"A dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority"
About this Quote
Eric Hoffer exposes a paradox of political psychology: people who define themselves as dissidents often cherish freedom only as long as it advances their cause. The moment a dissenting camp gains leverage, its devotion to liberty can curdle into an urge to command. What it celebrated as free expression when outnumbered becomes subversion when it meets resistance from the many. Freedom, then, is treated less as a shared condition and more as a tactical instrument.
This insight fits Hoffer’s broader study of mass movements and the true believer. When identity is fused with a cause and certainty is prized over inquiry, opposition feels like an existential threat. The goal becomes a single will, unfractured by ambiguity, so the dissent of others is recast as sabotage rather than participation. Under that mindset, feeling free is nearly synonymous with making others comply.
History supplies familiar patterns. Rebels who overthrow a czar or a tyrant quickly police speech and purge rivals. Puritans who fled persecution enforced their own orthodoxy once they held local power. Anticolonial insurgencies that rallied under the banner of self-rule consolidated into one-party states. The script repeats because the psychological lure is the same: grievance grants moral license, and certainty grants permission to coerce.
The warning reaches beyond revolutions. Movements across the spectrum can be tempted to mistake numbers for righteousness or victimhood for carte blanche. A democratic culture protects mutual dissent, not only the dissent of those out of power. That requires procedural commitments that feel burdensome in victory, like limits on executive power, independent courts, minority rights, and norms of fair play.
Hoffer’s challenge is personal as well as political. If we champion dissent, do we mean dissent that includes losing arguments we care about, or only the kind that helps us win? The answer marks the line between a love of freedom and a hunger for control.
This insight fits Hoffer’s broader study of mass movements and the true believer. When identity is fused with a cause and certainty is prized over inquiry, opposition feels like an existential threat. The goal becomes a single will, unfractured by ambiguity, so the dissent of others is recast as sabotage rather than participation. Under that mindset, feeling free is nearly synonymous with making others comply.
History supplies familiar patterns. Rebels who overthrow a czar or a tyrant quickly police speech and purge rivals. Puritans who fled persecution enforced their own orthodoxy once they held local power. Anticolonial insurgencies that rallied under the banner of self-rule consolidated into one-party states. The script repeats because the psychological lure is the same: grievance grants moral license, and certainty grants permission to coerce.
The warning reaches beyond revolutions. Movements across the spectrum can be tempted to mistake numbers for righteousness or victimhood for carte blanche. A democratic culture protects mutual dissent, not only the dissent of those out of power. That requires procedural commitments that feel burdensome in victory, like limits on executive power, independent courts, minority rights, and norms of fair play.
Hoffer’s challenge is personal as well as political. If we champion dissent, do we mean dissent that includes losing arguments we care about, or only the kind that helps us win? The answer marks the line between a love of freedom and a hunger for control.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Eric
Add to List
