Both loved and despised: Uncovering a process of collective contestation in leadership identification

Abstract

Our critical examination of James Meredith’s leadership during the racial integration of higher education in the early 1960s reveals an important, missing companion to social endorsement in the leadership construction process: social contestation. Through the lens of moral conviction theory and using a combined ANTi-History/Microhistorical method, we analyzed over 250 letters written to James Meredith by opponents undergoing a process of social identification leading to collective hate and opposition of Meredith’s defiance to racial norms. Their shared moral conviction that what Meredith was doing was ‘evil’ worked in conjunction with the collective social endorsement of supporters to cement Meredith as a polemic leader of the racial integration movement and affect his leadership style. Therefore, leadership construction processes triggered by actors in defiance are underscored by both shared social endorsement and contestation.