Civility and collective action: Soft speech, loud roars, and the politics of recognition

Abstract

Analyzing the relationship between collective action and civility within the world’s largest democracy, this essay argues that, rather than being a precondition for democratic participation or a quality of individual comportment or manners, civility can be analyzed as an effect of political recognition and of the existence of a responsive structure of authority. Using ethnographic examples of recent collective assemblies held in southern India, the essay demonstrates the limits of both deliberative democracy approaches (Dryzek, Habermas, Rawls, Benhabib, Cohen, Farrelly) and agonistic pluralist models (Mouffe, Connolly, Honig, Arendt) for understanding democracy. If individual speech action is understood to run the gamut from polite and constructive participation in deliberation to antagonistic incivility, collective action is framed by both models as inherently oppositional and adversarial, rejecting or resisting authority and protesting against it, running a narrower gamut from agonistic intervention, which frames others as adversaries, to antagonistic refusals that frame others as enemies (Mouffe). There appears no space within either deliberative or agonistic frameworks for approaching collective action as non-adversarial participation in the public sphere on par with individual participatory contributions to deliberation. The ethnographic examples presented in this essay illustrate examples of collective action as efforts to “hail the state” and be included in its decision-making processes. These examples demonstrate that collective action can function as amplification of earlier communicative efforts that have gone unheard or been silenced. Illustrating the failure of both models to capture the larger processes that result in collective action, I conclude by presenting an analytic approach from the perspective of a former British colony that offers deeper understandings of collective forms of action as they relate to civility not only in India, but elsewhere as well.

Ethical scaling for content moderation: Extreme speech and the (in)significance of artificial intelligence

“…Under these conditions, the pressure to speak polite language has been an act of domination—moral injunctions linked to assertions of privilege. Civility, thus, is an “effect of political recognition and of a responsive structure of authority” (Mitchell, 2018: 217). In other words, the implications of incivility—or the extremeness of speech more broadly—cannot be comprehended without analyzing forms of recognition and responsiveness to demands that are available to diverse groups (Udupa et al, 2021).…”

Caste at the City’s Edge: Land Struggles in Peri-urban Bengaluru

“…In the city of Bengaluru, such mobilization has been particularly focused on land and housing rights for the urban poor (Benjamin and Raman 2011:41;Kamath and Vijayabaskar 2014). In this struggle, Shekhar and his allies are not just protesting against the appropriation of Dalit and common lands through illegal machinations and the political influence of Reddys-they are making a collective claim about caste power and using their identity as oppressed Dalits to "hail the state" (Mitchell 2018), to insist that officials attend to their grievances and discharge their responsibilities. As Shekhar said:…”

TITLING AS A CONTESTED PROCESS: Conditional Land Rights and Subaltern Citizenship in South India

“…Thus, bureaucratic reworkings of laws and orders are also often prompted by pressures from below: public demands and citizens' discourses that reach bureaucratic offices in the form of letters, petitions, demonstrations, etc. (Jonnalagadda, 2018;Mitchell, 2018).…”