From Everyday Rudeness to Judicial Capture: Renata Salecl’s Warning on Civility, Democracy and the Law

A new Turkish translation of Renata Salecl’s book Kabalık Çağı (The Age of Rudeness), published by Metis Yayınları in June 2026 and translated by Bülent Kale, uses small everyday episodes to pose large questions about civility, law and democracy. Salecl, a Slovenian philosopher and sociologist born in 1962 who studied philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and worked as a research fellow in the criminology department of its law faculty, argues that what might appear as simple discourtesy is tied to contemporary political and legal dangers.

The book’s Turkish preface opens with two short vignettes that illuminate the problem in miniature. In the first, the narrator almost trips over a puppy tethered on a dark sidewalk and is rebuked by its owner with the rebuke: “önüne baksana! Kör müsün?” In the second, a Turkish friend in a crowded metro is stepped on by a woman in high heels and, when she says “Ahh!” in pain, the woman responds not with regret but with indignation: “Ne giriyorsun ayağımın altına!” These incidents, Salecl suggests, show an inversion: the person harmed becomes the one blamed, apology has been replaced by accusation, and mutual recognition has been eroded.

Salecl frames this social shift as more than a matter of manners. She contends that incivility — the public expression of anger, contempt and humiliation — has become embedded in the language and practices of contemporary capitalism and politics. Where apologies and mutual recognition once moderated social life, anger now functions as a driving force. “Kabalık yeni çıkmış bir şey değil (…)” she writes, but its current ubiquity transforms how people perceive others: “Artık başkaları bize sıkıntı veren birer belaya, zaman kaybına, etrafından dolanılması gereken birer soruna dönüşür.”

The book draws explicit links between this cultural phenomenon and the rise of authoritarian politics. Quoting Polish journalist Martin Mycielski, Salecl and the article’s author outline how contemporary autocrats exploit social turmoil: by fostering a sense of constant danger and chaos, they justify extraordinary measures and carve space to weaken democratic checks. Mycielski argues that such politicians use divisive rhetoric to cast opponents as enemies of the nation, seek to dominate public communication channels, restrict critical media and enact laws that undermine democracy. The capture of the judiciary — including efforts to control constitutional courts — and constraints on the right to protest are presented as predictable steps once democratic norms erode.

The connection between rudeness and political strategy matters because everyday tolerance of humiliation, distrust and impatience can normalize broader abuses. The author warns that political apathy and indifference to seemingly small affronts can metastasize into acceptance of institutional erosion: when citizens overlook petty violations of dignity, they may be less likely to resist larger encroachments on human rights and the rule of law. “Küçük küçük şeyler, önemlidir ve biriktirilmeye değer,” the article emphasizes, arguing that small acts of recognition and apology are building blocks of humane and democratic societies.

Against this backdrop, the piece urges renewed commitment to defend human dignity, judicial independence and press freedom. It echoes Salecl’s assertion that examining rudeness is a way of asking how we want to protect our societies. The columnist also cites the Slovenian context — a high-income, developed country that became independent in June 1991 after earlier state formations — and references cultural heritage such as the Ljubljana Marsh, preserved since 2002 by UNESCO, to underline that even societies with strong institutions face these social and political vulnerabilities.

As a new judicial year begins, the author frames a moral and civic pledge: to resist the normalization of rudeness and to contest the forces that reduce people to instruments for political or economic ends. The piece closes with a set of urgent questions about past judicial failures, mass incarceration and legal practices that have curtailed freedoms. It calls for active defense of human rights law and renewed vigilance against the creep of authoritarian practices — arguing that civility, apologies and respect are not mere etiquette but foundational to democratic life and the protection of human dignity.