marginalization

What is the relationship between marginal, radical, or heretical beliefs and one's status or standing in polite society?

Status predisposes us to think and believe in certain ideas about the world that reinforce or confirm our location in the hierarchy by virtue of demonstrating to others of equal or higher status that we're members of the elite in-group (or aspire to join it). Conversely, individuals who are attracted to low-status ideas, whether due to intellectual curiosity or genuine agreement, tend to perpetuate their station in life when they publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of marginalized ideas, regardless of how closely those ideas correspond to reality.

The only way low-status beliefs are elevated to the realm of acceptable is by high-status individuals tolerating some degree of intellectual dissent. Some marginalized beliefs, however, operate in a nefarious manner with the end goal of establishing ideological hegemony. It is imperative to prevent and destroy such movements by ridiculing and ignoring those who espouse them. The other possibility, brought about by taking the marginalized ideology seriously, is that the marginal replaces the hegemon. This, in a nutshell, is Popper's paradox of tolerance.

There are countless examples in history of sclerotic elites succumbing to ideological subversion. The Islamic conquest of Sassanid Persia, the Christianization of Byzantium, or the contemporary great awokening of Western liberal democracies are prime cases. All three would not have succeeded were it not for those societies being relatively tolerant and open to intellectual diversity at highest echelons at the time subversion was introduced.

This is not an argument against tolerance, but rather a warning to maintain vigilance to prevent subversive ideological movements from infiltrating and seizing power. Once the process is initiated, it is virtually impossible to reverse until it is too late.