I use this word “civic” a lot. I am probably asking too much of it.

Like, it’s doing too many jobs, and who knows what different meanings different people invest in it.

I certainly intend to convey a massive array of ideas. I use this “civic” word when I’m talking about

  • public life
  • local government
  • community and belonging
  • individual and group agency within democratic systems
  • institutions (which is a word also packing baggage)
  • some sort of esprit de what’s-the-French-for-responsibility

Whenever people hear me say “civic,” I also imagine someone out there is accusing me of virtue signaling.

And I genuinely worry that some people take it as scolding — “you, deficient resident, begin your civic engagement” — with the worst possible case being they never let on about how the word makes them feel, nor give a fool like me a chance to mitigate the unintended offense.

I’m definitely not scolding. If anything, I’m beseeching.

Here’s what I mean when I say “civic”

I am talking about the parts of life where our individual choices collide with shared consequences — so schools, streets, courts, housing, safety, public budgets, public rules, neighborhood trust. I’m also implying questions about whether people believe they can shape any of these things.

Could I just use “public”?

There’s public life, public information, public participation, and public media. They don’t capture that sense of esprit, though, and they carry their own freight of existing meaning with most people. Does “public” sound too much like the government, maybe?

There’s “common” and “shared.”

The common good. On common ground. Doubling up, there’s public commons.

I occasionally try talking shared life, shared problems, and our shared reality.

These are less bureaucratic and perhaps less politically coded. And talking about “living inside overlapping conditions” would probably turn off fewer people than “citizens should attend meetings.”

Could we just say “community”?

I love the word, and I think a lot of people of all stripes embrace it, but I also think it’s as problematic as “civic” in the means-different-things-to-different-people category. I call it a “mush word,” what other people call “hand-wavy,” i.e. it means everything and nothing at the same time.

But it’s still less ideological and less bureaucratic — why does it feel like it’s still not the right fit for this philosophical vibe of mine?

Do I need to explain why I don’t like “social”?

Have I mentioned I think social media has done more damage than good in the world?

I worry a lot about this word, because I’m convinced that labels are like handles and some people won’t ever pick up an idea, much less carry it anywhere, if they are put off by it before they ever put a hand on it. I’m struggling to find a better word that gets us into the important conversations about the crisis in people’s relationship to the places, institutions, and neighbors around them.

To some people (yours truly), civic sounds noble. But can we use it without sounding to others like “homework.”? Is it even possible for our culture to change enough that “civic” doesn’t strike people as code for a particular kind of educated, nonprofit, institution-trusting liberalism? It might be fantasy to imagine a world where any of my neighbors would use the word in describing their own lives.

We need more people who can see where decisions are made, understand what is at stake, and believe their participation might matter. Is that not civics?

The cost of treating journalism like content
Journalism creates the original reporting that powers media, platforms and AI. When we value it the same as every other form of content, everyone loses.
The CurrentVanessa Otero