"The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
The speaker asserts that when many people question authority society is better off. While I
contend that certain forms of disobedience can be harmful to any society, I agree with the
speaker otherwise. In fact, I would go further by contending that society's well-being depends
on challenges to authority, and that when it comes to political and legal authority, these
challenges must come from many people.
Admittedly, when many people question authority some societal harm might result, even if a
social cause is worthy. Mass resistance to authority can escalate to violent protest and rioting,
during which innocent people are hurt and their property damaged and destroyed. The fallout from
the 1992 Los Angeles riots aptly illustrates this point. The "authority" which the rioters sought
to challenge was that of the legal justice system which acquitted police officers in the beating
of Rodney King. The means of challenging that authority amounted to flagrant disregard for criminal
law on a mass scale--by way of looting, arson, and even deadly assault. This violent challenge to
authority resulted in a financially crippled community and, more broadly, a turning back of the
clock with respect to racial tensions across America.
While violence is rarely justifiable as a means of questioning authority, peaceful challenges to
political and legal authority, by many people, are not only justifiable but actually necessary
when it comes to enhancing and even preserving society's well-being. In particular, progress in
human rights depends on popular dissension. It is not enough for a charismatic visionary like
Gandhi or King to call for change in the name of justice and humanity; they must have the support
of many people in order to effect change. Similarly, in a democracy citizens must respect
timeless legal doctrines and principles, yet at the same time question the fairness and relevance
of current laws. Otherwise, our laws would not evolve to reflect changing societal values. It
is not enough for a handful of legislators to challenge the legal status quo; ultimately it is
up to the electorate at large to call for change when change is needed for the well-being of
society.
Questioning authority is also essential for advances in the sciences. Passive acceptance of
prevailing principles quells innovation, invention, and discovery, all of which clearly benefit
any society. In fact, the very notion of scientific progress is predicated on rigorous scientific
inquiry--in other words, questioning of authority. History is replete with scientific discoveries
that posed challenges to political, religious, and scientific authority. For example, the
theories of a sun-centered solar system, of humankind's evolution from other life forms, and of
the relativity of time and space, clearly flew in the face of "authoritative" scientific as well
as religious doctrine of their time. Moreover, when it comes to science a successful challenge to
authority need not come from a large number of people. The key contributions of a few
individuals---like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Hawking---often suffice.
Similarly, in the arts, people must challenge established styles and forms rather than imitate
them; otherwise, no gemtinely new art would ever emerge, and society would be worse off. And
again, it is not necessary that a large number of people pose such challenges; a few key
individuals can have a profound impact. For instance, modern ballet owes much of what is new
and exciting to George Ballanchine, who by way of his improvisational techniques posed a
successful challenge to established traditions. And modern architecture arguably owes its
existence to the founders of Germany's Bauhaus School of Architecture, which challenged certain
"authoritative" notions about the proper objective, and resulting design, of public buildings.
To sum up, in general I agree that when many people question authority the well-being of society
is enhanced. Indeed, advances in government and law depend on challenges to the status quo by
many people. Nevertheless, to ensure a net benefit rather than harm, the means of such challenges
must be peaceful ones.