In this essay, Barbara Applebaum reframes the case for subversive incivility by emphasizing the links between civility, comfort, and willful ignorance. The scholarship defending incivility gives much attention to ascertaining when incivility is justified. While acknowledging the importance of this focus, Applebaum asks whether it fails to adequately acknowledge (1) the role that willful ignorance plays in maintaining systemic privilege and oppression, and (2) how calls for civility are demands for dominant group comfort that protect willful ignorance from challenge. The essay begins with a review of some of the arguments that have been articulated in defense of justified incivility, particularly Tracy Owen Patton's concept of hegemonic civility. Next, Applebaum calls attention to how subversive incivility aims to disrupt the dominant group comfort that preserves willful ignorance, arguing that “incivility” is marked not by the tone of an utterance or argument, but rather by whether the message challenges hegemonic frameworks. She then elaborates the type of ignorance involved in willful ignorance and, finally, uses this concept to analyze a case of student “incivility” at Yale University. Applebaum concludes by recommending a shift in focus from establishing what counts as civility versus incivility to addressing the more fundamental question about what one is unwilling to know.

中文翻译：

---

当无礼是一种文明形式时：挑战故意无知的舒适感

在这篇文章中，芭芭拉·阿普尔鲍姆 (Barbara Applebaum) 通过强调文明、舒适和故意无知之间的联系，重新构建了颠覆性不文明行为的案例。为无礼辩护的奖学金非常重视确定无礼何时是正当的。在承认这一重点的重要性的同时，Applebaum 询问它是否未能充分承认 (1) 故意无知在维持系统性特权和压迫方面所起的作用，以及 (2) 对文明的呼吁如何成为保护故意无知的主导群体舒适的要求从挑战。本文首先回顾了一些为捍卫正当的不文明行为而阐明的论点，特别是特雷西·欧文·巴顿 (Tracy Owen Patton) 的霸权文明概念。下一个，Applebaum 呼吁人们注意颠覆性的不文明行为如何旨在破坏保持故意无知的主导群体的舒适感，认为“不文明行为”的标志不是话语或论点的语气，而是信息是否挑战霸权框架。然后，她详细阐述了故意无知所涉及的无知类型，最后，用这个概念来分析耶鲁大学学生“不文明”的案例。Applebaum 最后建议将重点从确定什么是文明与不文明转向解决更基本的问题，即人们不愿意知道什么。然后，她详细阐述了故意无知所涉及的无知类型，最后，用这个概念来分析耶鲁大学学生“不文明”的案例。Applebaum 最后建议将重点从确定什么是文明与不文明转向解决更基本的问题，即人们不愿意知道什么。然后，她详细阐述了故意无知所涉及的无知类型，最后，用这个概念来分析耶鲁大学学生“不文明”的案例。Applebaum 最后建议将重点从确定什么是文明与不文明转向解决更基本的问题，即人们不愿意知道什么。