{"id":456,"date":"2025-05-26T16:55:39","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T16:55:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=456"},"modified":"2025-09-07T13:01:17","modified_gmt":"2025-09-07T13:01:17","slug":"productive-discourse-is-responsible-not-necessarily-polite","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/chapter\/productive-discourse-is-responsible-not-necessarily-polite\/","title":{"raw":"Productive Discourse Is Responsible, Not Necessarily Polite","rendered":"Productive Discourse Is Responsible, Not Necessarily Polite"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-pf\">Students will:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Distinguish productive discourse through its responsibility to the audience and community for the accuracy and impact of claims rather than through its politeness or civility.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Evaluate whether a public discourse produces a more, or less, inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Identify policing discourse that determines preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Recognize reasons why democratic participants may use rude, angry, or uncivil rhetoric.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">In the previous two chapters, we explored qualities that influence whether communication functions productively or unproductively. In chapter 3, we defined productive discourse as public communication that is responsible to one\u2019s community and manages differences constructively. In contrast, we described unproductive discourse in chapter 2 as purposefully sensational public communication designed to promote division and to misrepresent the complexities of public issues.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If we ended our explorations there, you might assume that productive and unproductive discourses are easily distinguishable, with clear-cut differences. However, actual public discourse is often more muddled with a mixture of qualities. Focusing only on discursive qualities\u2014getting caught up in checklists\u2014can lead to superficial conclusions and cause us to overlook what a rhetorical exchange is actually producing.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In this chapter, then, we explore cases where seemingly \u201ccivil\u201d or polite discourse functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">un<\/em><\/span>productively as well as when apparently \u201cuncivil\u201d or rude discourse functions productively. We will also consider why some rhetors opt for uncivil communication. We begin, however, by more closely scrutinizing what we mean by productive discourse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Responsibility, Not Necessarily Politeness<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">If you read through the list of qualities we associate with productive discourse in chapter 3 uncritically or too quickly, you might mistakenly conclude we emphasize speaking \u201cpolitely\u201d or what some call <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">civil speech<\/strong><\/span>: communication that maintains decorum by being respectful, dispassionate, and polite. In other words, don\u2019t yell, avoid interrupting others, and talk calmly through disagreements.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">However, such an equation is misguided. Borrowing from political theorist Benjamin R. Barber, our focus on productive discourse \u201cis not about politeness; it is about <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsibility<\/em><\/span>.\u201d[footnote]Benjamin R. Barber, <em>A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong<\/em> (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), 122 (emphasis added).[\/footnote] Speakers must be responsible to their audience and community for the accuracy and impact of their claims. That means productive discourse should ultimately produce something greater than a calm or friendly exchange; it should help build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\nProductive discourse should help build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Responsible public discourse<\/strong><\/span>, then, is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It may or may not be civil. Indeed, it may appear as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">uncivil speech<\/strong><\/span>\u2014rhetoric that violates decorum because it is disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">So how can we determine when civil discourse operates unproductively and when uncivil discourse actually functions productively? Clues may be found by answering the following questions:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked issue and ongoing societal problem?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon indent\">All together, these questions suggest that responsible public discourse encourages public discussion of overlooked or unresolved issues as it draws the voices, experiences, and knowledge of historically marginalized people into democratic discussions and decision-making. It also questions the social, cultural, and economic power of historically dominant people rather than unreflectively granting their perspectives authority.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice the questions posed here are worded as binary distinctions for clarity, but a public discourse might not be as clear-cut. In that case, you can ask if it <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">leans<\/em><\/span> more in one direction than another to make your judgment. The point is to avoid relying solely or superficially on the qualities listed in chapters 2 and 3 to determine productive and unproductive discourse. Instead, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">also<\/em><\/span> answer these questions to help distinguish the two types of rhetorics. Let\u2019s apply these questions to two different cases as examples.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Civil Discourse That Functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Un<\/em><\/span>productively<\/h1>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_560\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"256\"]<img class=\"wp-image-560 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1.png\" alt=\"Steven Crowder\" width=\"256\" height=\"324\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Steven_Crowder_(cropped).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Steven Crowder<\/a> by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Some forms of public discourse may appear civil or use some qualities of productive discourse but actually function unproductively. We can look, for example, at \u201cChange My Mind\u201d videos by social media personality Steven Crowder.[footnote]Steven Crowder, <em>Change My Mind<\/em>, YouTube playlist, accessed July 4, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1.<\/a>[\/footnote] In these YouTube videos that were popular in the early 2020s, Crowder sits at a table with a poster that makes a provocative and conservative-leaning claim, like \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId69\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/UDX8-Q65B\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">There Are Only 2 Genders<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId70\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Y45-_HE91Us&amp;list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1&amp;index=7\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Common Sense Gun Control <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Is <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Nonsense<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d and \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId71\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yITK_Bm78mI&amp;list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1&amp;index=12\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Black Lives Matters <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Is <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">a Terrorist Organization<\/span><\/a><\/span>.\u201d He usually recorded his conversation at a college campus with willing nearby participants.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In most of these videos, Crowder (and often his conversational partners as well) talks politely in ways that may seem to abide by several qualities of productive communication. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">deliberates<\/em><\/span> by engaging arguments and positions. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">listens<\/em><\/span>; he rarely interrupts the other person and does not typically raise his voice. He also appears to seek to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">learn<\/em><\/span> what the other person thinks as he asks follow-up questions to clarify their position.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">However, when we pay closer attention, we discover that Crowder\u2019s polite discourse does not qualify as productive because his statements borrow unproductive qualities <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> contribute to a more exclusive and inequitable public sphere.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Let\u2019s explore one example\u2014\u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId72\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/UDX8-Q65B\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">There Are Only 2 Genders<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d\u2014by answering the questions posed earlier.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlf\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">1. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked and ongoing societal problem?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Crowder\u2019s question starts conversation on the important public issue of gender. He says he wants \u201creal conversation\u201d and does \u201cnot set up [topics] to be a debate.\u201d Yet Crowder\u2019s starting point for discussion is a declared resolution: \u201cThere Are Only 2 Genders.\u201d This resolution was undoubtedly prompted by a national conversation <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">that was already <\/em><em class=\"import-i\">occurring<\/em><\/span> about people who identify as transgender and nonbinary. Crowder\u2019s resolution and the conversations it started did not highlight an overlooked issue. Rather, they <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reacted to<\/em><\/span> the attention alternative genders were receiving. The resolution suggested an attempt to reverse or subdue that attention.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Furthermore, Crowder refers to the resolution as reflecting \u201cmy point of view\u201d and spends every conversation defending it. He thus frames the topic as consisting of only two incompatible positions: for and against the resolution (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">dichotomous thinking<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">During conversations, Crowder strives to prove the superiority of his position (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">winning<\/em><\/span>). For example, he continually returns to four points to defend the presence of only two genders: that the gender theory that distinguishes sex and gender is \u201cmodern,\u201d that legal documents historically used gender and sex interchangeably, that we must know the number of genders possible, and that intersexuality is an anomaly. Rather than attempt to explore more broadly and learn, he restricts conversation to these few, repeated points (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">dogmatism<\/em><\/span>). His devotion to the resolution essentially shuts down, or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">subdues<\/em><\/span>, actual deliberation of the topic.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">2. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Though Crowder talks to marginalized members of the public (including a nonbinary person and a Black man), his resolutions typically seek to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">exclude<\/em><\/span> them. If successful, for instance, arguing there are only two genders excludes the existence of transgender and nonbinary people.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Many of his recurrent debate tactics also unfairly exclude alternative perspectives and arguments. Rather than truly listen, he frequently depicts the other person\u2019s views as leading to an inevitable conclusion\u2014one that is very hard for them to defend. For example, he tells the first person he talks to (Thomas) that Thomas must name how many genders exist for his argument (that sex and gender are different) to have credibility \u201cbecause we as a society have to know this.\u201d Those who perceive gender as a spectrum cannot possibly identify the number of genders possible, since the concept of a spectrum eschews such simple categories.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Crowder also occasionally focuses attention on the other person\u2019s character or affect rather than the issue by labeling the other person\u2019s reactions (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">combativeness<\/em><\/span>). For example, he says to the second person (Madison), \u201cYou\u2019re getting very heated,\u201d \u201cYou\u2019ve been set up here from the get-go for it [what I say] to be offensive,\u201d and \u201cYou\u2019ve been very privileged in speaking over me.\u201d Such comments shift attention from Madison\u2019s arguments to their manner of speaking, implying their form of speech does not meet standards and should be stopped.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">3. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Crowder\u2019s defense of two genders <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserves power<\/em><\/span> ascribed to historically dominant people: cisgender people who subscribe to a gender binary. It weakens attempts by marginalized community members (like transgender and nonbinary people) to claim power and legitimacy.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlpl\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">In fact, Crowder uses prepared knowledge in these conversations to preserve power. He goes into discussions knowing the topic and having prepared research. He continually refers, for instance, to gender theory being \u201cmodern\u201d by starting with Simone de Beauvoir in 1948 and then being developed by John Money and Judith Butler. Those speaking with him, however, spontaneously decide to talk about the topic. They demonstrate varying degrees of knowledge or ability to speak eloquently on the spot, which makes some of them come across as unintelligent. Thus, Crowder strategically places himself in sites where his prepared knowledge becomes a source of power over conversational volunteers. He could instead give them a chance to ruminate or do their own research before conversing about the topic.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Together, the impacts of Crowder\u2019s conversations are irresponsible and restrict the public sphere. He produces more entertainment than education as he seeks to prove the superiority of his beliefs and devalue opposing viewpoints. Those watching in person or online may be <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">less<\/em><\/span> likely to participate in public discourse because they fear being similarly combated or even humiliated. Thus, just because public discourse appears polite or \u201ccivil\u201d does not mean it meets the criteria of productive discourse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Uncivil Discourse That Functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Pro<\/em><\/span>ductively<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">On the flip side, some public discourse that appears uncivil by using qualities of unproductive discourse may actually function productively. We\u2019ll focus on one such form: social protest.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2520\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"500\"]<img class=\" wp-image-2520\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest.jpg\" alt=\"A diverse group of protesters demonstrate against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill outside a building. At the forefront, a man holds a sign that reads &quot;FIGHT HOMOPHOBIA, FIGHT AIDS \u2013 NO TO THE UGANDA...&quot; (partially obscured). \" width=\"500\" height=\"333\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/64597607@N00\/4122069243\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> Uganda Action<\/a> by Kaytee Riek via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC-SA<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The activist social movement ACT UP formed in 1987 to advocate for more and faster governmental resources to fight (the then lethal disease) AIDS. Short for the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, ACT UP sought to draw attention to the over fifteen thousand people\u2014mostly gay men\u2014who had contracted and died from the disease since it was discovered in 1981.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">ACT UP members used a variety of communication tactics. Among their most memorable and notorious were evocative social protests, such as demonstrating outside\u2014and inside\u2014of Saint Patrick\u2019s Cathedral during mass (\u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId74\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9VAC-4F5R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Stop the Church<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d), <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId75\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/U68K-ZBY2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">holding a mock trial of leaders who impeded AIDS funding and research<\/span><\/a><\/span>, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId76\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/NG3H-SLPM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">spreading the ashes of AIDS victims on the White House lawn<\/span><\/a><\/span>, and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId77\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/6JEF-C7R8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">wrapping the house of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in a giant yellow condom<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Evaluating these protests with the list of unproductive qualities named in chapter 2 could prompt us to judge them negatively. The actions communicated distrust, lack of listening, combativeness, and a focus on winning. Let\u2019s pause, though, before we label the protests as uncivil and therefore unproductive. We need to explore how labeling rhetoric as uncivil can function as policing discourse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Policing Discourse<\/h2>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image31.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"125.46530183727px\" height=\"125.46530183727px\" \/><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Policing discourse<\/strong><\/span> is the use of rhetoric to determine preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues. It functions to control or \u201cpolice\u201d communication that violates what is considered preferred or appropriate.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The call for civil speech is a policing discourse. People in positions of power have historically used this discourse to critique protesters. Critics tell protesters that they are \u201ctoo radical,\u201d \u201ctoo angry,\u201d or \u201ctoo rude.\u201d That is, protesters are charged with violating decorum by being disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">ACT UP was widely denigrated for adopting uncivil and thus inappropriate means of communication. In a 1989 opinion piece authored by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The New York Times<\/em><\/span> after the group\u2019s cathedral demonstration, the newspaper concluded, \u201cArguments over AIDS, homosexuality and abortion are not going to be advanced by hysterics, threats or the disruption of religious services. They might be advanced by serious argument that reflects conviction.\u201d The piece also claimed that ACT UP\u2019s cathedral demonstration \u201coffers another reason to reject both the offensive protesters and their ideas.\u201d[footnote]\u201cThe Storming of St. Pat\u2019s,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, December 12, 1989, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1989\/12\/12\/opinion\/the-storming-of-st-pat-s.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1989\/12\/12\/opinion\/the-storming-of-st-pat-s.html<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice the policing discourse at work by the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Times<\/em><\/span> in differentiating \u201cserious argument\u201d that\u2019s worth listening to from \u201chysterics\u201d that are not. By definition, policing discourse attempts to exclude or censor communication it deems uncivil. The implied instruction or demand is that protesters would be heard if only they \u201cspoke appropriately\u201d or \u201cfollowed the rules\u201d by adopting more acceptable forms of advocacy and argumentation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 4.1 The Public Sphere, Rhetoric, and Inequality<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn a democracy, community members are supposed to gather as equals. Regardless of differences in age, gender, sexuality, occupation, income, education, and so on, ideally, all community members can join in talking through public issues together. Recall from chapter 2 that J\u00fcrgen Habermas conceived of the public sphere as the gathering of community members to discuss matters of common concern.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Reality often fails to meet that ideal, however. For instance, not all members of a democracy get to participate. Philosopher Nancy Fraser has argued that gatherings of citizens have historically <img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image32.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"198.533333333333px\" height=\"198.533333333333px\" \/>been <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">created through the<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">exclusion<\/em><\/span> of some members of society, such as the poor, women, and children.[footnote]Nancy Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,\u201d <em>Social Text<\/em> 25 (1990): 56\u201380.[\/footnote] In other words, certain men could talk with each other as equals <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">by contrasting themselves<\/em><\/span> with groups who were not even invited to speak or be heard in community conversations about public issues.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Exclusions from deliberating in the public sphere continue to exist, even if they are often subtler than the open discrimination of America\u2019s past. It is more difficult to participate in civic affairs, for instance, if you are living in poverty, less educated, undocumented, or a minor. Such exclusions might be simple accidents or weaknesses that have not yet been corrected, or they might be strategic.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Calls for civility may seem reasonable and, at times, well intentioned. However, policing discourse has historically been used primarily against social protesters who highlight injustice and call for change. By excluding their forms of communication, policing discourse shuts down their demands for equity and reform. Professors of communication Anna M. Young, Adria Battaglia, and Dana L. Cloud succinctly explain this tactic: \u201cWith the invocation of civility, calls for change are muted in favor of the status quo.\u201d[footnote]Anna M. Young, Adria Battaglia, and Dana L. Cloud, \u201c(Un)Disciplining the Scholar Activist: Policing the Boundaries of Political Engagement,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 96 (2010): 431.[\/footnote] In other words, labeling protest speech as uncivil ostracizes these rhetorics that expose something uncomfortable or unjust in the public realm. We saw how critiques of ACT UP\u2019s protests as \u201chysterical\u201d discounted their accusations and claims. As box 4.2 explains, scholars such as Audre Lorde and Maxime Lepoutre have warned that we should instead attend to uncivil, especially angry, speech for the insights and injustices it reveals.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 4.2 The Productivity of Angry Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_564\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"470\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-564\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1.png\" alt=\"Picture of Audre Lorde\" width=\"470\" height=\"469\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Audre_lorde.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Audre Lorde<\/a> by Elsa Dorfman via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/3.0\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA,<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nTo defend the productivity of some angry speech, the twentieth-century poet, professor, and activist Audre Lorde gave an address to the National Women\u2019s Studies Association Conference in 1981 that she titled \u201cThe Uses of Anger.\u201d Lorde noted that our culture has frequently branded public expressions of anger\u2014particularly by women\u2014as inappropriate.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Lorde challenged her audience to listen to the content behind anger. She told her audience we should \u201clisten to the content of what is said [angrily] with at least as much intensity as we defend ourselves against the manner of saying.\u201d She warned, \u201cWhen we turn from anger we turn from insight, saying we will accept only the designs already known, deadly and safely familiar.\u201d[footnote]Audre Lorde, \u201cThe Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism,\u201d in <em>Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches<\/em> (New York: Crossing Press, 2007), 131.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">More recently, political theorist Maxime Lepoutre has similarly argued that \u201canger can and should play a key role in democratic public discourse.\u201d Lepoutre claimed that \u201cPublic expressions of anger have a distinctive ability to reveal injustices, and to promote understanding of injustices, when these may otherwise have gone unnoticed or been misunderstood.\u201d In \u201cdivided societies,\u201d they explain, \u201cinjustices suffered by some groups are often invisible to, or misunderstood by, others.\u201d[footnote]Maxime Lepoutre, <em>Democratic Speech in Divided Times<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 51, 59.[\/footnote] Thus, Lorde and Lepoutre suggest that some speech may be both angry <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> productive.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Uncivil Rhetoric That Functions Productively<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Let\u2019s consider, then, how ACT UP\u2019s uncivil speech functioned productively by answering the three questions posed earlier:<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlf\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">1. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked issue and ongoing societal problem?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP\u2019s protests sparked national discussions about AIDS at a time when the disease had killed tens of thousands of victims but was largely ignored in the broader public sphere. A major reason for silence was the disease\u2019s negative perception as a \u201cgay plague\u201d (since it largely affected gay men) at a time when homosexuality was still heavily taboo and even illegal in many US states. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId81\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/JL3J-H5UU\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">President <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Ronald <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Reagan did not publicly recognize AIDS until 1985<\/span>,<\/a><\/span> after nearly six thousand people had died and the epidemic was raging. Congress was reluctant to fully fund research to cure it. The news media also were slow to seriously cover the epidemic. Though ACT UP\u2019s efforts drew criticism, they also attracted national attention to AIDS, its victims, and the need for funding and humane treatment.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">2. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP consisted of queer people and their allies, who lacked easy access in the 1980s to traditional means of deliberation and advocacy due to their sexuality. Religious leaders condemned gay people as immoral. Even as late as 1993, the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId82\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/feature\/nbc-out\/billy-graham-leaves-painful-legacy-lgbtq-people-n850031\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Reverend Billy Graham suggested that AIDS was God\u2019s punishment for gay people<\/span><\/a><\/span> (though he later apologized).<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">When gay people did advocate publicly, their arguments and experiences were not necessarily taken seriously by political leaders. In 1982, when a journalist asked Reagan\u2019s press secretary, Larry Speakes, if the president had a reaction to the six hundred documented cases of AIDS, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId83\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/ZEB8-S5NT\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Speakes made light of the disease by joking that he didn\u2019t have <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">AIDS <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">while other media members laughed<\/span>.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">ACT UP\u2019s efforts, then, empowered queer people who were clearly marginalized from the public sphere by shifting the narrative from them as shameful sinners to advocates who deserved serious recognition and support.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">3. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-nlpl\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP\u2019s communication directly challenged the social power of political and religious leaders who devalued and discredited the homosexual community. Their protests turned the tables by encouraging onlookers to question the morality, decency, and ethics of the very leaders who condemned gay people. The giant condom over Helms\u2019s house visually suggested <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">he<\/em><\/span> was an unsafe leader that the public needed to be protected against. The cathedral protest, mock trial, and dumping of ashes on the White House lawn all implied that political and religious leaders were responsible for allowing the epidemic to grow and kill. The protests characterized these leaders\u2019 accusations against homosexuals and silence about AIDS as unethical and unfair.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, while many of their protests qualified as uncivil, ACT UP\u2019s communication functioned productively, because it produced a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It\u2019s telling that while ACT UP faced heavy criticism in its day, today it is widely seen as an incredibly successful and important social movement.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Why Use Uncivil Rhetoric?<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You might still wonder, however, why do protesters ever adopt angry or rude (uncivil) rhetoric when they could instead choose to communicate more respectfully and politely (civilly)? Scholars have provided several answers: Protesters typically lack easy access to the public sphere, uncivil protest demands attention that might otherwise be difficult to attract, and uncivil communication reflects frustration and anger.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, because marginalized people typically have less access to power in the civic arena, it is harder for them to influence public discussion and policies through traditional, acceptable means. Professors of communication Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud have noted that:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>The powerful rarely are willing to invite those less powerful into dialogue; the oppressed are hard pressed to convince oppressors who benefit materially from oppression to be open to dialogue, let alone radical change. Many discussions are by \u2018invitation only,\u2019 a phrase suggesting that invitation belongs to those who set the rules for exclusion.[footnote]Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud, \u201cThe Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality,\u201d <em>Western Journal of Communication<\/em> 73 (2009): 221\u201322.[\/footnote]<\/blockquote>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In other words, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">because<\/em><\/span> they call for change, marginalized groups (the oppressed) lack easy access to public deliberations that use traditional, civil means of expression. It\u2019s not in the interests of the powerful to invite the oppressed into such civil discussions. Consequently, marginalized groups must often turn elsewhere to advocate for change.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Second, those marginalized groups excluded from the public sphere tend to form what Fraser has called subaltern <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">counterpublics<\/strong><\/span>: gatherings of people excluded or dissuaded from the public sphere who raise issues ignored or trivialized by the broader public.[footnote]Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere.\u201d[\/footnote] In other words, their very exclusion from the public sphere tends to encourage people to come together on their own. They find affirmation and a sense of belonging among one another.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Members of counterpublics learn and teach each other methods of challenging their exclusion in the broader public sphere, such as social protest. Indeed, sometimes social protest is the only way for members who are excluded from, or devalued in, the public sphere to influence public discussion and policies. They adopt the kind of rhetoric that, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">due to its incivility<\/em><\/span>, demands attention.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Finally, social protest by the oppressed typically reflects their anger and frustration. Their voices, needs, and calls for change using traditional means have been ignored, devalued, and\/or discredited. Consequently, civil speech\u2014especially when defined as dispassionate and polite\u2014cannot adequately express the hurt and frustrations of their lived experiences and the vigor of their demands for change. As Lorde and Lepoutre explain (in box 4.2), anger is sometimes better able to communicate the presence and ongoing harms of injustice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 4.3 Not All Uncivil Rhetoric Is Productive<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNot all public protest that utilizes uncivil speech functions productively. Recall in chapter 2 that we named incivility as a quality of unproductive speech that some people use to gain attention <em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em> silence detractors.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_565\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"500\"]<img class=\"wp-image-565\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1.jpeg\" alt=\"People stand on the street with Nazi and Confederate Flags in the Unite the Right rally.\" width=\"500\" height=\"375\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/acrider\/35780274914\/in\/photostream\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Charlottesville \"Unite the Right\" Rally<\/a> by Anthony Crider via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We can look to the August 11 and 12, 2017, \u201cUnite the Right\u201d rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, as an example. Participants marched at night with tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus, chanting \u201cBlood and soil\u201d (a phrase that evoked Nazi rhetoric) and the antisemitic expression \u201cJews will not replace us.\u201d The next day they carried Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, Confederate flags, and weapons. Featured attendees, such as KKK leader David Duke, organizer Jason Kessler, and neo-Nazi Richard Spencer promoted white supremacy.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Here we have a social protest that used uncivil speech: It was impolite, combative, and angry. It was also accompanied by violence. Physical confrontations broke out with counterprotesters, and white supremacist James Fields drove his car into counterprotesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring thirty-five people.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The violence was egregious, and we do not diminish it. But even if we focus only on the protesters\u2019 communication, we can determine that it was unproductive in increasing the inclusivity and equity of the public sphere. To understand why, we return again to the three criteria established earlier.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnlf\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">1. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em> about an overlooked and ongoing societal problem?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong> The march was held in Charlottesville in reaction to the city\u2019s decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and rename the park in which it was located. Lee\u2019s statue was the seventh such statue removed in Southern states since 2009, reflecting a national conversation about monuments, white supremacy, and racial violence. The \u201cUnite the Right\u201d rally, then, attempted to subdue that discussion by showing support for keeping the statue and intimidating people who disagreed.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnl\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">2. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong> By featuring known white supremacists and chanting Nazi and antisemitic rhetoric, the protest clearly sought to exclude any Americans who are Jewish or not white from civic engagement. The violence also suggests that some members wanted to physically stop anyone who disagreed with their ideology from speaking against it.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnl\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">3. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does this discourse attempt to <em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power <\/em>of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer: <\/strong>By promoting white supremacy and antisemitism, the protest explicitly sought to preserve the power of white, Christian Americans, who have historically occupied positions of cultural and economic privilege in the US.<\/p>\r\nConsequently, not all protest that uses uncivil expression functions productively. Therefore, we challenge you to examine the functions of uncivil rhetoric before you condemn <em class=\"import-i\">or<\/em> champion it.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Recall that productive discourse is about <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsibility, not necessarily politeness<\/em><\/span>. Responsible public discourse is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. When we evaluate public discourse more carefully, we are cautioned against uncritically using a list of qualities to label a rhetoric as productive or unproductive. Otherwise, on one hand, we might fail to recognize forms of expression that seem civil but actually exclude marginalized perspectives and perpetuate inequity. If we call these discourses productive, we, too, may unintentionally constrict the public sphere and block challenges to the status quo and powerful interests.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">On the other hand, we might also fail to appreciate social protest that appears uncivil but strives to expand democratic participation and increase equity. If we label these as unproductive, we may inadvertently help eliminate participants, reinforce inequality, and strengthen policing discourse that demands \u201cacceptable\u201d speech. These are important aspects of public discourse we hope you will keep in mind as you promote civic engagement in your many public relationships.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This chapter returned to distinctions we made in earlier chapters between unproductive and productive discourse. It warned against using lists of qualities in overly simplified ways that miss the goal of productive discourse: to build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. Specifically, in this chapter you have learned:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Responsible public discourse is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>We can better distinguish productive discourse through its responsibility to the audience and community for the accuracy and impact of claims rather than through its politeness or civility.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Policing discourse is the use of rhetoric to determine preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues. It functions to control or \u201cpolice\u201d communication that violates what is considered preferred or appropriate.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The call for civil speech\u2014communication that maintains decorum by being respectful, dispassionate, and polite\u2014is a policing discourse. People in positions of power have historically used civil discourse to critique protesters by accusing them of using uncivil speech: rhetoric that violates decorum because it is disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Marginalized groups may choose uncivil speech to protest because they lack easy access to the public sphere where civil discourse occurs, uncivil protest demands attention they otherwise struggle to attract, and their communication reflects their frustration and anger.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n\r\ncivil speech\r\ncounterpublic\r\npolicing discourse\r\nresponsible public discourse\r\nuncivil speech\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>What three criteria must be met for rhetoric to qualify as responsible public discourse?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What is considered civil speech? Uncivil speech?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What is policing rhetoric? At whom is it usually directed? To what ends?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What are reasons why some groups adopt uncivil rhetoric?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>What are the benefits and drawbacks of social protesters\u2019 use of uncivil speech?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Can you think of additional criteria to determine if a rhetoric functions as responsible public discourse?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Name a contemporary counterpublic. Is this counterpublic a source of empowerment or isolation? How is the counterpublic included or excluded from public discourse? Explain.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-pf\">Students will:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Distinguish productive discourse through its responsibility to the audience and community for the accuracy and impact of claims rather than through its politeness or civility.<\/li>\n<li>Evaluate whether a public discourse produces a more, or less, inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/li>\n<li>Identify policing discourse that determines preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues.<\/li>\n<li>Recognize reasons why democratic participants may use rude, angry, or uncivil rhetoric.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">In the previous two chapters, we explored qualities that influence whether communication functions productively or unproductively. In chapter 3, we defined productive discourse as public communication that is responsible to one\u2019s community and manages differences constructively. In contrast, we described unproductive discourse in chapter 2 as purposefully sensational public communication designed to promote division and to misrepresent the complexities of public issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If we ended our explorations there, you might assume that productive and unproductive discourses are easily distinguishable, with clear-cut differences. However, actual public discourse is often more muddled with a mixture of qualities. Focusing only on discursive qualities\u2014getting caught up in checklists\u2014can lead to superficial conclusions and cause us to overlook what a rhetorical exchange is actually producing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In this chapter, then, we explore cases where seemingly \u201ccivil\u201d or polite discourse functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">un<\/em><\/span>productively as well as when apparently \u201cuncivil\u201d or rude discourse functions productively. We will also consider why some rhetors opt for uncivil communication. We begin, however, by more closely scrutinizing what we mean by productive discourse.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Responsibility, Not Necessarily Politeness<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">If you read through the list of qualities we associate with productive discourse in chapter 3 uncritically or too quickly, you might mistakenly conclude we emphasize speaking \u201cpolitely\u201d or what some call <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">civil speech<\/strong><\/span>: communication that maintains decorum by being respectful, dispassionate, and polite. In other words, don\u2019t yell, avoid interrupting others, and talk calmly through disagreements.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">However, such an equation is misguided. Borrowing from political theorist Benjamin R. Barber, our focus on productive discourse \u201cis not about politeness; it is about <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsibility<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Benjamin R. Barber, A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), 122 (emphasis added).\" id=\"return-footnote-456-1\" href=\"#footnote-456-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a> Speakers must be responsible to their audience and community for the accuracy and impact of their claims. That means productive discourse should ultimately produce something greater than a calm or friendly exchange; it should help build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p>Productive discourse should help build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Responsible public discourse<\/strong><\/span>, then, is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It may or may not be civil. Indeed, it may appear as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">uncivil speech<\/strong><\/span>\u2014rhetoric that violates decorum because it is disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">So how can we determine when civil discourse operates unproductively and when uncivil discourse actually functions productively? Clues may be found by answering the following questions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked issue and ongoing societal problem?<\/li>\n<li>Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/li>\n<li>Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-pcon indent\">All together, these questions suggest that responsible public discourse encourages public discussion of overlooked or unresolved issues as it draws the voices, experiences, and knowledge of historically marginalized people into democratic discussions and decision-making. It also questions the social, cultural, and economic power of historically dominant people rather than unreflectively granting their perspectives authority.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice the questions posed here are worded as binary distinctions for clarity, but a public discourse might not be as clear-cut. In that case, you can ask if it <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">leans<\/em><\/span> more in one direction than another to make your judgment. The point is to avoid relying solely or superficially on the qualities listed in chapters 2 and 3 to determine productive and unproductive discourse. Instead, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">also<\/em><\/span> answer these questions to help distinguish the two types of rhetorics. Let\u2019s apply these questions to two different cases as examples.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Civil Discourse That Functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Un<\/em><\/span>productively<\/h1>\n<figure id=\"attachment_560\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-560\" style=\"width: 256px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-560 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1.png\" alt=\"Steven Crowder\" width=\"256\" height=\"324\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1.png 256w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1-237x300.png 237w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1-65x82.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image29-1-225x285.png 225w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-560\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Steven_Crowder_(cropped).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Steven Crowder<\/a> by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Some forms of public discourse may appear civil or use some qualities of productive discourse but actually function unproductively. We can look, for example, at \u201cChange My Mind\u201d videos by social media personality Steven Crowder.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Steven Crowder, Change My Mind, YouTube playlist, accessed July 4, 2024, https:\/\/youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-2\" href=\"#footnote-456-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> In these YouTube videos that were popular in the early 2020s, Crowder sits at a table with a poster that makes a provocative and conservative-leaning claim, like \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId69\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/UDX8-Q65B\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">There Are Only 2 Genders<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId70\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Y45-_HE91Us&amp;list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1&amp;index=7\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Common Sense Gun Control <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Is <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Nonsense<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d and \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId71\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yITK_Bm78mI&amp;list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1&amp;index=12\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Black Lives Matters <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Is <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">a Terrorist Organization<\/span><\/a><\/span>.\u201d He usually recorded his conversation at a college campus with willing nearby participants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In most of these videos, Crowder (and often his conversational partners as well) talks politely in ways that may seem to abide by several qualities of productive communication. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">deliberates<\/em><\/span> by engaging arguments and positions. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">listens<\/em><\/span>; he rarely interrupts the other person and does not typically raise his voice. He also appears to seek to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">learn<\/em><\/span> what the other person thinks as he asks follow-up questions to clarify their position.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">However, when we pay closer attention, we discover that Crowder\u2019s polite discourse does not qualify as productive because his statements borrow unproductive qualities <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> contribute to a more exclusive and inequitable public sphere.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Let\u2019s explore one example\u2014\u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId72\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/UDX8-Q65B\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">There Are Only 2 Genders<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d\u2014by answering the questions posed earlier.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlf\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">1. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked and ongoing societal problem?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Crowder\u2019s question starts conversation on the important public issue of gender. He says he wants \u201creal conversation\u201d and does \u201cnot set up [topics] to be a debate.\u201d Yet Crowder\u2019s starting point for discussion is a declared resolution: \u201cThere Are Only 2 Genders.\u201d This resolution was undoubtedly prompted by a national conversation <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">that was already <\/em><em class=\"import-i\">occurring<\/em><\/span> about people who identify as transgender and nonbinary. Crowder\u2019s resolution and the conversations it started did not highlight an overlooked issue. Rather, they <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">reacted to<\/em><\/span> the attention alternative genders were receiving. The resolution suggested an attempt to reverse or subdue that attention.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Furthermore, Crowder refers to the resolution as reflecting \u201cmy point of view\u201d and spends every conversation defending it. He thus frames the topic as consisting of only two incompatible positions: for and against the resolution (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">dichotomous thinking<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">During conversations, Crowder strives to prove the superiority of his position (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">winning<\/em><\/span>). For example, he continually returns to four points to defend the presence of only two genders: that the gender theory that distinguishes sex and gender is \u201cmodern,\u201d that legal documents historically used gender and sex interchangeably, that we must know the number of genders possible, and that intersexuality is an anomaly. Rather than attempt to explore more broadly and learn, he restricts conversation to these few, repeated points (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">dogmatism<\/em><\/span>). His devotion to the resolution essentially shuts down, or <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">subdues<\/em><\/span>, actual deliberation of the topic.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">2. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Though Crowder talks to marginalized members of the public (including a nonbinary person and a Black man), his resolutions typically seek to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">exclude<\/em><\/span> them. If successful, for instance, arguing there are only two genders excludes the existence of transgender and nonbinary people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Many of his recurrent debate tactics also unfairly exclude alternative perspectives and arguments. Rather than truly listen, he frequently depicts the other person\u2019s views as leading to an inevitable conclusion\u2014one that is very hard for them to defend. For example, he tells the first person he talks to (Thomas) that Thomas must name how many genders exist for his argument (that sex and gender are different) to have credibility \u201cbecause we as a society have to know this.\u201d Those who perceive gender as a spectrum cannot possibly identify the number of genders possible, since the concept of a spectrum eschews such simple categories.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">Crowder also occasionally focuses attention on the other person\u2019s character or affect rather than the issue by labeling the other person\u2019s reactions (<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">combativeness<\/em><\/span>). For example, he says to the second person (Madison), \u201cYou\u2019re getting very heated,\u201d \u201cYou\u2019ve been set up here from the get-go for it [what I say] to be offensive,\u201d and \u201cYou\u2019ve been very privileged in speaking over me.\u201d Such comments shift attention from Madison\u2019s arguments to their manner of speaking, implying their form of speech does not meet standards and should be stopped.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">3. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> Crowder\u2019s defense of two genders <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserves power<\/em><\/span> ascribed to historically dominant people: cisgender people who subscribe to a gender binary. It weakens attempts by marginalized community members (like transgender and nonbinary people) to claim power and legitimacy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlpl\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">In fact, Crowder uses prepared knowledge in these conversations to preserve power. He goes into discussions knowing the topic and having prepared research. He continually refers, for instance, to gender theory being \u201cmodern\u201d by starting with Simone de Beauvoir in 1948 and then being developed by John Money and Judith Butler. Those speaking with him, however, spontaneously decide to talk about the topic. They demonstrate varying degrees of knowledge or ability to speak eloquently on the spot, which makes some of them come across as unintelligent. Thus, Crowder strategically places himself in sites where his prepared knowledge becomes a source of power over conversational volunteers. He could instead give them a chance to ruminate or do their own research before conversing about the topic.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Together, the impacts of Crowder\u2019s conversations are irresponsible and restrict the public sphere. He produces more entertainment than education as he seeks to prove the superiority of his beliefs and devalue opposing viewpoints. Those watching in person or online may be <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">less<\/em><\/span> likely to participate in public discourse because they fear being similarly combated or even humiliated. Thus, just because public discourse appears polite or \u201ccivil\u201d does not mean it meets the criteria of productive discourse.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Uncivil Discourse That Functions <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Pro<\/em><\/span>ductively<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">On the flip side, some public discourse that appears uncivil by using qualities of unproductive discourse may actually function productively. We\u2019ll focus on one such form: social protest.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_2520\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2520\" style=\"width: 500px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-2520\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest.jpg\" alt=\"A diverse group of protesters demonstrate against Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill outside a building. At the forefront, a man holds a sign that reads &quot;FIGHT HOMOPHOBIA, FIGHT AIDS \u2013 NO TO THE UGANDA...&quot; (partially obscured).\" width=\"500\" height=\"333\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest.jpg 640w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest-65x43.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest-225x150.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/640px-Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill_protest-350x233.jpg 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2520\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/64597607@N00\/4122069243\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> Uganda Action<\/a> by Kaytee Riek via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-NC-SA<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The activist social movement ACT UP formed in 1987 to advocate for more and faster governmental resources to fight (the then lethal disease) AIDS. Short for the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, ACT UP sought to draw attention to the over fifteen thousand people\u2014mostly gay men\u2014who had contracted and died from the disease since it was discovered in 1981.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">ACT UP members used a variety of communication tactics. Among their most memorable and notorious were evocative social protests, such as demonstrating outside\u2014and inside\u2014of Saint Patrick\u2019s Cathedral during mass (\u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId74\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9VAC-4F5R\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Stop the Church<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d), <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId75\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/U68K-ZBY2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">holding a mock trial of leaders who impeded AIDS funding and research<\/span><\/a><\/span>, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId76\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/NG3H-SLPM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">spreading the ashes of AIDS victims on the White House lawn<\/span><\/a><\/span>, and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId77\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/6JEF-C7R8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">wrapping the house of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in a giant yellow condom<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Evaluating these protests with the list of unproductive qualities named in chapter 2 could prompt us to judge them negatively. The actions communicated distrust, lack of listening, combativeness, and a focus on winning. Let\u2019s pause, though, before we label the protests as uncivil and therefore unproductive. We need to explore how labeling rhetoric as uncivil can function as policing discourse.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Policing Discourse<\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image31.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"125.46530183727px\" height=\"125.46530183727px\" \/><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Policing discourse<\/strong><\/span> is the use of rhetoric to determine preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues. It functions to control or \u201cpolice\u201d communication that violates what is considered preferred or appropriate.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The call for civil speech is a policing discourse. People in positions of power have historically used this discourse to critique protesters. Critics tell protesters that they are \u201ctoo radical,\u201d \u201ctoo angry,\u201d or \u201ctoo rude.\u201d That is, protesters are charged with violating decorum by being disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">ACT UP was widely denigrated for adopting uncivil and thus inappropriate means of communication. In a 1989 opinion piece authored by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">The New York Times<\/em><\/span> after the group\u2019s cathedral demonstration, the newspaper concluded, \u201cArguments over AIDS, homosexuality and abortion are not going to be advanced by hysterics, threats or the disruption of religious services. They might be advanced by serious argument that reflects conviction.\u201d The piece also claimed that ACT UP\u2019s cathedral demonstration \u201coffers another reason to reject both the offensive protesters and their ideas.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cThe Storming of St. Pat\u2019s,\u201d New York Times, December 12, 1989, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1989\/12\/12\/opinion\/the-storming-of-st-pat-s.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-3\" href=\"#footnote-456-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice the policing discourse at work by the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Times<\/em><\/span> in differentiating \u201cserious argument\u201d that\u2019s worth listening to from \u201chysterics\u201d that are not. By definition, policing discourse attempts to exclude or censor communication it deems uncivil. The implied instruction or demand is that protesters would be heard if only they \u201cspoke appropriately\u201d or \u201cfollowed the rules\u201d by adopting more acceptable forms of advocacy and argumentation.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 4.1 The Public Sphere, Rhetoric, and Inequality<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In a democracy, community members are supposed to gather as equals. Regardless of differences in age, gender, sexuality, occupation, income, education, and so on, ideally, all community members can join in talking through public issues together. Recall from chapter 2 that J\u00fcrgen Habermas conceived of the public sphere as the gathering of community members to discuss matters of common concern.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Reality often fails to meet that ideal, however. For instance, not all members of a democracy get to participate. Philosopher Nancy Fraser has argued that gatherings of citizens have historically <img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image32.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"198.533333333333px\" height=\"198.533333333333px\" \/>been <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">created through the<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">exclusion<\/em><\/span> of some members of society, such as the poor, women, and children.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Nancy Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,\u201d Social Text 25 (1990): 56\u201380.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-4\" href=\"#footnote-456-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a> In other words, certain men could talk with each other as equals <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">by contrasting themselves<\/em><\/span> with groups who were not even invited to speak or be heard in community conversations about public issues.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Exclusions from deliberating in the public sphere continue to exist, even if they are often subtler than the open discrimination of America\u2019s past. It is more difficult to participate in civic affairs, for instance, if you are living in poverty, less educated, undocumented, or a minor. Such exclusions might be simple accidents or weaknesses that have not yet been corrected, or they might be strategic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Calls for civility may seem reasonable and, at times, well intentioned. However, policing discourse has historically been used primarily against social protesters who highlight injustice and call for change. By excluding their forms of communication, policing discourse shuts down their demands for equity and reform. Professors of communication Anna M. Young, Adria Battaglia, and Dana L. Cloud succinctly explain this tactic: \u201cWith the invocation of civility, calls for change are muted in favor of the status quo.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Anna M. Young, Adria Battaglia, and Dana L. Cloud, \u201c(Un)Disciplining the Scholar Activist: Policing the Boundaries of Political Engagement,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Speech 96 (2010): 431.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-5\" href=\"#footnote-456-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a> In other words, labeling protest speech as uncivil ostracizes these rhetorics that expose something uncomfortable or unjust in the public realm. We saw how critiques of ACT UP\u2019s protests as \u201chysterical\u201d discounted their accusations and claims. As box 4.2 explains, scholars such as Audre Lorde and Maxime Lepoutre have warned that we should instead attend to uncivil, especially angry, speech for the insights and injustices it reveals.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 4.2 The Productivity of Angry Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_564\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-564\" style=\"width: 470px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-564\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1.png\" alt=\"Picture of Audre Lorde\" width=\"470\" height=\"469\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1.png 470w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1-300x300.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1-150x150.png 150w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1-65x65.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1-225x225.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image33-1-350x349.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-564\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Audre_lorde.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Audre Lorde<\/a> by Elsa Dorfman via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/3.0\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA,<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>To defend the productivity of some angry speech, the twentieth-century poet, professor, and activist Audre Lorde gave an address to the National Women\u2019s Studies Association Conference in 1981 that she titled \u201cThe Uses of Anger.\u201d Lorde noted that our culture has frequently branded public expressions of anger\u2014particularly by women\u2014as inappropriate.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Lorde challenged her audience to listen to the content behind anger. She told her audience we should \u201clisten to the content of what is said [angrily] with at least as much intensity as we defend ourselves against the manner of saying.\u201d She warned, \u201cWhen we turn from anger we turn from insight, saying we will accept only the designs already known, deadly and safely familiar.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Audre Lorde, \u201cThe Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism,\u201d in Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (New York: Crossing Press, 2007), 131.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-6\" href=\"#footnote-456-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">More recently, political theorist Maxime Lepoutre has similarly argued that \u201canger can and should play a key role in democratic public discourse.\u201d Lepoutre claimed that \u201cPublic expressions of anger have a distinctive ability to reveal injustices, and to promote understanding of injustices, when these may otherwise have gone unnoticed or been misunderstood.\u201d In \u201cdivided societies,\u201d they explain, \u201cinjustices suffered by some groups are often invisible to, or misunderstood by, others.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Maxime Lepoutre, Democratic Speech in Divided Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 51, 59.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-7\" href=\"#footnote-456-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a> Thus, Lorde and Lepoutre suggest that some speech may be both angry <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> productive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Uncivil Rhetoric That Functions Productively<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Let\u2019s consider, then, how ACT UP\u2019s uncivil speech functioned productively by answering the three questions posed earlier:<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlf\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">1. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em><\/span> about an overlooked issue and ongoing societal problem?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP\u2019s protests sparked national discussions about AIDS at a time when the disease had killed tens of thousands of victims but was largely ignored in the broader public sphere. A major reason for silence was the disease\u2019s negative perception as a \u201cgay plague\u201d (since it largely affected gay men) at a time when homosexuality was still heavily taboo and even illegal in many US states. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId81\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/JL3J-H5UU\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">President <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Ronald <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">Reagan did not publicly recognize AIDS until 1985<\/span>,<\/a><\/span> after nearly six thousand people had died and the epidemic was raging. Congress was reluctant to fully fund research to cure it. The news media also were slow to seriously cover the epidemic. Though ACT UP\u2019s efforts drew criticism, they also attracted national attention to AIDS, its victims, and the need for funding and humane treatment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">2. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em><\/span> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP consisted of queer people and their allies, who lacked easy access in the 1980s to traditional means of deliberation and advocacy due to their sexuality. Religious leaders condemned gay people as immoral. Even as late as 1993, the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId82\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/feature\/nbc-out\/billy-graham-leaves-painful-legacy-lgbtq-people-n850031\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Reverend Billy Graham suggested that AIDS was God\u2019s punishment for gay people<\/span><\/a><\/span> (though he later apologized).<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">When gay people did advocate publicly, their arguments and experiences were not necessarily taken seriously by political leaders. In 1982, when a journalist asked Reagan\u2019s press secretary, Larry Speakes, if the president had a reaction to the six hundred documented cases of AIDS, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId83\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/ZEB8-S5NT\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Speakes made light of the disease by joking that he didn\u2019t have <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">AIDS <\/span><span class=\"import-url\">while other media members laughed<\/span>.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlp\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\">ACT UP\u2019s efforts, then, empowered queer people who were clearly marginalized from the public sphere by shifting the narrative from them as shameful sinners to advocates who deserved serious recognition and support.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nl0\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">3. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong><\/span> Does this discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power<\/em><\/span> of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-nlpl\" style=\"padding-left: 80px;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong><\/span> ACT UP\u2019s communication directly challenged the social power of political and religious leaders who devalued and discredited the homosexual community. Their protests turned the tables by encouraging onlookers to question the morality, decency, and ethics of the very leaders who condemned gay people. The giant condom over Helms\u2019s house visually suggested <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">he<\/em><\/span> was an unsafe leader that the public needed to be protected against. The cathedral protest, mock trial, and dumping of ashes on the White House lawn all implied that political and religious leaders were responsible for allowing the epidemic to grow and kill. The protests characterized these leaders\u2019 accusations against homosexuals and silence about AIDS as unethical and unfair.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, while many of their protests qualified as uncivil, ACT UP\u2019s communication functioned productively, because it produced a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It\u2019s telling that while ACT UP faced heavy criticism in its day, today it is widely seen as an incredibly successful and important social movement.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Why Use Uncivil Rhetoric?<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You might still wonder, however, why do protesters ever adopt angry or rude (uncivil) rhetoric when they could instead choose to communicate more respectfully and politely (civilly)? Scholars have provided several answers: Protesters typically lack easy access to the public sphere, uncivil protest demands attention that might otherwise be difficult to attract, and uncivil communication reflects frustration and anger.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, because marginalized people typically have less access to power in the civic arena, it is harder for them to influence public discussion and policies through traditional, acceptable means. Professors of communication Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud have noted that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The powerful rarely are willing to invite those less powerful into dialogue; the oppressed are hard pressed to convince oppressors who benefit materially from oppression to be open to dialogue, let alone radical change. Many discussions are by \u2018invitation only,\u2019 a phrase suggesting that invitation belongs to those who set the rules for exclusion.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud, \u201cThe Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality,\u201d Western Journal of Communication 73 (2009): 221\u201322.\" id=\"return-footnote-456-8\" href=\"#footnote-456-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In other words, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">because<\/em><\/span> they call for change, marginalized groups (the oppressed) lack easy access to public deliberations that use traditional, civil means of expression. It\u2019s not in the interests of the powerful to invite the oppressed into such civil discussions. Consequently, marginalized groups must often turn elsewhere to advocate for change.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Second, those marginalized groups excluded from the public sphere tend to form what Fraser has called subaltern <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">counterpublics<\/strong><\/span>: gatherings of people excluded or dissuaded from the public sphere who raise issues ignored or trivialized by the broader public.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere.\u201d\" id=\"return-footnote-456-9\" href=\"#footnote-456-9\" aria-label=\"Footnote 9\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[9]<\/sup><\/a> In other words, their very exclusion from the public sphere tends to encourage people to come together on their own. They find affirmation and a sense of belonging among one another.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Members of counterpublics learn and teach each other methods of challenging their exclusion in the broader public sphere, such as social protest. Indeed, sometimes social protest is the only way for members who are excluded from, or devalued in, the public sphere to influence public discussion and policies. They adopt the kind of rhetoric that, <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">due to its incivility<\/em><\/span>, demands attention.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Finally, social protest by the oppressed typically reflects their anger and frustration. Their voices, needs, and calls for change using traditional means have been ignored, devalued, and\/or discredited. Consequently, civil speech\u2014especially when defined as dispassionate and polite\u2014cannot adequately express the hurt and frustrations of their lived experiences and the vigor of their demands for change. As Lorde and Lepoutre explain (in box 4.2), anger is sometimes better able to communicate the presence and ongoing harms of injustice.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 4.3 Not All Uncivil Rhetoric Is Productive<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Not all public protest that utilizes uncivil speech functions productively. Recall in chapter 2 that we named incivility as a quality of unproductive speech that some people use to gain attention <em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em> silence detractors.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_565\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-565\" style=\"width: 500px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-565\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1.jpeg\" alt=\"People stand on the street with Nazi and Confederate Flags in the Unite the Right rally.\" width=\"500\" height=\"375\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1.jpeg 640w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1-300x225.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1-65x49.jpeg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1-225x169.jpeg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image34-1-350x263.jpeg 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-565\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/acrider\/35780274914\/in\/photostream\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Charlottesville &#8220;Unite the Right&#8221; Rally<\/a> by Anthony Crider via Flickr, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\/deed.en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We can look to the August 11 and 12, 2017, \u201cUnite the Right\u201d rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, as an example. Participants marched at night with tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus, chanting \u201cBlood and soil\u201d (a phrase that evoked Nazi rhetoric) and the antisemitic expression \u201cJews will not replace us.\u201d The next day they carried Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, Confederate flags, and weapons. Featured attendees, such as KKK leader David Duke, organizer Jason Kessler, and neo-Nazi Richard Spencer promoted white supremacy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Here we have a social protest that used uncivil speech: It was impolite, combative, and angry. It was also accompanied by violence. Physical confrontations broke out with counterprotesters, and white supremacist James Fields drove his car into counterprotesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring thirty-five people.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">The violence was egregious, and we do not diminish it. But even if we focus only on the protesters\u2019 communication, we can determine that it was unproductive in increasing the inclusivity and equity of the public sphere. To understand why, we return again to the three criteria established earlier.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnlf\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">1. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does the discourse attempt to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">spark or subdue discussion<\/em> about an overlooked and ongoing societal problem?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong> The march was held in Charlottesville in reaction to the city\u2019s decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and rename the park in which it was located. Lee\u2019s statue was the seventh such statue removed in Southern states since 2009, reflecting a national conversation about monuments, white supremacy, and racial violence. The \u201cUnite the Right\u201d rally, then, attempted to subdue that discussion by showing support for keeping the statue and intimidating people who disagreed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnl\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">2. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does the rhetoric strive to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">include or exclude<\/em> historically marginalized members of the public in democratic participation?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer:<\/strong> By featuring known white supremacists and chanting Nazi and antisemitic rhetoric, the protest clearly sought to exclude any Americans who are Jewish or not white from civic engagement. The violence also suggests that some members wanted to physically stop anyone who disagreed with their ideology from speaking against it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnl\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">3. <strong class=\"import-b\">Question:<\/strong> Does this discourse attempt to <em class=\"import-i\">preserve or question the power <\/em>of historically dominant members of the public?<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbnlp\" style=\"text-indent: 18pt; padding-left: 40px;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Answer: <\/strong>By promoting white supremacy and antisemitism, the protest explicitly sought to preserve the power of white, Christian Americans, who have historically occupied positions of cultural and economic privilege in the US.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, not all protest that uses uncivil expression functions productively. Therefore, we challenge you to examine the functions of uncivil rhetoric before you condemn <em class=\"import-i\">or<\/em> champion it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Recall that productive discourse is about <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsibility, not necessarily politeness<\/em><\/span>. Responsible public discourse is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. When we evaluate public discourse more carefully, we are cautioned against uncritically using a list of qualities to label a rhetoric as productive or unproductive. Otherwise, on one hand, we might fail to recognize forms of expression that seem civil but actually exclude marginalized perspectives and perpetuate inequity. If we call these discourses productive, we, too, may unintentionally constrict the public sphere and block challenges to the status quo and powerful interests.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p0\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">On the other hand, we might also fail to appreciate social protest that appears uncivil but strives to expand democratic participation and increase equity. If we label these as unproductive, we may inadvertently help eliminate participants, reinforce inequality, and strengthen policing discourse that demands \u201cacceptable\u201d speech. These are important aspects of public discourse we hope you will keep in mind as you promote civic engagement in your many public relationships.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This chapter returned to distinctions we made in earlier chapters between unproductive and productive discourse. It warned against using lists of qualities in overly simplified ways that miss the goal of productive discourse: to build a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. Specifically, in this chapter you have learned:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Responsible public discourse is public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere.<\/li>\n<li>We can better distinguish productive discourse through its responsibility to the audience and community for the accuracy and impact of claims rather than through its politeness or civility.<\/li>\n<li>Policing discourse is the use of rhetoric to determine preferred or appropriate ways of talking together when deliberating public issues. It functions to control or \u201cpolice\u201d communication that violates what is considered preferred or appropriate.<\/li>\n<li>The call for civil speech\u2014communication that maintains decorum by being respectful, dispassionate, and polite\u2014is a policing discourse. People in positions of power have historically used civil discourse to critique protesters by accusing them of using uncivil speech: rhetoric that violates decorum because it is disrespectful, angry, and\/or impolite.<\/li>\n<li>Marginalized groups may choose uncivil speech to protest because they lack easy access to the public sphere where civil discourse occurs, uncivil protest demands attention they otherwise struggle to attract, and their communication reflects their frustration and anger.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p>civil speech<br \/>\ncounterpublic<br \/>\npolicing discourse<br \/>\nresponsible public discourse<br \/>\nuncivil speech<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>What three criteria must be met for rhetoric to qualify as responsible public discourse?<\/li>\n<li>What is considered civil speech? Uncivil speech?<\/li>\n<li>What is policing rhetoric? At whom is it usually directed? To what ends?<\/li>\n<li>What are reasons why some groups adopt uncivil rhetoric?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>What are the benefits and drawbacks of social protesters\u2019 use of uncivil speech?<\/li>\n<li>Can you think of additional criteria to determine if a rhetoric functions as responsible public discourse?<\/li>\n<li>Name a contemporary counterpublic. Is this counterpublic a source of empowerment or isolation? How is the counterpublic included or excluded from public discourse? Explain.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-456-1\">Benjamin R. Barber, <em>A Place for Us: How to Make Society Civil and Democracy Strong<\/em> (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), 122 (emphasis added). <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-2\">Steven Crowder, <em>Change My Mind<\/em>, YouTube playlist, accessed July 4, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL3e1orPYt_4ZHGjuivZFsyJ81RL7j7_E1.<\/a> <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-3\">\u201cThe Storming of St. Pat\u2019s,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, December 12, 1989, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1989\/12\/12\/opinion\/the-storming-of-st-pat-s.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1989\/12\/12\/opinion\/the-storming-of-st-pat-s.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-4\">Nancy Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,\u201d <em>Social Text<\/em> 25 (1990): 56\u201380. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-5\">Anna M. Young, Adria Battaglia, and Dana L. Cloud, \u201c(Un)Disciplining the Scholar Activist: Policing the Boundaries of Political Engagement,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 96 (2010): 431. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-6\">Audre Lorde, \u201cThe Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism,\u201d in <em>Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches<\/em> (New York: Crossing Press, 2007), 131. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-7\">Maxime Lepoutre, <em>Democratic Speech in Divided Times<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 51, 59. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-8\">Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud, \u201cThe Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality,\u201d <em>Western Journal of Communication<\/em> 73 (2009): 221\u201322. <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-456-9\">Fraser, \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere.\u201d <a href=\"#return-footnote-456-9\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 9\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/456"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":37,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3276,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/456\/revisions\/3276"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/456\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=456"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=456"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}