They’re laughing at you
Applause and Laughter: When Fear of an Idea Turns into a False Folk Wisdom
In the spaces of public discourse, a phrase has become almost like a ready-made talisman, brandished by some opponents of renewal whenever a novel idea, a new reading, or a vision emerges that seeks to question the heritage: “Those who applaud you are laughing at you.” It is said with the confidence of the victor, as if it were a discovered social law or an indisputable human truth. Yet, at its core, it is merely an attempt to execute the idea by casting doubt on its audience and stripping it of legitimacy, without engaging in its discussion. It is not an argument, but an evasion of argument. When a person is unable to confront an idea, they begin by attacking those who listen to it; when they cannot refute the proof, they undermine those who engage with them; and when they fail to stop change, they try to sow doubt in the minds of those moving toward it.
History has known this phenomenon since the dawn of civilizations. Every new idea was first met with mockery, then with resistance, then with accusations of treason, before eventually becoming part of human common sense. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is famously attributed with the quote: “Every truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is accepted as self-evident.” This statement has become one of the most widely circulated sayings in the philosophy of intellectual change.
If we were to apply the logic of those who utter that phrase to history, we would have to believe that those who applauded Galileo Galilei were mocking him, that those who rallied around Charles Darwin’s ideas were laughing at him, and that those who celebrated the ideas of Mandela or Martin Luther King were not convinced by what they said. But reality tells us the exact opposite. Human beings rarely applaud out of mockery, nor do they always oppose out of wisdom. Applause can be an acknowledgment, an expression of gratitude, or the discovery of something that had been absent from the depths of the soul. Similarly, rejection is not always a sign of wisdom; often, it is an expression of a deep-seated fear of the unknown.
Social psychologists have recognized that groups tend to defend the familiar even when stronger evidence emerges in favor of the new. The human brain dislikes admitting that beliefs held for years may need revision. Consequently, a new idea often appears more as a threat to identity than as a subject for discussion. From this arise those quick defensive phrases, and one might even volunteer to expel you from the property of your sect or group. This is less a description of reality than an attempt to protect old certainties from the questions of the future.
The Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico believed that societies evolve through successive stages, and that history does not repeat itself in a circle, but moves in a spiral path, creating the new from the accumulation of human experience. Therefore, every generation has its natural right to reconsider, reinterpret, and reread. Absolute stagnation is not a sign of health; indeed, life itself is based on change. The river remains a river as it renews itself, and the tree remains the same tree even as its leaves change. A human being changes their ideas dozens of times during their life and remains the same person. Stagnation, however, is the only trait that does not belong to the living.
Among the strange paradoxes is that many who repeat, “Those who applaud you are laughing at you,” forget that history itself has been nothing but a long series of applause for ideas that were once considered madness. Democracy was a form of fantasy; human rights were an intellectual luxury; abolishing slavery was considered a rebellion against the natural order, as it was called at the time; and educating women was seen by conservatives as an impending catastrophe. Then the years passed... and madness became reason. Rebellion became law. The impossible became ordinary.
Thus, the real question is not: “Do people applaud you?” Nor: “Do they oppose you?” Nor: “Do they mock you?” The most important question is: “Does your idea carry a logic capable of sustaining life?” Ideas are not measured by the number of applauders or the number of angry opponents, but by their ability to withstand the test of reason and time. Applause and laughter together are merely passing noises. What deserves to remain stays; the wind scatters the rest. So, why not abandon your very old phrases and mature a little more?
