Joel, this was a very thoughtful and interesting response from you. Thank you for setting aside the time to express your ideas in such detail. I appreciate the engagement.
I find this point especially interesting:
“…perhaps abortion or gun control, you and I know full well that you would have heard the crowd; yes some would boo and some might cheer dependent upon the bent of the group, but they definitely would’ve interrupted you.
Why? Because the fundamental group think instruction which permeates our culture would have taken an authoritative lead over your position of supposed authority as a speaker/instructor.
The crowd is only willing to follow a follower.”
On the one hand, I agree with your suggestion that the deference the students showed me was only partly the result of the fact that 1) I held a position of authority over them and 2) each one of them was sufficiently worried about suffering embarrassment if they were to interrupt me and thereby attract the ire of the rest of the audience. As you claim, there are many ‘hot button’ issues that would very likely lead members of the audience to heckle or otherwise interrupt a speaker, regardless of the latter’s position of authority. Indeed, we don’t have to look any further than videos of college students shouting down invited guest speakers or faculty members for evidence of this.
On the other hand, however, I’m not so sure the explanation for this behaviour has to do with people’s willingness to follow rather than to lead. Yes, ‘group think’ is one factor at play here, but it’s not merely group think that’s responsible — at least as far as I see it. It’s also that, over the last several decades, societal expectations and tolerance seem to have shifted in terms of not only the specific issues we explore and for which we fight but also the ways in which such ‘battles’ are, and must be, undertaken.
It appears there is much greater belief today than in the past not only in the appropriateness of, but also in the need for, ‘disruptive interventions’ such as shouting down and/or refusing to listen to people with whom we disagree. So, when it comes to matters like abortion or gun control or an ever-increasing number of other controversial topics, more and more people seem to embrace a ‘post-dialogue’ approach to ‘solving’ problems whereby face-to-face discussion is abandoned, and more radical protest is employed. This, it seems to me, is why some people would be willing to shout down (or otherwise interrupt) a public speaker if the latter were to discuss one or more highly-charged issues.
Cheers!
