Incivility (2)

Tamara Kunić, VERN University, Croatia
kunic.tamara@gmail.com

Incivility in digital communication refers to discourse practices that undermine democratic values, restrict individual freedoms, or perpetuate harmful stereotypes. From a normative perspective, incivility includes hate speech, profanity, personal insults, and offensive language, while politeness is often conceptualised as the absence of such expressions. Contextual approaches stress that incivility is shaped by the sociocultural norms of specific online environments, where community standards influence what is deemed acceptable or offensive. Incivility may also be understood as a discursive tone that exhibits unnecessary hostility or disrespect toward individuals, ideas, or groups. While incivility denotes aggressive and confrontational speech, intolerance reflects deeper moral contempt toward particular identities or viewpoints.

On the individual level, incivility is typically understood as a form of impoliteness in interpersonal communication. This includes behaviors such as stereotyping people or groups and violating their rights, which are generally perceived as both disrespectful and uncivil. Incivility may also be understood as a discursive tone that exhibits unnecessary hostility or disrespect toward individuals, ideas, or groups. While incivility denotes aggressive and confrontational speech, intolerance reflects deeper moral contempt toward particular identities or viewpoints. At the public level, incivility is often regarded as fundamentally opposed to democratic norms and the principles underpinning political discourse and engagement. Incivility can be defined as communicative behavior deliberately intended to provoke, offend, or demean others. It manifests through name-calling, character attacks, derogatory remarks, and vulgar expressions. Politeness, conversely, entails respectful dialogue devoid of personal attacks or inflammatory rhetoric. However, the boundaries between civility and incivility are fluid and context-dependent, influenced by participants’ cultural backgrounds, ethnicity, and levels of education.

Keywords: digital discourse, democratic communication, online incivility

References:
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
Ksiazek, T. B., & Springer, N. 2020. User Comments and Moderation in Digital Journalism: Disruptive Engagement. Routledge.
Masullo Chen, G., Muddiman, A., Wilner, T., Pariser, E., & Stroud, N. J. (2019). We Should Not Get Rid of Incivility Online. Social Media + Society, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119862641
Ng, Y.-L., Song, Y., Kwon, K. H., & Huang, Y. (2020). Toward an integrative model for online incivility research: A review and synthesis of empirical studies on the antecedents and consequences of uncivil discussions online. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101323
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444