What really drives the Haredim? Between the greats of the generation and social norms

 
I am writing in reference to your last column,
But since my claim is general about your publicistic writing in the context of the Haredim, it was not written in response to the specific column.
You write a critique of the great men of the generation, the supposed leadership figures of the Haredi public, in order to attack the sector's scandalous ideas and management.
But in my opinion, by doing so you are making a diagnostic assumption about the Haredi public that misses the point.
The Haredi public is not led by the great men of the generation, but by social norms.
This may sound like an academic-sociological analysis, but it's the truth. The Haredi public, with all its myriad behaviors and conduct, is subject to one spite: the community. The Spasnisht, what would they say, the neighbor, the principal Haidar.
The great men of the generation are appointed at an age that is approaching death precisely to serve as brands, not as reformist leaders.
And when they are truly powerful, like Rabbi Elyashiv, for example, they can decide on appointments and esoteric matters, but in general policy – the public is the one who decides.
When Rabbi Elyashiv announced that budgets should be denied to seminaries that do not accept Sephardic languages, not a single seminary director disobeyed him. For one simple reason: the public and the norms determine, and the public wants sterile Ashkenazi institutions.
Sometimes the public behaves in a certain way, and then the greats of the generation say: Amen.
Like, for example, the Women's Academy, etc.
Therefore, any criticism of the public should be about the ideas themselves. About the audience as a whole. Perhaps it is easier in publicistic criticism to get caught up in the hype. But the condition for this is that there is leadership by definition, which determines.
Apparently, when a certain behavior in analysis moves from the responsibility of the henga, to a phenomenon that is essentially just a social norm. It's like moving from politics to sociology. More boring, less cannon fodder, more abstract, and less comfortable to offer ideas for improvement.
But what if this is the case!
These are matters that I'm sure are intuitive and clear to you, too, but as you always say – sometimes a thinker comes along and gives it a definition, conceptualization, and validity.
Therefore, I recommend watching the next episode of the podcast (which I think you've interviewed before) – sociologist Nahumi Yaffe brings no less than amazing data and analysis on the phenomenon.
(It's worth watching from about the middle of the episode, the beginning is a biographical description)