Will the crowd be there to peacefully, but determinedly, demonstrate opposition to the uprooting of Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and northern Shomron that is scheduled to take place shortly?
Pessimism in this situation is an understandable emotion. After all, numerous demonstrations in front of the Knesset have so far failed to deter the present government from its intended course. People are tired. Still, it would be a tragedy if frustration and exhaustion wed themselves to self-deception. When individuals conclude that their choices don't count, they deceive themselves about the nature of choice and about the nature, and power, of crowds.
The well-known concept of a "tipping point" is very apt in this situation. Here is a variant of a model that illustrates the point. Imagine 100,000 people who must decide whether or not to take time off from work and travel a distance to stand up for communities and principles they believe in. Each individual has a certain "threshold" for public action. One individual, a leader, will be the first to take off work and go down there, even if he or she must do so alone. This individual has a threshold of zero. A second person has a threshold of one, meaning one other person taking off from work and traveling to the besieged communities is enough to recruit him or her to do likewise. A third individual has a threshold of two two previous participants is enough to recruit him or her - a fourth has a threshold of three, and so on up to the last individual, who has a threshold of 99,999.
What will happen here is familiar to anyone who has played a game of dominoes. Each individual's participation "tips" the next until a crowd of a 100,000 strong and committed individuals peacefully stands up for its ideals.
Imagine, instead, that the crowd is different in what may seem the smallest of ways: instead of the individual with a threshold of one, the crowd now has two individuals with a threshold of two. What happens now? The leader begins... and no one else joins in.
Imagine the way posterity will chronicle these events. In the first case: "The people rose up, and their voice was heard." In the second: "A single individual, obviously an isolated zealot, briefly disrupted the orderly operation." Two histories, two drastically different paths: the difference between them the behavior of a single individual, a single tipping point.
The coming weeks and months will not be easy. Though their course is unpredictable, they will surely confront all of us with difficult decisions. Decency and honesty require that we make these decisions without laboring under the self-deception that our choices don't count.
Pessimism in this situation is an understandable emotion. After all, numerous demonstrations in front of the Knesset have so far failed to deter the present government from its intended course. People are tired. Still, it would be a tragedy if frustration and exhaustion wed themselves to self-deception. When individuals conclude that their choices don't count, they deceive themselves about the nature of choice and about the nature, and power, of crowds.
The well-known concept of a "tipping point" is very apt in this situation. Here is a variant of a model that illustrates the point. Imagine 100,000 people who must decide whether or not to take time off from work and travel a distance to stand up for communities and principles they believe in. Each individual has a certain "threshold" for public action. One individual, a leader, will be the first to take off work and go down there, even if he or she must do so alone. This individual has a threshold of zero. A second person has a threshold of one, meaning one other person taking off from work and traveling to the besieged communities is enough to recruit him or her to do likewise. A third individual has a threshold of two two previous participants is enough to recruit him or her - a fourth has a threshold of three, and so on up to the last individual, who has a threshold of 99,999.
What will happen here is familiar to anyone who has played a game of dominoes. Each individual's participation "tips" the next until a crowd of a 100,000 strong and committed individuals peacefully stands up for its ideals.
Imagine, instead, that the crowd is different in what may seem the smallest of ways: instead of the individual with a threshold of one, the crowd now has two individuals with a threshold of two. What happens now? The leader begins... and no one else joins in.
Imagine the way posterity will chronicle these events. In the first case: "The people rose up, and their voice was heard." In the second: "A single individual, obviously an isolated zealot, briefly disrupted the orderly operation." Two histories, two drastically different paths: the difference between them the behavior of a single individual, a single tipping point.
The coming weeks and months will not be easy. Though their course is unpredictable, they will surely confront all of us with difficult decisions. Decency and honesty require that we make these decisions without laboring under the self-deception that our choices don't count.