OPINION:
The rising level of violence in our society has been ascribed to many causes. To the mainstream press and many of those on the left, however, the ever-present assertion of “racism” is always the justification for this violence, as it is for virtually all other current societal ills. But that facile analysis is clearly insufficient, if not inaccurate.
This is not to deny the presence of racism in our society. Sadly, racism has been with us throughout human existence. There appears to be a natural tendency to distrust those who are different from ourselves, and the visible physical difference highlighted by skin color and varying appearance clearly emphasizes differences and reinforces the consequent discomfort that we may have with those different from ourselves.
Thus, in seeking an answer to the question of causality regarding the upsurge in violence throughout our nation, and especially in our cities, it is necessary to go beyond superficial, politically correct conclusions. It is in that context that, following the recent terrible event in Memphis, Tennessee, that I was drawn back to the final episode of a television series produced in 1969 — a time that, like our time, was one of turmoil. The noted British art historian Sir Kenneth Clark saw fit to narrate a 13-part series, which, with British simplicity and directness, he entitled simply “Civilisation.”
The series covered much of what were then considered the highlights of the evolution of human culture. Since its focus was entirely on Western civilization, it would today be considered racist and a manifestation of “White supremacy.” In its time, however, it was considered a survey of the best that could be derived from centuries of human cultural development.
Today, I am reminded not so much about the details of the series but rather of the succinct summary of his beliefs, which Clark enunciated in the final episode of the series. As he brought his survey of Western civilization to a close, Clark tried to summarize, in just a few phrases, the fundamental lessons that he had drawn from a lifetime of work in the realm of cultural studies. His summary is well worth considering in our coarse and vulgar era. I cite it because its words resonate so profoundly in our own troubled times:
“I believe that order is better than chaos, creation better than destruction. I prefer gentleness to violence, forgiveness to vendetta. On the whole I think that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, and I am sure that human sympathy is more valuable than ideology. I believe that in spite of the recent triumphs of science, men haven’t changed much in the last two thousand years; and in consequence we must still try to learn from history. History is ourselves. I also hold one or two beliefs that are more difficult to put shortly. For example, I believe in courtesy, the ritual by which we avoid hurting other people’s feelings by satisfying our own egos. And I think we should remember that we are part of a great whole. All living things are our brothers and sisters.”
As I watched Clark express his fundamental beliefs, I was drawn then, as I am now, to his references to “human sympathy,” “gentleness,” “forgiveness” and, especially, to “courtesy,” which to him played a crucial role in supporting civilization. Clark was recognizing that civilization is only a veneer that restrains the manifestation of our worst instincts and that a critical component of that veneer is the manner in which we interact with one another.
Courtesy, as he described it, is a kind of shield against the deep-seated fears and even the hatred that reside within each of us. It serves to channel those negative motivations into more appropriate ways of interacting with our fellow human beings. It is the behavioral impetus that should compel us to act decently even when we might be inclined not to do so and which can, therefore, shield us from violence and chaos.
Today, we are only too ready to discount the importance of the role of courtesy — which is the product of proper upbringing and of generations of Western tradition — in creating a civilizing environment in which to live and thrive. Clark’s monologue strongly suggests, however, that we should consider whether simple, courteous behavior and the respect for other human beings that courtesy engenders just might reduce the level of violence we are experiencing today.
Is it not possible that had the Memphis police officers who stopped Tyre Nichols felt compelled to treat him with courtesy, they might have refrained from the violence and disregard for elementary decency that epitomized the encounter?
Perhaps, instead of perpetually focusing on racism or police brutality, we might do better to focus, as Kenneth Clark did in his series, on the proper manner of interacting with one another. Seeking to reinstate basic courtesy and discarding profanity and vile language as a societal imperative might be more desirable than launching yet more invective and divisive rhetoric. Simply being polite and being careful with our language could potentially reduce the friction that random encounters can cause and just might save lives in the process.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. His book, “Lobbying for Equality, Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” was published by HUC Press last year.
