Hear! Hear! Three Cheers for (Tasteful and Witty) Heckling

I promised to explain how heckling can be good. Most heckling is awful (see my previous posts here and here), and few American speakers or audiences have the skill, cultural background, and training to deal with heckling. But, if handled well, heckling can correct errors, force speakers to stick to the issue, and improve speaker-audience interaction.

Heckling is one way to make communication two-way. If the speaker says something that the audience likes, they can call out “yes!” This happens in many churches: the preacher says something that the people approve, and they shout “Amen!” That’s heckling, of a sort, and is usually very positive.

In the parliaments of British Commonwealth nations, the honorable members deploy several standard heckling methods. If the speaker says something they like, they can shout, “hear, hear!” If the speaker suggests something awful, they can shout, “shame, shame.” Suppose the speaker asks, “Will we ever surrender to terrorism?” The audience can shout “never,” increasing their solidarity.

When I took a class in the history of British public speaking during my postgraduate studies at Northern Illinois University, the late Professor Margaret Wood explained that a demagogue like Joseph McCarthy might never arise in the United Kingdom. You may recall that in 1950 McCarthy gave a speech in West Virginia in which he said, “I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” On other occasions, McCarthy said that his list had 87 names, 57 names, or other numbers. Rumors circulated that all he had was a laundry list. McCarthy never presented any names and gave no evidence to support his conspiracy theory. Yet his wild accusations spread disorder and suspicion across the United States.

Anyway, Professor Wood’s point was that in the United Kingdom, where people knew how to heckle, somebody would have shouted, “Name three of them, Joe.” McCarthy could not have named even one communist in the State Department, and his conspiracy theory and reign of terror over our country might have stopped right then and there. Sheer embarrassment would have ended McCarthy’s paranoid tirades. The heckler would not need to chant. The heckler would not need to disrupt the proceedings for more than a couple seconds. A single quick question would have done the job. Note that refuting McCarthy a day or two later, as was done, would not have the same effect as calling him out on the spot. Asking the question in a news interview a week later would not have the same effect, for McCarthy would have the opportunity to dissemble and wiggle away. No, a single, sharp, precise heckle right on the spot would have been the solution.

Other advantages of heckling: tasteful, witty, concise heckling increases audience involvement and helps them stay interested. The speaker can get precise, immediate feedback as to the audience’s reaction. This gives the speaker a chance to answer the audience’s concerns, to develop points about which the audience is unsure, and to establish more human contact with them.

In a survey, members of the Canadian Parliament said that heckling was a problem, although most of them admitted doing it. They said they heckled when a speaker was “spreading misinformation.” They often heckled “in response to incorrect facts or perceived untruths, listing words like ‘lies,’ ‘shame,’ or ‘rubbish,’ as things they say.” They often heckle when they think the speaker is too partisan. Former Canadian Speaker of the House, Andrew Scheer, agreed that very partisan speakers are often heckled, while speakers who make statements and ask questions “in a factual way” find that the House listens quietly and respectfully.

Let’s compare that to the United States Congress. There is little heckling in today’s Congress because, for the most part, the members are speaking to an empty room and their only purpose is to create a transcript or video that they can show to their constituents. Little real deliberation takes place.  (As part of my research about President William McKinley’s public speaking, I read transcripts of his speeches to Congress. In those days, Congress still engaged in real debate, and McKinley handled hecklers thoughtfully and with respect.)

Anyway, heckling is a communication art, and, like all arts, requires skill, knowledge, and practice. Audiences who wish to master it should study it.

P.S.: Credit to Professor Kurt Ritter, a debate coach and master heckler, from whom I learned much.

P.P.S.: My publications about William McKinley don’t actually cover heckling, but if you click the “William D. Harpine’s Publications” button above, you can learn about what I did write.