The issue recently came up of police officers using “civilian” in reference to non-police. I’m among those who find the way they use it slightly offensive, because I believe it reinforces an “us vs. them” attitude that is antithetical to the proper performance of their jobs. It doesn’t help that the term is so often uttered with a sneer or an eye-roll to show exactly how the speaker feels about those who “aren’t good enough” to wear the uniform. I think police calling others “civilians” is rude, but is it incorrect at an abstract use-of-words level? Put another way, are police themselves civilians? It turns out that the answer to that is unclear. There seem to be three kinds of definitions:
- Almost half of the definitions exclude only active military, which would mean that police are civilians.
- Almost half of definitions exclude not only military but also police and sometimes firefighters as well, which would mean police are not civilians.
- The small remainder of definitions define “civilian” as an expert in civil (as opposed to criminal) law. This is the most etymologically sound interpretation, but probably the least relevant either to police usage or to my objections. If one were to accept this definition, though, it would certainly shed an interesting light on police who consider themselves not to be civilians.
I guess this is the old prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate. Should a dictionary tell us what words mean, or reflect how we use those words? In this particular case, because of where I think a police/civilian distinction leads us (call this the consequentialist position), I think dictionaries should not cave to common usage and the first definition above should remain the primary one. The militarization of police is a real problem. Police are supposed to be of the people, not an army at war against the people. I understand how, when police see what they see every day of how people can be, they can feel that their contempt is justified. Such feelings are an occupational hazard, just like doctors who start to see people as bags of malfunctioning bits, but they’re the sort of feelings that anyone truly committed to their profession would learn to resist. Any police officer who calls someone “civilian” shouldn’t take offense when “bully” comes back. That’s in the dictionary too.
In France, they did use “civilian” to refer to non-police, but it did feel a lot more accurate, since the Gendarmerie there is indeed a branch of the active military. Here in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the “Gendarmerie Royale du Canada” in French, but it’s mostly for old times sake, it’s not actually part of the military.
It does seem that policing being done by the military is not all that uncommon in non-English cultures.
You refer to a “us versus them” attitude, and it is interesting, because I did observe some of that, but also more of the “police as public servant” attitude, again while I was in France. It seems that instead of going from a middle-ground attitude, they actually split their time between two more extreme perceptions of the police. Some branches of the police were very “them”, like the CRS, and others were more “us”, like the local officers, and it also depends on where you were, a resident of a “HLM” in Seine-Saint-Denis was much more likely to take a “them” attitude, while a resident of the 7th arrondissement, rather less so.
A civilian is? a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces or other militia. Police officers are civilians.
A civilian is a person who does not risk imprisonment as a result of quitting his or her employment. Police officers and firefighters are civilians.
There is no legitimate definition of non-civilian that includes police or fire fighters. A civilian is any citizen who is non-military. Refering to police or figher fighters as non-civilians is an insult to military personel across america and the rest of the world. I don’t know where the idea amongst our police and fire fighters that we are civilians and they are not civilians has come from but it is a complete falicy and it encourages them to have an elitest atitude and it can not be allowed in a free and open society. That being said our police and fire fighters have some of the toughest jobs in our society and deserve the full respect of the people.
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. The term “civilian” is also often used inaccurately to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by civilian law enforcement agencies, which often adopt rank structures emulating those of military units.
@nobody: FYI, “laws of war” is a vague phrase as it covers both humanitarian law (Geneva conventions etc.) and UCMJ. People who actually know this stuff avoid the phrase, and I think they’re right to do so.
@E_Harrison: Wouldn’t that definition also result in the categorization of slaves as non-civilians?
It doesn’t make a difference to me what you call me civlian, citizen, resident etc… I still have to go to work every day to feed my family.
The police are a civil authority hence they are civilians.
Under U.S. law, if the individual is NOT subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in and during the performance of his or her job, then Q.E.D. that person is a civilian.
I agree that police officers and non-military should both be referred to as civilians.
Wikipedia agrees. “It was used to refer to judges, lawyers, firemen, police, and other civil servants. Civilian is believed to have been used to refer to non-combatants as early as 1829.” [1]
This online Etymology agrees: late 14c., “judge or authority on civil law,” from O.Fr. civilien “of the civil law,” created from L. civilis (see civil). Sense of “non-military person” is first attested 1829. The adjective is from 1640s. [2]
However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees, including police and military in the label non-civilian. “2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force” [3]
Here is a post which explores some differences: It backs up what E. Harrison said above. “Because if a dangerous event occurred and a cop him/her decided their life was more important than doing their job. They would get fired. If someone in the military decided their life was more important than performing their job, they would be put it jail. ” [4]
This is driving me absolutely crazy! I rather agree with Nobody above, in that police and people close to police call others civilians in order to differentiate themselves. I find it insulting to military personnel, even though I’m a pacifist. It bothers me that police try to imply that they are military and it bothers me that Merriam-Webster has bought into the belief. I would like to know more about how they justify their definition. I understand that dictionaries definitions are temporal. They are meant to explain how to interpret the literature of the time in which they were published. However, I don’t see how this leak from traditional usage has spread beyond usage amongst police. To me, calling a police office a non-civilian is merely jargon.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
[2] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=civilian
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
[4] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110111202929AA5NlUy
A civilian is anyone who is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Police and firefighters are civilians.
But wait. Would you categorise mobile police as a civilian too?