Respectful restraint vs. leading with love

Independent Newsmedia/Chris Williams

This is part four of a five-part series of opinions on civil discourse written by subject-matter experts in Arizona for Independent Newsmedia, Inc. USA’s Civility Learning Lab.

For more information, to read opinions on a variety of issues and to find a list of Arizona newspapers that accept opinion submissions, visit civilitylearninglab.org.

Coming Feb. 16: Civil discourse: Sign of a healthy civilization by Sarah Marie Walker, Northern Arizona University

Opinion

Now is the time to teach civil discourse

Opinion

What is civility and why must we cultivate it?

Opinion

Stop screaming! The more you listen, the more you’re heard

OPINION — “Civility” and “civil discourse” are widely held up as desirable alternatives to the divisive rhetoric that has plagued American politics with particular intensity in recent years. These terms are most often associated with an attitude of respectful restraint that should characterize the interactions of fellow citizens in a democratic political society.

Another alliterative attitude is necessary, though, to build a truly sustainable culture of civility in any community: leading with love.

Martin Luther King, Jr. distinguished between three kinds of love when explaining his philosophy of nonviolent resistance: (1) eros, or romantic love; (2) philia, the love of friendship and (3) agape, the love of someone because God loves them.

He explained that the third kind of love, agape, should form his followers’ attitude toward their persecutors. Although King was deeply religious, his idea of agape love also has a secular meaning consisting in the recognition of human dignity.

Human dignity is the value of a human being apart from anything else about them. It is distinct from how someone looks or what they say. Interpersonal interactions tend to focus on these latter, sensible objects; on what passes between two people rather than on the people themselves.

Words and appearances exist in this in-between space; we hear what people say, we see what they look like and we use this as the basis for our interaction with them. This is all very natural. It also prevents us from recognizing the profound value and dignity of the human person standing behind the words and appearances.

Leading with love involves a radical reorientation of one’s interactions with others. It involves starting not with the words and appearances that meet our physical senses, but rather with the human being behind them whom we recognize with our intellectual and spiritual faculties.

When we start with a full and genuine recognition of the humanity of the other, all of our subsequent interaction with them is completely transformed. We then see their words and actions not as separate objects, but as connected with the human person from whom they emanate.

Respectful restraint is capable of inspiring civility for a period of time, and when the stakes aren’t too high for either side. If we want to foster civil discourse in a deep and sustainable way, a more radical reorientation is needed. When it comes to civil discourse, respectful restraint is palliative; leading with love is curative.

Adam Seagrave, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, and co-author of the book, "Race and the American Story." He wrote this for Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.