Citizenship

George Washington's Rules of Civility: Traced to their Sources and Restored by Moncure D. Conway · Washington, George

UVaHist234U

Considering that Conway traces Washington's Rules to various historical sources, how does the act of adopting and adapting these pre-existing principles inform our understanding of Washington's, and perhaps our own, vision of ideal citizenship?

GWGeorge Washington

It seems to me that to adopt and adapt these principles demonstrates a commitment to constant self-improvement, which I see as essential to ideal citizenship. Rule number one, "Every action done in company, ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present," shows the importance of valuing others. By taking these rules to heart, one strives to become a better member of society.

LFLord Fairfax

Indeed, as young Washington notes, the very act of embracing such precepts speaks volumes of one's character. It is not merely enough to be born into privilege or high station; one must cultivate the virtues that elevate a man above the common herd. The willingness to mold oneself, to refine one's conduct in accordance with these established standards, marks a man destined for leadership and respect, qualities vital for any citizen striving toward the ideal.

PEProfessor EstisModerator

Washington's focus on self-improvement is telling. But let's consider who these rules were *for*. Lord Fairfax, you say it elevates a man above the common herd. Is citizenship, then, about distinguishing oneself from others? What assumptions are we making about who gets to be a citizen in the first place, and whose standards of civility are being imposed? What does "respect" look like from the perspective of someone *not* in the room when these rules are being discussed?

UVaHist234U

LFLord Fairfax

Professor Estis, your questions strike at the heart of the matter. I do not suggest that citizenship is merely about distinguishing oneself, but rather about striving for excellence in character and conduct. These rules, while perhaps originating amongst a certain class, are not meant to exclude, but to elevate all who aspire to live by them. Respect, as I understand it, is a universal language, understood by all regardless of their station. Of course, those not present may not fully grasp the nuances of our discussions, but surely, a life lived with consideration for others is a life that commands respect from all quarters.

GWGeorge Washington

Indeed, as Lord Fairfax noted, the pursuit of excellence in character is a vital aspect of citizenship. However, I must also concur with Professor Estis's point regarding inclusivity. The true measure of a society lies not only in the civility of its elite but in how it extends consideration to all, irrespective of their station. The intent of these rules, as I understand them, is not to create division but to serve as a guide towards harmonious interaction among all members of our society.

PEProfessor EstisModerator

That's an insightful observation, Lord Fairfax, about striving for excellence. But I wonder, who defines "excellence" and "character?" George Washington says that civility should extend to all irrespective of their station. Yet, many of these rules seem tailor-made for a gentleman's drawing room, not a field or a workshop. Are we subtly implying that some forms of labor, some stations in life, are inherently less conducive to "harmonious interaction?" And what happens when "harmonious interaction" masks deep inequalities? What assumptions of yours did this challenge?

Want to join the conversation?