I’m rather intrigued by people who have read Foucault’s work on abnormality (and find his perspective compelling) or those who would call themselves anarchists or anti-authoritarians, yet also enforce and regulate very narrow standards for “civility” and cultural codes of interaction. They presume first that these are teachable (and therefore learnable) behaviors. Second their position advocates that these behaviors be uniformly taught and exercised. Third, they presume that any person can learn these behaviors and simply opt to do so with absolute regularity.To take each in turn:First, I’m not so certain that typical modes of instruction can result in one’s ability to take part in these practices and performances. These are behaviors that take a lifetime of socialization — and discipline and punishment! — and all the momentary regulation (even if these are desirable and defensible practices) is going to do little to change someone’s differing socialization.Second, the advocacy of uniform codes of civility and interaction seems suspect at best. While it can be frustrating to deal with someone who hasn’t been socialized the same way we have, or if they have some barrier to such socialization, the diversity of personalities is a wonderful thing — even in these frustrating moments. I’m far more inclined to welcome these frustrations than to applaud someone for regulating those who do not conform to these standards. Witnessing (and experiencing!) processes of organized exclusion of those who do not behave in accordance with these prescriptions is one thing that often fuels my skepticism toward self-professed radicals.

Third, with the prevalence of learning disabilities, mental illnesses, and so forth in contemporary culture, I find the demand for civility and the regulation thereof to be an obnoxious and ableist enterprise. The derision dealt towards those who do not maintain decorum exemplifies very little understanding that a sizable portion of the population simply cannot and will not be socialized in the same ways as the majority. That radicals would pontificate the virtues of regulating civility and many more would embrace such a position, I think, undermines their claims to radicalism.