First and foremost it needs to be established that not all communities can achieve the ideal above. While the prescriptions laid out below will benefit any society (under the values already stated) and it is my belief that there is no ceiling to how close a community can come to approaching the ideal described, this should happen ONLY by constructed consent. To claim that every community will optimally benefit in the same way would be falling prey to perception bias and would be hypocritical in the context of this thesis.
With that out of the way, the following are suggestions as to how to adjust a society in the most organic way.
The primary precondition to increasing social normality is to first identify the current state of that normality. Thus – according to the definition – the population and the conversation must be established both for the sake of internal understanding of values and needs in addition to the understanding of external communication and influence. To clarify further, if two people are conversing about two populations, a single normality cannot be established which will render any agreement impossible. For this reason, prior to any attempt at optimization, the community needs to be well defined.
Due to the benefit of excluding a population so that normality can be increased for the rest, extra care should be made to ensure the conversation isn’t limited once established. While there are some that will feel compelled to abandon radical civility for more objectified metaphysics (thereby adopting an external conflicting civility); once a community has adopted the metaphysical dictation of radical civility, it would undermine the entire philosophy for it to be abandoned. It falls on the community consciousness to work with them and ensure that the local civilities can coexist, but the civil coverage should never be reduced.
For example, a wealthy community can intentionally impoverish slaves while still considering the entire community very comfortable, but this is only done for justification. Additionally, this has the added effect of setting the impossible expectation that slaves can achieve a normality that cannot be distributed to them. It therefore stands that – instead of excluding the slave community – they must be included within the conversation initially (even if those who benefit from them will object due to their own exclusive civility) so that any difference in expectations between peers will become apparent and challenged.
Once the population has been defined, it is vital to build an understanding of others on their terms. “On their own terms” does not mean that expertise or values should be discarded (even though those may play a role in unfair expectations), but instead to reject – as much as possible – any “personal civility” or “personal mythos” that has the potential of causing unintentional harm within the community. When everyone engages through a lens of radical civility, cooperation will lead to acceptance and community cohesion.
While being ignorant of a subcommunity’s status, it is easy to assume what normality should be (which is used to justify both imperialism and oppression when left unaddressed). Initially, only universal plights should be acted on: material needs and knowledge which will support self preservation that can be gifted while other metaphysical needs remain unknown.
It should be – nonetheless – anticipated, especially when historic civility necessitates a mythos of protectionism, that this course will be seen as a threat. Whether it be “immoral” dependencies (e.g. the exploitation of subcommunities) or exotic resources, if previous outside civilities overpowered the local metaphysics and attempted to subjectify them, any altruistic cooperation may be misidentified as a hostile attack on the community. Extending inclusion of these civilities into the established conversation will either result in conflict or – in some cases – empower harm. To reduce the former and avoid the latter, cooperation should always be promoted with the requirement of establishing normality to ensure that radical civility can guide the interaction. To accomplish this, any myths of inherent inequality should be disallowed during the cooperation and – additionally – ensuring that anyone expected to work more is educated on radical civility (both of these will be discussed more later). While cooperation may include aspects of the local exclusive civility, the promotion will draw attention to any inherent internal power dynamics within the endeavor (including the protectionist mythos) and increase any radicality when it applies.
With the possible exception of taking up residency and being indoctrinated within the local civility, any outsider is subject to perception bias and can only know a limited amount of the plights and needs of another community. Even the most altruistic of invasive groups can be oppressive through ignorance. Understanding normality (both establishing and readjusting) should always take a primary focus within the conversation so knowing how to increase it can be organically optimized.
For the sake of community identity, it is important to establish philosophical boundaries when a population refuses to be submissive to radical civility. In other words, no group – even one’s own – can be required to restrict legacy acceptance except through their own community’s constructed consent. For this reason, it is tragically sound to fear cooperation with communities that have an increased state of normality than one’s own. Cooperating on their terms will almost always have the effect of demanding their civility be respected to the harm of others (since their internal normality will be reduced if subnormal groups are promoted due to acceptance).
When interacting, even in the case of devout advocates for radical civility, other civilities may satisfy an unmet metaphysical need producing sympathy and a radical critique. Individually this may not seem harmful, and – practically – may not be when considering the wider community, but the critique should be considered through the lens of constructed consent before that conclusion can be determined. Regardless – due to the inherent subjectivity of radical civility – any civil sympathies (e.g. mythoi or civil structures) that accompany the radical critique should be rejected entirely. For this reason it needs to be required that advocates of the community take mandatory breaks so they can evaluate if they are internalizing civil conflicts (either subtle or explicitly hostile) to others that are silent in the external community.
There are instances when the internal community will generate an exclusive civility. When this happens (either through rejecting new knowledge, technological advances, or anything else), the defenders of limiting the allowable legacies will – by definition – no longer be participating in radical civility and therefore become self imposed ideological outcasts. While cooperation should still be promoted (to both expand mythos and undermine their desire for exclusion), they should be treated as any other civility that will cause harm by unintentionally (or – in nefarious situations – intentionally) invalidating portions of the population.
Everything discussed so far will be a necessary hindrance to building community consciousness. From not being able to permanently pin down a normality, to being cautious of other civilities and the resulting rifts, a community can always find a reason not to reach out to others. Stagnation of a community is a safe way to build legacy and strengthen the civility needed for survival, but this will in turn objectify the community’s ideological boundaries to the point of rejecting others. While this does not necessarily contradict radical civility, since all radical voices within the ideological boundary can still be promoted, it is unlikely that consideration of new legacies will be considered within the constructed conversation. The fear associated with new potential threats will likely necessitate rejection and further strengthening of civility in light of the potential for harm. As such, the need to fight stagnation is always virtuous, even if – and especially if – one has to be radical to do so.
There is a warning with continually expanding the conversation: forcing civil radicality onto a new resistant group fundamentally contradicts the theory and should be universally rejected. There will be an urge to argue that expanding the conversation and – by extension – adjusting normality to incorporate an excessive community is an “ought” according to the value system, but this is flawed. By definition, normality within an outgroup is unknowable since it lacks the ability to participate in constructed consent and negotiate the rubric establishing how “excess” is determined. While perception bias may dictate that there is no scenario in which the civility of that community necessitates a need for such excess to preserve legacies, only through cooperation can that be known.
In summary, it is vital to always look for shared overlap among external legacies and one’s own civility instead of focusing on the need for defense. Like relatively close geographic allies sharing material influences, ideological descendants of the same civility will almost assuredly have shared legacies that can be appealed to. An argument for stagnation or forced inclusion will lead to an undermining of radical civility.
After establishing the scope of a conversation and normality can be relatively established, it is important to reflect on the civilities involved to ensure all known legacies are included. Where they exist, exclusive civilities cannot simply be disregarded due to the influence and dependency that the peoples have internalized. While inertia is a force within constructed consent that requires cultural influence and time to alter, authorities (which include institutions) will seek to uphold the civil authority and stagnate any change.
While many of these authorities are obvious, it is vital for the members of radical groups to identify and reject their specific representatives that are invalidating their plight in the general community. Due to perception bias, those protected by civility will promote any false representatives that support civil radicality, which is of course detrimental to the liberty of the exploited radicals. As a reminder, the scope of the conversation must dictate the narrative. The outright rejection of radical consent due to a single dissenting voice (even if it is a “representative”) is harmful. This will further institutionalize the current subnormal plight being identified by the radical community as acceptable; artificially increasing normality and attempting to restrict the community. Whether it be through ignorance or an adjusted narrative, the civil conformity coming from the representative must be seen by the radical community as a declaration that they are no longer capable of accurately fulfilling their role. If constructed consent is to become empowered, the radical consent must be prioritized above these fallacious representatives and – as a community – they must be systematically opposed. Only by replacing them with someone more suitable (chosen explicitly by the radical community) can the radical critique be given a platform and heard.
In the same way civil radicality must be rejected by necessity, so must existing instances of radical civility be promoted. While civil authorities – by definition – cannot be radical, they can refine the boundaries of civility. Whether an increase of normality be promoted through: providing the status of their represented community, the advocacy of cooperation within conflicting communities, or bringing attention to growing radical consents; these reporting standards ought to be praised regardless of the civil source.
While the community will be tempted to fall prey to universal dependence on the authorities (leading to a willing acceptance of misrepresentation and a advocation of silence regarding civil failings), it must be remembered that representatives are the holders of archy (elements needed for distribution) and ought to be treated as such. It is therefore the responsibility of harmed groups to identify themselves within the broader community to both give validity to the civil reports and show contradicts when they arise. Regardless, universal promotion and universal hostility of civil representation is counter to the information that the constructed consent needs for analysis regarding any radical considerations and absolutes are just as harmful as silence.
Where critique of civil constructors (i.e. authorities) is necessary to ensure normality is being increased within their represented group, they are easy to identify and relatively simple to change. Mythoi on the other hand are often synonymous with the community identity itself, so identifying them is only possible through contrast when that contrast exists at all. Hopefully through understanding of how embedded these narratives can be, it is transparent how influential they are. If not, consider this question: how does one acknowledge harm when that harm is synonymous with being moral?
Cultural mythoi and the overarching tropes used to embed lessons into a community must be reflected on when identified, and no civility is excluded from this – especially one’s own. While they are expected to generally align with the broader community in terms of virtues and fears, the contrasts will provide insight into the (possibly historic) subconscious civility specific to the community it comes from. It is vital for these differences to be observed and discussed to see why the differences exist (or – optimistically – existed) – especially when educating/indoctrinating lest they become internalized. Only by making this identification can constructed consent become empowered.
It is also expected that these stories will be defended more than most other arbiters of civility. By their very nature they carry with them the integrity of the community that holds them. Understanding the appeal of the stories (from the hyperbolized conflicts that are overcome to the immortalized virtues declared through the material/ideological bastions the villain seeks to destroy), the subconscious objective reality which the mythoi intended to portray is a better representation of the community identity than the laws or philosophy that has been generated. For anyone unable to actualize the conflicting mythological differences (either due to community cohesion or existential answers) it will be impossible to partition them from their relative truth. For these, a carefully constructed alternative mythos is necessary.
The need for careful construction when creating any alternative is due to three necessary traits: the inclusion of current local civility, the intentional and obvious change to the conflicting aspects, and – most importantly – an embedded self contradiction. The first point – which includes a sense of respect – is necessary for the new mythos’s acceptance. The second is to introduce the necessary critique to the forefront of the community conversation. The last is to ensure an underlying critique of mythoi and the rejection of civility is always acknowledged.
Up until this point, economics has not been a focus. The reason for this is simple: currency – in relation to the axioms of life that have been assumed – is not an influential force but simply another civil institution. While it is often necessary to be used as a standard metric surpassing geographical and resource diversification, wealth has no direct relation to the preservation of the existential self nor community consciousness. In this way, the economy is a farcical illusion of material empowerment with no ideological differences from the legacies it seeks to empower. Thus, treating fiscal gain as an exceptional form of success will be rejected.
Instead the discussion of success – within current culture – will reflect the core of what people utilize money, power, fame, influence, or any other cultural currency for: the institutionalization of their own legacy often in spite of everyone else’s. Striving for this success is (I hope at this point) obviously flawed. If success is promoted culturally as a virtue, all constructed consent will be skewed to reflect the empowered legacies above all. Since promotion of one’s own legacy is axiomatic for life and will exist regardless of promotion, it is therefore a failure of any community to empower the fascistic desire to exclusively honor a single one. There is only one clear alternative for those that promote radical civility: to civilly redefine success to be “the amount that one increases normality within the greatest conversation imaginable”.
While radical civility dictates that the institutional limitations of legacies be rejected, without an avenue for radical consent to be respected and heard, a limited civility is meaningless. This section will be a bit redundant in respect to the rest of this thesis, but the points will continue to be reiterated for the sake of both completeness and reinforcement.
With the realization that the critiques within a community cannot be understood sufficiently through civil discourse (since any plight promoted through civility cannot – by definition – be radical), it is not enough to only listen to “official” or widespread platforms. Invalidation of any radical movement will inevitably cause a conflict and – by extension – diminish everything associated with community consciousness (e.g. a collaborating population or a common identification of normality). As such, radical identification, validation, and promotion is vital to ensure an empowered constructed consent.
This can be accomplished by either experience or narrative. Experience is necessarily internalized and thus is more optimal but it is also more practically demanding. Cooperation with radical communities should therefore be universally strived for when it can be accomplished. When not possible, there should still be an attempt to platform the radical consent, preferably through representation of a native voice. Even though the audience of the narrative will not be able to fully comprehend the local plight, providing identification of the raw civil critique with the untranslated codex can at least be established as existing if not more significantly understood.
For those that support radical civility, it is the end goal to ensure that radical representation is institutionalized as much as possible. Empowering those of your community that are familiar with – preferably through personal experience – the plights and needs of subnormal conditions will promote normality shared by everyone. This may seem conflicting since civility cannot represent radicality, but this concept encapsulates exactly that which radical civility hopes to accomplish: to address the radical critique before it ever becomes a consenting population.
Assuming that all the above is achieved (identifying the conversation, establishing a relatively stable normality through community consciousness, minimizing civil oppression, and empowering the radical communities), the institutional support for the legacy preservation will have been demolished. Believing that this would cause the populace to partition into exclusive single legacies in spite of each other would be to reject the axiomatic assumption that life demands: preservation of legacy demands a community to be promoted. As such, it seems there is no alternative other than constructed consent to become empowered and to naturally thrive ensuring that the most inclusive set of legacies will be maintained.
There will always be a threat of external forces attempting to overtake a weakened civility and dictate the terms of the constructed consent. This is true whether the authoritative power believes it is deserving of fealty or allegiance or – conversely – it is promoting the “will of the people”. Unlike civil consents – which can be manipulated and corrupted by charlatans and demagogues, a strong community consciousness must be dismantled before it can be effectively exploited. Attempting to undermine this practical medium of constructed consent (via institutionalizing mythoi, obscuring the conversation, or restricting acceptability) within local communities will shift the need for legacy preservation back to civility. Therefore, even under encroaching external civilities, the strength of radical civility comes from constant cooperation and acceptance between ideologically and materially different groups within the conversation.
Every syllable, every action, every presentation is a vote within the direct democracy that is society for the reality that you want to exist. The more we relinquish this responsibility to civility, the more we condemn our peers to servitude. If everyone in society accepts agency to a reasonable degree, then it is impossible for any civility to become divisive unless authorities resort to material harm (be it physical or metaphysical – which includes economic coercion).
If this harm is ever used to divide a community, it is the responsibility of the entire community to defend itself lest material harm be normalized.
This bears repeating, since it not only strengthens the existing oppressive civility, but also seeks to exclude legacies that are currently defended.
If this harm is ever used to divide a community, it is the responsibility of the entire community to defend itself lest material harm be normalized.
Below are three simplified examples of how this praxis may be implemented. The first will address the case when normality is readjusted when new information is discovered. The last two will address how to react to new hostile civilities (subnormal and excessive). All will be simplified to only consider the inclusion of an additional street into an established community. Also the reader should not confuse the examples below as the only solution, but simply an example that likely will not work in all cases.
Consider the case that a family from the new street includes an unknown abusive relationship. It is a very real possibility that the abused will be ignorant of their situation or unable to speak about it, which is why cooperation with peoples beyond that of a representative should be the objective. Ideally the abuser would adjust to the pressures of the changing community and reflect the external promotion of those that need help; extending it to those that they previously abused. This should not be counted on though since the legacy of abuse has likely been institutionalized in the household as civil. The more likely scenario will be that the abuse is identified before the abuser succumbs to outside pressure and normality is redefined (via the community’s civil reports) to establish “safety” or “non-abuse” as excessive within the community consciousness.
The systematic obligation to increase normality will dictate that the abused be acknowledged as the one with the least excess (i.e. lacking safety). They should therefore be educated in the ways of radical civility and given influence to express the radical plight. With the reminder that civility should only be reporting of status, resources, and external relations or – alternatively – holding those reportings accountable; the leverage that the abused holds will have the capability of systemic influence so any other similar unknown situations can be negated as well. If the abuser is reacting to either a lack of necessities or the opposite (testing power), this should be expressed so the community can understand and construct consent on how to react.
While this will cause a readjustment to the perceived normality of the population, it is a necessary aspect of civility to relay the information of the population so constructed consent can thrive. It should be noted that realigning the community’s understanding of excess will cause an (ignorant but expected) radical claim of reduced normality (aka harm). At this point, it is the community’s responsibility to evaluate the radical experiences in spite of the civil (historically established) mythos of normality. It is also expected that they realize this revelation within normality is not the fault of the civil holders for adjusting to previously unknown information, but – instead – the new advocate for radical civility should be praised for extending the community to include an overlooked subnormal voice. If radical civility is to thrive, such adjustments are natural and expected. If anyone rejects this realization via experience, their radical voice must be addressed as well to ensure that civility is not being manufactured or misrepresentative (in this case, the pushback would quickly fail). The truth of the situation is that correcting the faulty assumption of normality is not harmful but just a further understanding of the existing community.
In this scenario, everyone on the newly included street knows about the abuse that is going on in one of the families and willfully overlooks it. Whether each person approves or not, it is considered uncivil to even try to identify the problem with the abuse. There is a trade off here: on one hand, it is easy to identify what normality has become and – on the other – the institutionalized acceptance of the abuse is already set in and normality will be harder to increase. In a sense, this civil consent must be treated as radical and the abusive actions must be treated as tragic.
With this in mind, the population should cooperate with the holders of the radical community and try to understand the legacies that are needing to be supported while deconstructing the civil framework causing the harm. It may be beneficial to state the reminder: while legacies are individualistic preservation of an existential self, civilities affect communities and are exclusionary by definition. Legacies – it is therefore assumed – can always coexist, so the blame for harm should always be placed exclusively on civility that has institutionalized itself.
Any ambassadors should make it clear that – within any cooperation – all legacies should be respected. For those advocating for radical civility, the ambassador should be personally aligning with the civility of the other culture when possible, but must always make a point to explicitly acknowledge the differences in mythoi and promote where one civility is more inclusive even if it is not their own. As this cooperation persists, the incorporation of this community will no longer be hostile to radical consent and will demand the abused be promoted (for the same reasons as the previous scenario).
In this scenario, the additional street has a local normality that is a strict increase from one’s own. It must be recognized that to demand a broadening of their population is definitionally a demand to reduce their normality (which – when not chosen by local constructed consent – is harm). While the radically civil should strive to ensure this happens internally, the leverage is always on the side of the increased normality and – as such – any demand will be seen as oppression.
It is suggested that cooperation still be attempted, but – since their civility likely demands fealty – the conversation and the resulting normality should encompass everyone involved in the cooperation. If one starts demanding excess (e.g. more resources or leisure time than the norm), then cooperation must end. Similar to the previous scenarios, advocates must do their best to remain a radical voice and represent the radical civility of the unheard population. By extension, radical plights within the new civility should attempt to be understood and promoted (as long as they aren’t generated from a civil perspective). But this interaction comes with an extra demand on those cooperating within the new environment: do not become expectant of the benefits that the heightened normality offers. These are – by definition – excessive within the greater community. Even though these may appear to give advantage to preserving one’s own legacy, restricting the considerations of the population will ultimately harm others.
To be honest though, this will likely have little effect. The cooperation with an excessive community is negligible without the promotion and accountability of holders that radical civility demands. While a deconstruction of their civility and mythos is helpful, it is more productive to increase the radically civil expectation and – with it – the objectified metaphysics it protects. As time goes on, radical consent within external civilities will grow causing either an abandonment to a more free community, an oppressive backlash from civility, or – inevitably – a demand for radical civility to be adopted. Regardless, cooperation with the new “street” will become more amenable over time.