Monsignor Charles Pope has written a fine post/essay, "Concerns for Civility: What Do The Scriptures Teach Us?", for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., blog. Here is a short excerpt from the conclusion:
Careful -Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.
On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.
Balance - The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First that we should speak the truth in love, and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.
Read the entire post. One of the challenges, of course, is gauging what is actually mean. There is, as Monsignor Pope notes, a certain grey area: "Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear." Over the years, I've found that some folks feel that any sort of strong or critical remark is "mean-spirited" or "harsh" or "nasty", as if rendering judgment on the logic of an idea or the veracity of an argument were was somehow an outright hate crime. Frankly, I don't understand such folks, nor can I quite fathom how they make through life without a sense of humor or real friends.
I've been chided and chastised more than a few times for strong remarks made on this blog. Once in a while, after considering the complaint, I have apologized for what I've said. But I find, more often than not, that the complaint reveals either an inability for a particular reader to cope with a strong but fair criticism, or a failure to actually take seriously the criticism proferred. What is especially interesting (and a bit funny, if frustratingly so), is when someone complains that a post is "mean-spirited" or "nasty" and then goes on for several sentences about what a horrible thinker, person, Catholic, etc., I surely must be. In such a case, it's apparent that unpardonable sin is failure to feel and emote in exactly the same way as the one complaining/lecturing.
Which brings me to this essential point: I try very hard to aim my criticisms—and especially my use of sarcasm—at ideas, beliefs, and utterances, not at persons. I think this is especially important in using the often unstable and unruly tool of sarcasm, which can detonate in one's cyber-face very easily. (There is also the problem of what is meant by "sarcasm", which has a wide range of meaning depending on who one is talking to; perhaps "caustic criticism" or "acerbic criticsm" is a better term.) But I also believe that sarcasm, used rightly, can expose error and wrong-headedness in a helpful and engaging way. However, it really shouldn't be used to demean and attack persons; rather, it should be used to expose and rebut pretense, falsehood, evasion, lies, fabrications, misrepresentations, cognative dissonance, dissent, and general charlatanism.
For example, here is a bit from a post I wrote back in September 2007 titled, "Hans Küng needs to write less and read more" ; the sentences in bold are from a piece by Küng, followed in regular type by my acerbic criticism:
• "The Romans, the Roman bishop, i.e. the pope, have a hard time admitting mistakes. When you have an ideology of infallibility, then infallible mistakes will be made, and those cannot be corrected." Wow. You would think that a guy who wrote an entire book on papal infallibility might actually understand what papal infallibility is. Which means that either he doesn't (embarrassing) or he is being misleading (worse than embarrassing). But, to point out the obvious, the Regensburg Address, while certainly a serious and important pronouncement, was not "infallible," nor did anyone with any commonsense or knowledge of Catholic teaching act as though it was. Well, take heart, Hans Küng: at least your many mistakes aren't infallible. Just embarrassing.
• "Desperate young people resorted to terrorism. Of course we have to judge suicide assassins and assaults. But we have to think about why so many young people became so desperate to make themselves available for such assassinations." Yes, we sure do. And we need to consider strongly the possibility—which does have evidence on its side—that poverty and "desperation" are not the primary motives of Islamic terrorists. But, of course, you are so busy blaming everything on America and George Bush, you haven't time to read about other perspectives on the matter.
• "Religion can co-exist with democracy. The leading architects of Europe, from Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer to Robert Schuman and Alcide De Gasperi, were all pious Christians. The reason why Islam has more problems with democracy than Christianity is that Islam, in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, had no Reformation and Enlightenment, leaving out a few special circles." I take that to mean that if it weren't for Protestantism and secularism, many Catholics would be just as violent and murderous as some radical Islamists are today? Is this guy serious?
My post was certainly caustic, but it was penned in response to some truly ridiculous (even insulting) remarks by Küng aimed at Benedict XVI, and my focus was on skewering Küng's claims and remarks, not on taking personal shots at him. And yet, sure as shootin', someone left this comment: "These comments mirror intolerance and evilness. To sum up: HK, don't write, don't think, obey the Pope." Really? Well, sure, I am intolerant of passively accepting Küng's dubious remarks as true and well-argued in the lights of facts and basic logic. But "evilness"? And so it goes; and as long as there are blogs and a free exchange of ideas, there is going to be those sort of remarks. Oddly enough, they usually come from people who insist they are the most tolerant, openminded, and expansive-souled folks in the cosmos. Such talk is cheap, and false tolerance is easier to steal and abuse than true civility is to learn and use rightly.
This is a great topic. I have long believed that sarcasm is one of those affronts to goodness and civility that we don't want to face. I certainly agree that sarcasm directed to persons is problematic, and I would say, poisonous, possibly the vice that makes one incapable of reaching certain persons God wants one to reach with the Gospel.
However, I take issue with sarcasm period. I am not smart enough to think of all possibilities, but it strikes me that sarcasm is contrary to the truth, most often for the vainglory of the one giving it.
I venture to propose that a gentleman always tries to find some kernel of truth in his opponent's argument and shies away from making his opponent and his argument look foolish--though it may be--in order to educate with meekness and humility so as to have his opponent and the audience more ready to listen, but more importantly to be edified by the manner in which the education takes place. Don't underestimate the power of one's virtue to accelerate one's getting a hearing for one's argument.
Think of the people you admire most, and that we admire most. John Paul II, Mother Theresa, Benedict XVI. I doubt anyone can imagine them being sarcastic. I really doubt that sarcasm is an intellectual virtue, at least within the context of Christian ethics.
Irony, pun, wit...fine. Use the cleverness of imagination to wage the war of intellectual superiority.
I can say for one that when I read or hear people in general being sarcastic, I can tell myself they don't know any better. Yet, when I read or hear decent people who want to be good engaged in it, I find myself let down that they resort to the sarcastic tactic, for I find it to be a block to authenticity and communication.
I suspect some will want to show me why I am wrong, but I hope that we will all take this to prayer and ask ourselves if sarcasm really makes us more holy, behaviorally or intellectually.
Posted by: Kirk | Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Think of the people you admire most, and that we admire most...
The author of Proverbs. St. Paul. St. Irenaeus. St. Augustine. St. Thomas More. John Henry Newman. Flannery O'Connor. Walker Percy. Etc.
They all used, here and there and from time to time, what most people today would generally call sarcasm. Which is why I think the term "sarcasm" needs to be defined and clarified a bit in order for the discussion to develop further. There are clearly forms of sarcasm that aren't appropriate for Christians, most notably when it is used to destroy someone. But the Catholic tradition has plenty of examples of what I would call "sarcasm", in which what is attacked or "sarcasticized" (my term!) is a falsehood, heresy, etc.
Where I most disagree with you, Kirk, is in your remark that a gentlemen "shies away from making his opponent and his argument look foolish", because I think you appear to be conflating two different things: the objective dignity of the man and the actual quality of his argument. If an argument is foolish, it is foolish and it should be exposed as such, no matter if a Ph.D. or a wonderfully polite person holds to it. Likewise, a good argument or a truth shouldn't be tossed aside because a rude waiter or a screaming child holds to it. It's the difference between saying to someone, "You're a fool!" and saying, "It is foolish to believe in Argument X or Belief Y for this, that, and the other reason." Unfortunately, as I noted in my post, many people don't make the crucial distinction.
This failure to make such a distinction often leads to people adhering to false forms of tolerance, as when some folks take offense at the rendering of moral judgments. For example: "Oh, you think homosexual acts are sinful, so you must hate homosexuals!" Which in turn causes people to argue--quite incoherently and contrary to basic logic--that you cannot hate the sin and still love the sinner (see my post, "When is sin not sin? When you love sin more..."). The fact is this: any debate or argument involves judgments, and sarcasm used rightly (like satire in literature) can sometimes express particular judgments in ways that are more vivid, direct, engaging, and helpful than other means.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 11:59 PM
A modern day master at sarcasm in my opinion is Peter Kreeft. He uses it very judiciously and with such a wit that were anyone offended they would have to be looking for offense.
Personally, I am unable to use sarcasm well, but for those who can, it has its place.
Sometimes the best way to illustrate the folly of someone's argument or idea is through analogy and a series of questions, so that if they are using their reason they will see the folly without being told. And it is axiomatic that when someone discovers something for themselves they will accept it far more readily than if it they are told the same thing by someone else.
Another way to do that is to construct the third person fool, the imaginary person who holds foolish opinions and we can attack that person mercilessly while the one at which the argument is aimed can laugh with us and are at leisure to see their own opinion for what it is.
Posted by: LJ | Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Carl, you are 100% right, both in your original post and the followup. It is very sad that you have to work so hard to explain very, very simple distinctions. I taught philosophy for many years; I enjoyed being able to get deeply involved in eviscerating arguments in a seminar, then go out to have a drink with the same friends whose arguments you just destroyed (or who destroyed yours!). Many people do not have the ability to do this or to even understand it; it is painful when you either make an argument, or show the absurdity of someone else's argument, and you are then wrongly attacked for being "mean!" You are left spluttering in the face of irrationality and have no recourse - what the other person has done is an end run around REAL civility in order to "trump" you in a way that cannot be answered.
Even though it is not on the same topic (sarcasm, "meanness", etc.) , I strongly, strongly suggest reading David Schindler's introduction to his book, "Plato's Critique of Impure Reason: On Goodness and Truth in THE REPUBLIC." The introduction is called "Misology and the Modern Academy" (though it is about everyone, not just academics) and concerns our relationship to reason, and especially with those who use it only when it suits them, then toss it out when it doesn't. It is brilliant, and should be widely read.
Posted by: Mary T | Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 04:08 AM
When it comes to defining and demanding "civility", so much depends on the context of the discourse. I disagree that political issues, ideas, questions, and disagreements need to meet the same degree of "civility" as dinner party conversations. And who, exactly, made the hyper-sensitive and argument-averse among us the ultimate judges of who gets to say what and how they get to say it? I made a decision a few years ago that as long as I do not make rude personal remarks nor use profanity and intimidation, I should argue as intensely and passionately as I feel called to do.
Posted by: Lauri Friesen | Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 06:10 AM
Just a reminder - it's now Blessed John Henry Newman. Sorry to be a nitpicker, but since so many people prayed for his beatification for so long, I think it would be nice to use his title.
Posted by: Donna | Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 09:56 AM
The desire to define and clarify sarcasm is crucial to the point, but the examples of persons cited for using sarcasm are questionable to me. For example, the supposed sarcasm of St. Thomas More, I don't think is what I am talking about. If you have one example from him and one from Blessed John Henry Newman, I would like to see those.
I think LJ is hitting on what I am taking about, and even if you make the distinction between person and argument, I still argue there is a problem with delivery and presentation of a great, virtually irrefutable argument that is peppered with sarcasm.
"Sometimes the best way to illustrate the folly of someone's argument or idea is through analogy and a series of questions, so that if they are using their reason they will see the folly without being told. And it is axiomatic that when someone discovers something for themselves they will accept it far more readily than if it they are told the same thing by someone else."
Like it or not, people are made to be sensitive and pliable, not bullish and hardened. That's not to say, we are falsely tolerant or subjective or unorthodox. It means persons are not designed simply to be intellects and tough skins, and I think we need to act according to the nature of the subject. I am not saying that Carl is saying we should be bullish or hardened, but it strikes me that more often than not to be the disposition at play.
Does anyone argue that sarcasm is a virtue or teach his children to aspire to be more sarcastic?
I might be wrong in judgment on this point, but I was much more docile to the arguments Carl is making in his response to me than if he used sarcasm, and lest some argue that is just me, I contend that most people who want to make arguments are the same way.
Posted by: Kirk | Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 05:39 AM
A month ago I heard Dr. Laura ragging on hate the sin but not the sinner, and those of us who can not only comprehend that concept but can at least try, with grace, to practice it. Love her but she didn't get it at all. She's trapped in the OT.
Posted by: Brad | Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM
When defining terms, I find it essential-- not necessarily conclusive, but essential-- to consider their etymological origin, as, for example, at http://www.etymonline.com.
From the following distinction (below the dotted line), between SARCASM & SATIRE, sarcasm seems essentially "ad hominem," (at the very flesh of the man!), whereas satire seems essentially "ad argumentum."
If, to show the folly of an argument, one (sarcastically) states the very opposite of what he really believes, as is common (e.g. "Yeah, right!"), then, while his words offer only a (facetious) opinion about the folly, his tone & the disingenuous facetiousness itself attack the person who could possibly believe such an opposite view to be true.
According to this use of the term, sarcasm is essentially hateful of the other person, whereas satire spares the "fool" (or 2!) while exposing the foolishness.
------------------------------------------------------
1570s, from L.L. sarcasmos, from Gk. sarkasmos "a sneer, jest, taunt, mockery," from sarkazein "to speak bitterly, sneer," lit. "to strip off the flesh," from sarx (gen. sarkos) "flesh..."
satire
late 14c., "work intended to ridicule vice or folly," from L. satira "satire, poetic medley," earlier satura, in lanx satura "mixed dish, dish filled with various kinds of fruit," lit. "full dish," from fem. of satur "sated" (see saturate). First applied in literary sense to a collection of poems on a variety of subjects by Ennius. In classical Latin, a poem which assailed the prevailing vices, one after another. Altered in Latin by influence of Gk. satyr, on mistaken notion that the form is related to the Greek satyr drama (see satyr).
Satire (n.) - An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are 'endowed by their Creator' with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his every victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent. [Ambrose Bierce, "Devil's Dictionary," 1911]
"Proper satire is distinguished, by the generality of the reflections, from a lampoon which is aimed against a particular person, but they are too frequently confounded. [Johnson]
Posted by: Migle | Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 08:25 PM
Moreover, although Americans are 'endowed by their Creator' with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his every victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.
I don't think it was always thus in America. In fact, the contrast is quite evident in the great but recent controversy over Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. If anyone was using satire to great effect it was Mark Twain, yet the language that he used and the ideas and prejudices of the time that he faithfully represented and mocked are now seen as offensive inasmuch as they actually appear in print, regardless of the fact that he was attempting, I believe, to create that very sense of abhorrence his modern day censors claim.
Yet there were many years intervening, such as the time I grew up and read Huck Finn, when there was no mistaking the thrust of the story. And for those of us perhaps less attuned to satire, the skill of Mark Twain drew us in and made us love Jim and laugh at the "king" and the "duke" anyway.
Posted by: LJ | Sunday, January 23, 2011 at 04:43 PM