Bell lamented the transgressive ethos of the 60s and warned of its ‘obsessive preoccupation with homosexuality, transvestism, buggery, and, most pervasive of all, publicly displayed oral-genital intercourse.’”ix

Bell’s explicit language emphasizes the deep discomfort many conservatives felt regarding the moral upheaval introduced by transgressive elements in popular culture. The perceived loss of restraint and dignity alarmed traditionalists, reinforcing their narrative that transgression represented not liberation, but social and moral decline. Nagle clarifies the cultural stakes further:

“The transgressive irreverent style of the 60s counterculture was everything the right hated in previous culture wars.”x

This “irreverent style” became a symbolic flashpoint precisely because it challenged the fundamental norms that traditionalists sought to uphold. Yet today, ironically, transgression is often stripped of any meaningful moral content, instead serving primarily as entertainment or attention-seeking spectacle. This detachment from serious critique empties transgression of its earlier cultural significance. Finally, Nagle underscores the sustained conservative critique:

“The ‘adversary culture’ bemoaned by conservative anti-feminists like Phyllis Schlafly and the neocons of Commentary magazine warned against the destructive impulses of the transgressive sensibility.”xi

This statement captures the sustained conservative argument against transgression as inherently destructive rather than progressive or enlightening. Yet, by treating all transgression as inherently harmful, conservatives may have inadvertently reduced opportunities for meaningful social critique, leaving modern culture prone to superficial provocations.

Taken together, these points from Nagle reveal an important evolution: Transgression, once deeply entangled with significant moral debates, has increasingly become an empty spectacle, a performative gesture divorced from genuine ethical reflection. This development numbs audiences and weakens the very fabric of meaningful public discourse.

In this context, transgressive acts may no longer serve to awaken moral consciousness but instead risk numbing audiences, trivializing genuine ethical engagement, and undermining the potential for constructive discourse.

Linked to this spectacle of transgression is the troubling rise of the “shock-jock” ethos—an approach that confuses loudness and provocation with authenticity. Cultural commentary underscores how this ethos undermines genuine leadership and insight. Soraya Roberts, writing for Longreads, carefully tracks this evolution:

"Shock jocks once pushed the boundaries of acceptability in mainstream media…but as boundaries expanded, shock-jock culture evolved into outrage culture, thriving less on insightful provocation and more on reactionary spectacle and division."xii

Roberts' analysis makes clear how provocative tactics have increasingly abandoned genuine critique or thoughtful insight, relying instead on outrage and spectacle. This shift from meaningful dialogue toward mere inflammatory entertainment diminishes authentic leadership. Genuine strength, in contrast, resides in empathy, thoughtful reflection, and respectful engagement; qualities that build understanding rather than fueling division or humiliation.

Yet to engage others empathetically and reflectively requires more than good intentions; it demands humility. At the heart of authentic engagement lies the ability to genuinely listen and see beyond one's own perspective. Erich Fromm insightfully identifies humility as the emotional foundation necessary for objective thought. Fromm emphasizes, "The faculty to think objectively is reason; the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility".xiii He underscores that true objectivity, crucial for meaningful interaction, is inseparable from humility, a virtue that liberates us from the illusion of our own omniscience and omnipotence.

Fromm deepens this connection by clarifying that genuine love and meaningful human connections depend fundamentally on "the relative absence of narcissism," which itself requires "the development of humility, objectivity and reason".xiv This points us to an essential truth: humility allows us to step outside our ego-driven assumptions, facilitating authentic encounters with others as they truly are, not merely as reflections of our own biases, fears, or desires.

Fromm insists on the indivisibility of humility and objectivity: "Humility and objectivity are indivisible, just as love is. I cannot be truly objective about my family if I cannot be objective about the stranger, and vice versa".xv In other words, authentic civility demands a commitment to objectivity not just selectively, but universally, toward both those we naturally love and those we might easily disregard or stereotype.

Ultimately, Fromm challenges us to recognize and overcome the distortions of narcissism: "I must try to see the difference between my picture of a person and his behavior, as it is narcissistically distorted, and the person’s reality as it exists regardless of my interests, needs and fears".xvi This careful self-examination, anchored in humility, provides a critical pathway toward genuine human connection and authentic civility, qualities desperately needed in our fragmented, polarized age.

Perhaps the greatest cost of our contemporary culture of provocation and spectacle is the diminishing capacity to experience genuine awe. Psychologist Andy Tix observes that while "progress is clear in many domains," the contemporary increase in "technology, individualism, and stress is restricting the lifestyles and well-being of many". This restriction, Tix suggests, creates a lifestyle that has become "mundane," lacking genuine wonder and depth.xvii

Tix identifies this condition explicitly as "a loss of awe," calling it "a critical story that largely has been untold in our time".xviii His insight resonates profoundly, highlighting a critical yet often overlooked aspect of contemporary life: our decreased capacity for genuine astonishment and reverence.

He further explains where this loss is most evident: "People are spending less mindful time in natural settings," and "participation in organized religious groups is declining in many developed countries".xix Moreover, he underscores that "admiration for others is more difficult, as isolation becomes more common," and laments that even schools, which could foster awe in children, "perhaps even thwart kids' curiosity".xx This erosion of awe impacts nearly every domain of modern life, leading us toward isolation and diminished emotional depth.

Yet Tix points to psychological studies beginning to reveal awe’s substantial benefits, describing awe as "an emotional experience in which individuals are overwhelmed by vastness or greatness to the point that they need to alter how they understand the world"xxi. Research shows awe enhances "individuals' feelings of belonging, time availability, generosity, spirituality, and humility," and even contributes positively to physical health and increased altruism.xxii

These insights underscore awe's fundamental role in maintaining emotional, ethical, and spiritual health. Without awe, we become increasingly disconnected, losing touch with what most deeply makes us human. Rediscovering awe, therefore, is not merely beneficial but essential for re-establishing genuine civility and meaningful human connections.

The path forward requires intentionality. Small yet consistent shifts in how we interact—pausing before responding, choosing empathy over caricature, distinguishing truth-telling from mere provocation, can collectively restore the civility and dignity we desperately need. Reconnecting with awe, whether through nature, art, human kindness, or authentic spiritual encounters, replenishes our moral imagination and sensitizes us again to what truly matters.

Philosopher Abraham Joshua Heschel reminds us,

The survival of mankind is in balance. One wave of hatred, callousness, or contempt may bring in its wake the destruction of all mankind. Vicious deeds are but an aftermath of what is conceived in the hearts and minds of man. It is from the inner life of man and from the articulation of evil thoughts that evil actions take their rise. It is therefore of extreme importance that the sinfulness of thoughts of suspicion and hatred and particularly the sinfulness of any contemptuous utterance, however flippantly it is meant, be made clear to all mankind. This applies in particular to thoughts and utterances about individuals or groups of other religions, races, and nations. Speech has power and few men realize that words do not fade. What starts out as a sound ends in a deed.xxiii

Our words shape our world, either diminishing or elevating our shared humanity. It isn’t too late to reclaim civility, not merely as etiquette, but as an affirmation of the sacred dignity we share. In doing so, we just might begin bridging divides, rediscover communion, and foster a society worthy of our collective humanity.



Written by Mark J. Chironna, PhD. - https://www.markchironna.com/
Bishop Mark J. Chironna PhD
Church On The Living Edge
Mark Chironna Ministries
The Issachar Initiative
Order of St. Maxmius
United Theological Seminary, Visiting
Professor, Co-director, House of Pentecostal Studies

Dr. Mark Chironna is a public scholar, executive and personal coach, and thought leader with five decades of experience in leadership development, cultural analysis, and future-focused strategies. With advanced degrees in Psychology, Applied Semiotics and Futures Studies, and Theology, he brings a unique interdisciplinary approach to helping individuals and organizations navigate complexity, unlock potential, and craft innovative solutions.

As a Board Certified Coach with over 30,000 hours of experience, he empowers leaders and teams to thrive through resilience, foresight, and actionable strategies. Passionate about human flourishing, he integrates psychological insight and cultural trends to inspire growth and transformation.

• Prev
• Next