Adam Ferguson's Civil Society and the Rhetorical Functions of (In)Civility in United States Senate Debate

Abstract

This article offers a theoretical examination of civility within the modern U.S. Senate (USS), grounding the contemporary literature—which conceives of civility as a set of standards for public argument—in the notion of civil society as espoused by Adam Ferguson. Ferguson's theory of civil society suggests that civility within deliberative bodies should be weighed against other factors, including the antagonistic nature of debate and the morality (in a utilitarian sense) of its participants and outcomes. The essay concludes with examples of how critics might apply this perspective to USS debate to reveal the rhetorical functions of (in)civility.

Keywords:

• Adam Ferguson
• Civil Society
• Civility
• Rhetoric
• Senate

Notes

For his systematic and empirical approach to studying society, Ferguson has been called the “father of sociology” (Daiches, 1986, p. 4) and a founder of modern social science (Sheets, 1993). He has also been characterized (along with Hume, Smith, & Hugh Blair) as one of the “first intellectual celebrities of the modern world” (Buchan, 2003, p. 2).

Readers will, no doubt, notice a striking similarity with Burke's (1973) notion of congregation and segregation. Burke said that uniting against a common enemy is perhaps “the most urgent form” of identification (p. 268).

Although Ferguson (1767/2000) saw internal violence as the mark of “rude” nations, he did not totally rule out a role for violence in “civil” nations. Such violence, however, is to be directed outward as a means of national defense.

I draw on sources that include (a) political science literature regarding procedures, norms, and civility in political institutions; (b) literature on civil communication in a broader cultural sense; (c) the rules of the U.S. Senate (USS); (d) historical accounts of USS floor behavior; (e) speeches, interviews, and writings of current and former senators; and (f) communication literature on argument, specifically in political institutions.

For instance, the political science and political communication literature tends to describe processes and structures that create or are affected by incivility, and to make suggestions for improving the quality of legislation (e.g., Loomis, 2000; Uslaner, 1991, 1993, 2000) or discourse (e.g., Jamieson, 1997). Speeches and writings of senators (e.g., Byrd, 1995; Cohen, 1997; etc.), which might include valuable descriptive and proscriptive aspects, must be read differently, as they are also political documents aimed at other, perhaps less noble, goals. Byrd's speech, for instance, must be read within the context of the Republican takeover of the House and the rhetorical assault on President Clinton that followed in both chambers of Congress. Byrd's speech is not simply a description of the state of incivility in the U.S. Senate; it is an attack on Republican senators and a defense of a Democratic president and his agenda.

Likewise, in their discussion of invitational rhetoric, Bone, Griffin, and Scholz (2008) suggested the importance of balancing civility with other goals. They argued that invitational rhetoric seeks and creates civility through mutual participation and ongoing dialogue, but noted that it is not always appropriate, such as when confronting racist rhetoric (pp. 439–440). Such rhetoric, they argued, should be defeated, not compromised with.

For instance, Kane (2001) argued that during the Cold War, “deliberation became secondary to patriotism” (p. 112). The sort of stifling of debate and marginalizing of dissenters that Kane described is clearly harmful to civil society and to deliberative bodies: Ferguson's (1767/2000) view favors more debate and more dissent, rather than less.

For examples, I draw on three U.S. Senate (USS) debates, including debates over the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT; 106th Congress), the confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General (107th), and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004(UVVA; 108th; see USS, 2004). The CTBT, signed by President Clinton on September 24, 1996, was formally debated on October 8, 12, and 13, 1999 (USS, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c), and was ultimately not ratified by the Republican-controlled USS. The debate over the confirmation of John Ashcroft to U.S. Attorney General took place on January 31 and February 1, 2001 (USS, 2001a, 2001b). Ashcroft was confirmed along highly partisan lines. Finally, the UVVA was debated on March 25, 2004 (USS, 2004). The bill, which was passed and signed into law by President Bush, made it a felony to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a federal crime, including assault, murder, kidnapping, and drug trafficking; and was described by many as a debate about abortion rights (Simon, 2004).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christopher R. Darr

Christopher R. Darr (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2004) is an assistant professor of Communication Arts in the Department of Humanities at Indiana University Kokomo.