Chapter 19 - Collective Behaviors
What Are Collective Behaviors?
Imagine a football game where the teams never huddled before each play. That’s the way things were in college football until a bright Gallaudet quarterback noticed that the other teams were trying to spy on their sign language signals. Thus, in the late 1800s the circular football huddle was born (read about Gallaudet on Wikipedia ). Gallaudet is a national historic treasure in the culture and development of education for the Deaf and in progress toward the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gallaudet University began as a federal effort to support the development and education of Deaf persons. It has progressed and grown in many ways as a subculture group that coexisted within, but not always a part of the mainstream culture. There have been some fascinating collective behaviors transpire at Gallaudet which can help you to better understand how and why large numbers of people accomplish their goals in society.
In 1988, Gallaudet experienced a Deaf civil rights process that forever shaped the campus culture and the self-identity of its student body and the Deaf throughout the country. When another president, in a long string of debates a ‘hearing president’ was appointed by the mostly hearing Board of Trustees, the campus collectively expressed their discontent in what eventually came to be known as the Deaf President Now Movement. The outcome was the eventual appointment of a deaf president and the expectation of consideration of the deaf community’s interest in their own self-governance.
In 2005-6, a new President, Dr. Jane K. Fernandez was appointed president. Fernandez was born Deaf. She was born to a deaf mother and hearing father. Most deaf children are born to hearing parents and unless the parents exert tremendous effort to start them out very early in ASL, most grow up as Fernandez did—learning ASL later in their childhoods. As a potential president, she had extensive experience in deaf education and in the leadership of Gallaudet University.
The protest began with the Black Student Association on campus when another presidential candidate who was black was eliminated from consideration. The protest grew as more and more students and faculty began to oppose her appointment. Eventually the faculty voted no confidence and the students shut down the campus. Fernandez stepped down. She refused to take it personally and attributed to cultural issues and growing pains. One side said she was opposed because she wanted Gallaudet to enhance its academic rigor. Another side said she was opposed for not being in touch with the real needs of the Deaf campus. I have interviewed former faculty and students from Gallaudet. I have observed that each one has a strikingly different view of what transpired. But, can we study it as outsiders using a sociological analysis and at least come to understand some of the collective behaviors that took place on campus in an objective way? Yes.
One former professor at Gallaudet, Margaret Weigers Vitullo, wrote an article in the American Sociological Association’s Footnotes about the sociological definition of trust that was at the heart of Deaf culture not just at Gallaudet, but throughout the United States (See "Protest and Trust at Gallaudet University" 2006 found at SOURCE I took the article from the Internet on 21 Oct., 2008). Vitullo argued that the issue makes sense when you understand two types of trusts experienced within groups: "Calculative Trust is trust based on performance and competence (instrumental relationships) and Normative Trust is trust based on a sense of belonging and feelings (families and communities)."
Calculative is more common in modern societies while normative is more common in small traditional societies—Gallaudet’s student body and faculty were more traditional and normative and President Fernandez more modern and calculative. In essence the collective protests created solidarity among students and faculty, but many educators are concerned about the overall outcome of the protest. Among the culture of higher educators a feeling of belonging is not so important. Educators are focused on instrumental accomplishments. They want test scores, graduation rates, and GPA’s. So educators and their task-driven cultural points of view felt threatened by the solidarity that pushed Fernandez out. This explains in part why the accrediting agency that provides Gallaudet with its credentials placed Gallaudet on probation for a few months, but had to rescind that placement because of weak grounds.
The students, faculty, and interpreters who place much more cultural emphasis on unity and taking charge of the destiny of their university perceived themselves as victims (again) of a non-deaf culture. The Deaf Culture is the culture of those who were born deaf, raised using ASL to communicate, and/or educated as adults to serve as interpreters for the Native Deaf. One crucial component of the Deaf Culture is the core belief that "Deaf" is spelled with a big "D" and disability is spelled with a small one (Deaf is not a disability, rather a unique and co-existing ethnic sub-culture).
In this chapter we discuss many of the insightful Sociological tools and concepts that allow you to better comprehend some of the recent and past social changes and how so many of them transpired while members of society worked collectively in bringing about social reformations and social change. It would help to better understand the influence collective behaviors have had on the United States, if we include some previously covered concepts in this chapter.
First, (from Chapter 16) the conservative and liberal members of our society have grown further and further apart in recent years. PewResearch ran a few reports documenting this trend and have some interactive graphics available on the 10 questions they use in their surveys to place U.S. survey respondents on either the continuum of “Consistently Liberal, Median Democrat, Mixed, Median Republican, or Consistently Conservative” categories. Figures 1 shows the 1994, 2014, and 2017 distributions and clearly illustrates the migration away from one another. Again, in 1994 overlap where most of society agreed on many social issues and there was a great deal of Overlap found in their categories. PBS News Hour ran a YouTube video identifying the 2014 trends found with the results indicating that Liberals and Conservatives, don’t live in the same areas, don’t associate together, less likely to compromise and form social relationships more on political similarities than they did in the past (See Pew Study finds Americans more polarized than ever, launched 12 June 2014 and retrieved on 18 July, 2020 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tybX6kcJkwA ). Things have grown more separated as of 2017. The Pew representative indicate that you can socially isolate yourself from others whose views you disagree with and never have to interact with them. After the 2016 Presidential election and prior to the 2020 presidential election, (as of 24 July 2020) the 2 sides must be further apart than even seen in 2017…we will have to wait for PewResearch to repeat their study.
Figure 1. PewResearch 1994, 2014, & 2017 Survey Conservative and Liberal Polarization and Disimilarity
Second, (from Chapter 15) we have established some generations in U.S. Society and know that they are not exactly identical to the generation that preceded them in their values and behaviors. For example, Bab Boomers (1946-1964) had much higher divorce rates than previous generations. Gen X . (1965-1978) are the children of the Baby Boomers and liked their own parents much less than previous generations like their parents.
The Gen Y or Millennials (1980-2000) children had exceptionally positive and close connections with their parents. Generation Y are also called the "Internet Generation" or "Screenagers" because they grew up with TV, video games, cell phones, PDAs, and movie screens (see Youtube video narrated by a PEW researcher named Paul Taylor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0mw7Vp0tYI ). The newest generation that followed Gen Y Millennials is now called Generation Z (1996- and still growing) also have great relationships with their parents but are the “Smart Phone” generation. Many recent studies show similarities in Generations Y and Z on many issues.
From a 2020 PewResearch report we gain some insight into just how religion and other values differ between generations. Generation Z has been found to have many similarities to Generation Y, but also some very unique characteristics. For example, Generation Z is more ethnically and racially diverse (Baby Boomers are 82% White; Gen X are 70% White; Gen Y are 61% white and Gen Z is only 52% White). Gen Z will likely be more educated that previous generations (Baby Boomers-15% Have Bach. Degree; Gen X-24% Have Bach. Degree; Gen Y-33% Have Bach. Degree; and Gen Z-44% Have Bach. Degree). Generation Z also has higher levels of its members supporting: Climate Change being “human caused; want a more “activist government”; and the belief that blacks are being treated less fairly (43% Republican and 82% Democrat Gen Z’s).
Religions tend to teach and reinforce conservative values in the minds and hearts of its members. With the highest Generational levels of being religiously unaffiliated, Generations Z and Y would be expected to interact less conservatively than previous generations toward conservative intuitions. For example, those with religious affiliation who participate more tend to support marriage between a man and a woman; marriage being acceptable and cohabiting less acceptable; and plans to marry themselves. Another PewResearch study reported that Generation Z reported same-sex marriage as “being a good thing” more than other generations (48% Gen Z, 47% Gen Y, 33% Gen X, and only 27% Baby Boomers).
Generations Z and Y reported the highest levels of cohabitation before marriage and single women raising children on their own as being a “Good thing” (see PewResearch, Parker, K. & Igielnik, (14 May, 2020) “On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far.” R. retrieved 2 July 2020 from SOURCE ).
Another 2016 PewResearch report indicated that in 2014, Generation Y was the generation with the highest proportion of members ages 18 to 34 who stilled with their parents in United States’ history (see Fry, Richard. 2016. “For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, May retrieved 17 July 2020 from SOURCE).
In many measures comparing the similarities between Generations Y and Z, they do have very similar marital statuses and living arrangements in 2019. Yet, Gen Z stood out when it came to the 2020 racial protest erupted again and many diverse people came out to peaceful protest the mistreatment of Blacks by law enforcement officers. PewResearch surveyed the U.S. population through their online American Panel Survey. They found many surprising factors relating to U.S. citizens reaction to and participation in the peaceful protests.
Figure 2 Shows these results. Generation Z respondents (Ages 18-29) reported the highest levels comparing age groups of having conversations with family or friends (73%); the highest level of posting or sharing content on social media networking sites (53%); of contributing money to an organization (21%); of contacting a public official to express their opinion (13%); and of actually attending a protest (13%). Generation Y scored 2nd highest in every one of these categories.
Figure 2. Generation Z, Generation Y 2020 Support for Racial Protests
Figure 3 shows how many of the more recent generations are much less traditional than previous generations on many key social issues. Gen Z’s had lower approval or President Trump Millennials had 1% higher); the highest report of the government needing to do more to solve problems (tends to be a Liberal view); the highest report of increasing racial and ethnic diversity being good for society; the most familiarity with gender-neutral pronouns; the highest level of views that there are other countries better than the U.S.; and this highest level of approval for same-sex and interracial marriage in comparison to the earlier generations of: Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silent Generations. Gen Zs and Millennials are similar and together less traditional and more liberal than previous generations. On could say that the most traditional generations are the Silent, followed by Boomers, followed by Gen X, then closely matched by Millennials and Gen Z with Gen Z being Slightly more liberal than Millennials. Can we use sociological concepts to better understand why and how this is? Yes.
Figure 3. Variations in Views of Gen Z, Millennials “Gen Y”, Gen X, Boomers, & Silent Generations*
Figure 4 shows some key social movements that directly impact the shift away from traditional values in the United States toward more liberal ones. Those social movements, shifts in values, and the impact each had separately and collectively has shown up in the values of Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z members of society. After World War II the United States experienced unprecedented changes in family-specific rates. Basically, 1946 was the hinge point year where birth rates, marriage rates, divorce rates, and remarriage rates reached world record levels. The Baby Boomers generation began in 1946 and ended in 1964. They were born to couples who became parents in the most dramatically expanding economy in U.S. history. Suddenly WWII rationing ended, jobs abounded, income exceed expenses for most families, and children were born and raised with family financial resources than any generation prior to them.
The Baby Boomers born in 1946 began to turn 18 (became adults) in 1964 and continued to do so until 1982. The first few adults out of the Baby Boomers were the first generation of children who had been indulged by financial abundance and indulged by parents more than willing to teach them the same WWII and depression-related “strict rules of social conformity.” But, the Baby Boomers were not content. Figure 4 shows these key U.S. social movements all of which worked toward change and reform of traditional and therefore conservative norms.
The Civil Rights, Counterculture, Anti-Viet Nam War, Sexual Revolution, Women’s Liberation, Hippie, Student Activism, Drug Culture, Conservation/Environmental, then Antinatalism movements began in about the same time frame (1960-1970s). Each movement was formed and participated in with passion and zeal for improving some aspect of society that was broken and or in need of serious modification. It is true that some of the social movements were based in pleasure-seeking and responsibility-avoidance, but many focused on awareness of social norms and values that had to be revised or reformed. Wikipedia has a very well supported page for these I’ve listed here and many, many others (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements ).
Before I explain any further details about what I’m portraying in Figure 4, let me remind you of a scientific fact from Chapter 5. The research that Sociologists conduct is not experimental, does not control in a laboratory all the confounding variables, and cannot therefore suggest “cause and effect.” I am not suggesting cause and effect here. I am only suggesting that social movements often transform social institutions, a society’s cultural values, norms and then legal codes such that subsequent generations are both born into and raised in somewhat different societies than the ones in which their own grandparents were raised. Sociologists can imply how events that happen in sequential order may or may not have influenced (again not caused) certain measurable outcomes later.
Figure 4. Diagram of Key Social Movements and Key Changes in Rates in United State Institutions and Members of Society*
For example, by the time Generation X was born (1965) the social transformations brought on by these social movements were in motion. For example, the Baby Boomers born 1946-1964 still have the highest rates of divorce of any 5-year birth cohort in U.S. history. In fact, they are still divorcing as retirees. Their earlier life divorces impacted some of their children and a portion of Gen X members experienced their own parents divorce. Many surveys show that they were more cynical than their parents had been.
Many of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s were desperately needed. Non-whites, women, poor, and immigrants were mistreated legally and in every day life. As new Federal and state laws were passed and equality more or less mandated, oppression lessened (not entirely, but in some ways). Television shows began to show different family structures and different views of their portrayed family members. Women were shown as being independent and less fragile than before. The TV news agencies showed open Southern White violence against southern blacks and the idealized Baby Boomers rushed to volunteer to go down to the Southern states and stand with and in support of these oppressed members of our society. The news showed them as well.
The 1960s rates changed away from traditional family roles and traditional values. Marriage rates began to decline, homes where children grew up with 2 parents began to decrease. At the same time more females went to college, more young people delayed getting married, more females went into the labor force, and eventually more females stayed in college and graduated. Sadly, the arrests and incarceration rates increased (as did most violent crime rates). The United States became much more dangerous as far as safety from sexual violence was concerned as rape rates also increased. The birth control pill was approved in 1960 and more non-married couples engaged in sexual intercourse.
By the 1970s other indicators of shifts away from the traditional social values and structures emerged in the national data. Single mother births increased. After Roe Versus Wade (1973) abortions increased. The increasing desired and undesired social trends from the 1960s increased even further. By the 1980s, cohabitation rates were increasing slowly. No-Fault Divorce laws were put into place by 1980 in almost all of the U.S. states and divorce rates increased. The Total Fertility Rate began to decline and the religiosity, church attendance, value of religion and other measures of religion in our society began to decline. The 1900s saw much higher increases in almost all of these and other indicators of nontraditional elements of society that were in place at both the larger social level and for many at the personal level.
Did the social movements listed here cause these changes? Of course not, but they did precede them and after they led to legal changes in law we saw cultural values and norms change in such a way that rates measuring how individuals interact successfully with and conform successfully to norms of each of the major social institutions showed measurable changes (some desirable and some not so desirable). One has to ask about 2020 and later as far as current and past U.S. social movements and how they might lead to both desirable and undesirable measured outcomes. I also want to talk about the ppower of social media images in the onset of collective behaviors. Let’s discuss a few sociological concepts prior to returning to that important sociological topic.
Collective Behavior includes unusual or non-routine behaviors that large numbers of people participate in. There are a variety of types of collective behaviors.
Mass is a large number of people oriented toward a set of shared symbols or social objects (media). The NFL’s Super Bowl draws an enormous mass of viewers in the US and world—over 100+ million in the US alone according to www.NFL.com (see also http://www.ibtimes.com/super-bowl-2014-ratings-how-many-people-watched-seattle-seahawks-vs-denver-broncos-1552989 ). The annual final of the FIFA World Cup of Soccer (known as Football outside the US) tends to draw nearly 1 billion each year according to www.FIFA.com. That’s a tremendous number of people in a mass of fans and viewers worldwide.
Crowds are large numbers of people in the same space at the same time. As mentioned above they are not always groups who share a common identity, have roles, and meet together often. Crowds are more often many people in the same place at the same time doing about the same thing (aggregates). My wife and I stayed in Vancouver, British Columbia for the Pacific Sociological Association’s National Conference. While there a world-class marathon was run with thousands of participants. We video-taped the beginning of the race from our 15th floor window of the hotel. When you watch it think about how Sociologists try to get a metaphorically similar view by studying masses and crowds. This gives a uniquely powerful perspective when studying society.
The Why and How of Crowd Behaviors
There have been a number of core research studies on how and why crowds behave as they do. Keep in mind that a crowd at a bus stop that gets on the bus does not necessarily qualify as having participated in collective behavior because of the brevity of their time together and the purpose in which they share the same public space. A crowd coming together to celebrate a State College’s transition to a University does participate in collective behavior (See UVU case below).
Gustav Le Bon (1841-1931) was a French Social Psychologist who studied crowds in his work, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind." Le Bon believed that when a crowd came together their individual conscious merges into one large collective conscious. Le Bon’s Contagion theory claims that in a crowd people get caught up in the collective mind of the crowd and evade personal responsibility for their actions. Though his idea proved not to be true, it helped other social scientist study the ways in which crowds and the people who comprise them are motivated to act.
Another more viable argument, Convergence Theory, proved to be a better explanation of crowd behavior. Convergence theory claims that motivations are not born in the crowd but develop in individuals who carry them to the crowd. The crowd may provide an outlet for relieving their frustration. By themselves, it would be difficult to act out. Together in the group it becomes much easier with other like-minded people. In other words angry people who feel victimized by a racial injustice might come together (say the KKK or Nation of Islam) and collectively their emotions would contribute to collective actions that probably would not occur if such people were simply by themselves.
Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian (1993) wrote a book about crowd behavior (See Collective Behavior 4th edition Prentice Hall). Emergent Norm Theory claims that as crowds form and people interact, new norms develop in the crowd and facilitate certain actions. In other words events and emotions develop within the crowd while they are together. For example (and I know this is extremely unusual), In Bolivia a drunk man was discovered beating a woman on a neighborhood street. A few men came and stopped him and restrained him until the police arrived. Word spread to the adult son of the beating victim and he and his friends came to defend her honor. They overpowered the original bystanders and began beating the drunk man. Yes, it gets more complicated. The drunk man’s family heard about the new beating of the drunk and an all out mob-on-mob brawl ensued. The police arrived and rescued the drunk (this was on Youtube ).
To understand crowds and how they function you need to think about them in terms of: how they came to be a crowd; how they compare or contrast to other crowds; and fundamentally what the crowd did or did not do together. Consider a more normal circumstance of a crowd at Utah Valley University. I started here as a professor in 1993 when we were Utah Valley Community College and had only 10,000 students. We became Utah Valley State College in the 1990s then became Utah Valley University in 2008 with about 26,000+ students. By the time I retire in 2022 there should be about 35,000 students enrolled here (UVU Factbook, 2007). On July 1st, 2008 a huge crowd gathered for the formal dedication ceremony and ribbon cutting. Hundreds of people came to see state and national dignitaries and local personalities where a series of 2 minutes speeches resonated throughout the campus (see photo below).
This crowd came together to celebrate a new era of campus and community connection. It was a Conventional Crowd is a crowd which gathers for a typical event that is more routine in nature (IE: Moody Blues concert, Super Bowl Game, or Midsummer’s Night Dream play). An Expressive Crowd is a crowd gathered to gather to express an emotion (IE: Woodstock; the Million Man March; or the 9-11 Memorial Services). Solidaristic crowds are crowd which gather as an act of social unity. Breast Cancer awareness events are an example of this type crowd. All three of these types of crowds are safe, non-violent, and mostly predictable in terms of what they accomplish.
Acting Crowds are crowds which are emotionally charged against an event or goal. Some become mobs, but not all of them. This might happen when a large number of fans exit an arena after their team won or lost. When they see police arresting another fan their emotions they become more anger-centered and they collectively move against the police. The fact that the other fan may have been robbing someone at knife point may or may not matter if the others perceive an injustice or overbearing police action. Generally speaking, Acting Crowds are more dangerous that other crowds.
Many crowds have evolved into Riots are a collection of large numbers of people who act violently in protest against some authority or action of others (typically governmental or corporate authority). Fans whose team won or lost, employees laid off from work, neighbors who are angry about a police action, and other scenarios are connected to typical riots. Very few riots are purely protest in nature. In the 1991 Los Angeles Riots they became commodity riots, where the original issue is forgotten as locals loot businesses and stores for commodities. Commodity riots are the norm since about the 1960s in the US. Prior to that, property damage and violence against police were the norm.
In Chapter 17 we introduced how protests in the U.S. are changing in nature and in many other ways. Street Protests are often a combination of Expressing and or Acting Crowds and even less commonly riots. This is not always the case, but it is happening enough recently to bring it up here. Race and especially racial injustices have become the catalyst for many collective behaviors that led to protests and marches and even rights. In the United States, graphic images have triggered multiple events that costs millions and at times billions of losses to property damage and countless acts of violence. In U.S. society, history often repeats itself. The technological developments in broadcast, Internet, and most recently social media’s ability to share extremely graphic and at times unfathomable acts of violence against Black citizens by Police.
In 1991 a home video was captured of Los Angeles police officers beating a Black man who is down on the ground and not fighting back (see Rodney King Wikipedia). The riots that followed that lasted 6 days, lead to 2,383 more injuries (some extremely severe, 63 deaths, 12,000 arrests and over $1 billion in property damage (See LA Riots 1992 Wikipedia page at SOURCE). These police officers were charged and were found to have discriminated against Rodney King. In 2015 a Black Man was shot by police in Ferguson Missouri. A Department of Justice investigation report identified existing patterns in Ferguson, Missouri by local law enforcement officers (See Ferguson Unrest). The Black Man, Michael Brown had recently graduated high school was only 18 and evidence indicated he had been in an altercation with a police office who was accidently shot when the officer’s gun discharged. Michael was shot 6 times shortly later. The friend who was with Michael claimed that the police officer shot him 6 times in the back after Michael yelled that he was unarmed, had his hands up and had been shot in his back. The word of that report was reported repeatedly on local and national media.
Eye witnesses came forward confirming all the claims made by this friend. After an extensive FBI investigation, the FBI found no evidence that Michael had his hands up no had surrendered and he had been shot 6 times, but in the front not the back (See Shooting of Michael Brown Wikipedia). In the Ferguson Unrest and the riots and protests that ensued both in Ferguson, the issue here is not about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the friend’s story. The issue again is the power of televised media in triggering, stimulating, motivating individuals to participate in protests, crowds, and riots. Many have felt that had there been video and audio of the entire interaction between Michael and the policemen involved in his shooting death, it may have averted the ensuing social unrest that followed or it may have intensified it even more.
In 2020, when George Flloyd’s murder was recorded on cell phones and posted to the Internet, the most extensive riots, demonstrations, crowd gatherings, peaceful protests, and online social response from any racial injustice triggered event took place. With the ongoing reactions to George Floyd’s murder still taking place, I do not want to draw any conclusions as I did in the Rodney King and Michael Brown cases. On Wikipedia it was estimated that 200 cities in the U.S and over 2,000 cities worldwide have had some form of collective events resulting from this murder. Investigations; criminal charges; ongoing demonstrations; governmental emergency law modifications which are designed to limit protests and what is allowable at them but which may inadvertently reduce even more the constitutional rights of members of the U.S. society; and many other larger social and personal level outcomes are still unfolding (see Wikipdeia for more recent updates but as of 25 July, 2020, ongoing). Estimates so far are between 15-26 million protesters participating (see Wikipedia page at SOURCE ).
What’s next in the future of race riots, protests, and events triggered as these 3 were triggered? The Sociological answer can help provide some informed expectations. As we stated above, Convergence Theory claims that motivations are not born in the crowd but develop in individuals who carry them to the crowd. The crowd may provide an outlet for relieving their frustration. Since 1958 the U.S. Civil Rights movement raised awareness of injustice in the United States toward Black people that had existed in past centuries, but was considered by many to be intolerable in our day. That is unchanged and sentiment toward equal treatment of Blacks, other non-White members of society, LGBTQ, Deaf, Disabled, etc is prevelant. The Gen Z and Gen Y generations show their propensity to feel this way more than previous generations felt. Some consider the U.S. to be what I could metaphorically describe as a “smoldering pile of racial injustice-related coals” that are already hot enough that if some new discriminatory or violent event transpires, new civil unrest will follow. Hundreds have erupted since 1900 aloine and more will likely occur (see list at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States ). Add to that the mass availability of cell phones that now produce exceptionally high definition video and audio recordings and that can effortlessly allow for social media and Internet uploads in almost instant time. The up side of this technology and it being in the hands of so many is that far less discrimination and brutality will go unnoticed. The downside is that far more damage, violence, and destruction will likely follow.
In Lebon’s Contagion theory, perhaps the video footage being seen by millions and billions could lead to “contagious” triggers of collective reactions. Many people, include one of our children, participated in protest of police brutality against any category of civilians but especially Blacks. Our son felt that it was his way of doing something and he hoped that his presence and participation helped in some small way to change the world. But, he and many other who attended and participated with Solidaristic intentions to work for unity in expressing discontent for police brutality found that these peaceful protests sometimes failed to remain peaceful. You see, Emergent Norm Theory claims that as crowds form and people interact, new norms develop in the crowd and facilitate certain actions.
The original assumption was that when people gather, they experience the moment and the collective emergence of common emotions that arise to the level of passionate acting crown levels of behavior. One local woman who spoke at a local protests and was given a startling surprise to find herself trapped the very next day by some of the same protestors who mistook her for a target worthy of their harassment. She is a single mother, college student, and recent immigrant to the U.S. She reported that it might have been her old minivan that set those members against her, but she did not know for sure (Original story aired on a local TV station but may not remain available for long (See “Driver stuck in middle of SLC protest says she feared for her life” originally posted 1 July 2020 and retrieved 25 July 2020 from SOURCE). The story stated that:
“Nathalie Herrey said the seemingly peaceful rally turned dangerous in a hurry… “People were so hyped up on adrenaline. Like, the whole atmosphere was very hateful,”… “The odd part was that what had seemed like so peaceful and nice over there,” she said pointing to Washington Square, “you know, just people kind of sharing their things and supporting, suddenly got much more vicious. Like the whole tone was just very, very harsh.”…
“I had cameras this close to my face, filming me while I’m crying, trying to get out,” said Herrey. “It was interesting how it changed so fast from being peaceful to what happened in the street. I don’t know what ignited them, why it turned so vicious and hateful.”… She said a protester showed empathy after 10 minutes, and she also thought our camera crew defused the situation. She was able to drive off…”
What do you think? Was it just another case of emotions emerging naturally to such a fever pitch that things suddenly turned hostile and violent? It could happen, but with so many diverse people attending these public gatherings with so many existing “smoldering coals’ or existing desires to participate as an act of change; it is unlikely to spontaneously emerge. To Sociologists, that would be a bit naïve to assume or conclude that. In Chapter 13 we discussed Andrew Cherlin and the core of his 2010 book called the “The Marriage Go Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today” (available in print or e-book form, Vintage Pub. 1st Ed ISBN 978-0307386380). You may recall that his major claims was about the value shift in U.S. individualism which in past decades was more like a “rugged individualism” with a heavy focus on collectivism (other focused); but today has become a very self-focused “Me-individualism” which broadly ignores the collective aspects of others. This huge shift toward “Me” and away from “Us” was well in place by 2010 and is even more entrenched in the Gen Z and Gen Y members of our society and was a social fact in the minds and hearts of young protests participants long before 2020 and the George Floyd murder took place. Those participating, unaware of personal level and larger social level trends and the Sociological concepts related to them say things like “I don’t know what ignited them, why it turned so vicious and hateful.”.. or suspect it was simply a mob mentaility.”
It might very well be naïve to exclude well-prepared, well-rehearsed crowd agitators who come to protests to trigger or ignite more violence and chaotic acting crowds. Wikipedia reported on the riots specific to Minnesota (where George Floyd was murdered) and hinted that some had claimed White hate groups and outside agitators were being accused, but there was no evidence of any ( see most recent updates at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul ). Who might benefit from attending peaceful protest and agitating more violence? The U.S. has many countercultural groups living among its population that stand to enjoy the violence and chaos enough to trigger more violence. The FBI keeps very careful records and very carefully monitors a number of extremist groups living within the United States ( see https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website/what-are-known-violent-extremist-groups ). They include on their list: groups that declare themselves a sovereign nation even though they still live in the U.S.; Anarchist (believe society is better with no government); abortion, animal rights and/or environmental extremists (believe violence against humans is justified in defense of unborn fetuses, animals, and/or the planet); and Militia extremist (para-military in nature). They had an interactive educational website (as of 25 July 2020 at SOURCE).
The Why and How of Movements
On September 11, 2001 governmental, corporate, and private organizations closed their doors and put their very best security at protecting their people and property. Days later we realized that the real threat was to New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania only. Panic occurs when crowds or masses react suddenly to perceived entrapment, exclusion, or danger. Panics can impacts masses and crowds.
In the 9-11 terroristic attack the panic may have saved lives and property had the terroristic threats been broader than they really were. In the Stock Market, panics damage profits and put the economy in peril. It doesn’t matter if the threat is real or imagined (see Thomas Theorem). When something catches on for a short season of intense interest, we call it a fad. Fad is a novel form of behavior that catches on in popularity but later fades. The Lance Armstrong forever strong wrist band was an example of a popular fad that came and went to some degree of popularity, especially after his revelation of actually having used illegal doping drugs throughout his career ( SOURCE ).
On a larger scale and with more social impact, is the phenomenon of a social movement. Social Movements are intentional efforts by groups in a society to create new institutions or reform existing ones. Social movements are much more organized and goal driven than crowds fad behaviors. They typically organize to promote or resist change at some level of society. They also tend to have the same intensity of organizational leadership that might be found in a government or business organization.
Messianic Movements seek to bring about social change with the promise of miraculous intervention. Almost always these movements are led by a rather charismatic leader and followed by people inclined to need or want to be a part of something exceptional in their lives. Charisma means having outstanding personality which magnetically attracts others to you. In recent years there have been three very similar messianic movements whose charismatic leaders were born and raised in the US, but were not very successful in their individual lives and ended up leading large numbers of people to their mortal demise (See Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite below in Figure 5 below).
Figure 5. A Comparison of Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite Messianic Movements
Although the details vary, these movements are very similar in terms of what was accomplished and in terms of how their end was voluntarily self-destructive. Many people feel threatened by social change, especially when their definition of what keeps society together, of what makes a "good" society, or what God would be happy or unhappy with in our own society leads them to distrust the collective direction of their main stream society.
In the three cases listed above, Jimmy Jones and the People’s Temple; David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and Marshal Applewhite and the Heaven’s Gate groups all had similar social processes at play, even though there was no apparent connection between leaders of one group and the others (Google "Cults that end in suicide" to read about these cults all over the world). Eventually the leaders, who have enough leadership skills to get the group together and manage them, but not enough leadership skills to negotiate their interactions with social organizations outside of their compounds, run out of options and are content with suicide and murder.
When threatened, the leaders call for more isolation (See discussion of Warren Jeff’s and the YFZ LDS polygamist group). When members question their authority they are exiled or co-opted. Cooptation is the absorption of new (threatening) ideas and people into the policy making structure. In some cases questioning members are sent away. In other cases they are recruited into the leadership structure. David Koresh drifted into the already existent Branch Davidian cult and posed a threat to Rodens (original founder family). Koresh and others violently wrestled leadership from the Rodens (he common law married Lois Roden in her 77th year). With the Rodens gone, Koresh claimed polygamy, and sexual relations only between females and himself. Koresh did not respect police authority but used it to obtain his own goals of power and control. Many members who still believed in the movement defected before the confrontation murder suicide (Google Koresh and Branch Davidian for much more detail).
There are other types of movements that can be classified in terms of their function, similarities, or differences. Revolutionary Movements seek to overthrow existing institutions and class systems while replacing them with new ones. The United States, French, Mexican and other national revolutions fall under this category. Reformist Movements seek partial changes in only a few institutions on behalf of interest groups. In the US the feminist, children’s rights, and animal protection movements are indicative of this type movement. Most efforts work within existing political channels.
Conservative Movements seek to uphold the values and institutions of society and generally resist attempts to alter them. The Conservative Right movement in the US falls under this category. Reactionary Movements seek to return the institutions and values of the past by doing away with existing ones. The Ku Klux Klan is an example. Expressive Movements seek to allow for expression of personal concerns and beliefs. Punk, Goths, and Emos are examples of this type.
Let’s briefly discuss a few sociological theories that support the study of social movements. Deprivation Theory claims that people feel relatively deprived in comparison to some other group or institution and use the social movement to equalize things. Movements are more supported when members feel that compared to others they are worse off and a balance needs to be struck. Structural-Strain Theory claims that social problems/strains on the current social structure combined with discontent lead to movements. Such is the case with the spread of American liberal values across the world via satellite TV. Many conservative cultures world-wide (Muslim, Asian, and others) find the US and other Western nations repulsive in their values on women’s roles, sexuality, and crime. This unites many people in many diverse societies to become like-minded in their values.
Resource Mobilization Theory is a social movement succeeds or fails based on people's ability to gather and organize resources. The environmental movement has made tremendous collective progress because of the vast numbers of key educational, governmental, and social leaders who bring resources to bear on social change. For example, the NY Times reported that 10s of millions of dollars had been donated to activist groups in response to the murder of George Floyd in a matter of a few weeks. (see Goldmacher, S. (16 June, 2020), “Racial Justice Groups Flooded With Millions in Donations in Wake of Floyd Death” retrieved 25 July, 2020 from SOURCE).
Given the discussion above, where would sociologists place terrorism on the spectrum of types of social movements? Let’s define it first. Terrorism is the use of murder and mayhem to create a state of fear which can be used to gain political, religious, or ideological advantage. Terrorists can be classified as political, religious, and or cultural (many overlap in terms of functions and goals). Many of the “agitators and violence triggering” elements of these 2020 protests, committed an act of anti-social violence that highly resembles one of the main goals of terrorists—to instill fear in the average member of U.S. society and make them feel unsafe. Hard to tell with the secretive nature of police and government investigations and of criminal and countercultural groups themselves, but it is a sociological possibility that has not been eliminated by any substantial evidence and therefore must still be considered. At its core, terrorism follows a basic strategy:
- Scare average people and force their compliance with desired goals of the terrorist group
- Force organized governments to overreact to terrorists in trying to prevent future violence and thereby create sympathy among average people
- Direct the attention of people and government to the terrorists’ issues
- Obtain the organizational goals of the terrorist group
Terrorism works and there appears to be an unending supply of people willing to support terrorism: for a "noble cause," because they are criminal minded to begin with, or are somewhat insane enough to forfeit their lives. Laird Wilcox wrote a paper in 1988 called, "What Is Political Extremism?" (Google title). In it he discusses some of the characteristics of people inclined to participate in or support terrorism among other extreme politics. Wilcox argues that terrorist take the moral high ground, enjoy the power, appear to be happier when they don’t have to make their own decisions, and find a series of close family-like relationships among other terrorists.
Israel, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Asian Nations, and even the United States have adopted the basic anti-terrorism doctrine of moderate reactions to terrorism; no negotiation with terrorists; use covert deception and detection combined with lethal militaristic action; and unfortunately suppression of civil rights for its citizens. In this regard terrorism always wins if the economy, day-to-day lives, and safety of a society is out of balance then terrorists have power.
Additional Reading
Search Internet for:
- Moral panic
- fad
- social movements
- Messianic movement
- Reactive movement
- Reactionary movement
- Reform movement
- Crowds
- FIFI World Cup
- Mass Hysteria
- Group Think
- crowd motivations
- bandwagon
- Online Social Networks
- Crowd sourcing
- Arab Spring
Books
- Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841.
- Herbert Blumer, "Collective Behavior," in A. M. Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1951, pp. 67–121.
- Neil J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1962.
- James B. Rule, Theories of Civil Violence, Berkeley, University of California, 1988.
- Clark McPhail, The Myth of the Madding Crowd, New York, Aldine de Gruyter, 1991.
- Jaap van Ginneken, Collective behavior and public opinion – Rapid shifts in opinion and communication, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003.
- Giovanni Naldi, Lorenzo Pareschi, Giuseppe Toscani, Mathematical modelling of collective behavior in socio-economic and life sciences, Birkhauser, (2010).
- Locher, David A., Collective Behavior, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
- Park, Robert E and Ernest W. Burgess. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Allport, Floyd. 1924. Social Psychology. Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin, The Riverside Press.
- Miller, Neil and John Dollard. 1941. Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- LeBon, Gustave. 1895. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Atlanta: Cherokee Publishing Company.
Web Resources
- Wikipedia article on Collective Behavior LINK
- Wikipedia article on Band Wagon Effect LINK
- Wikipedia article on social movements LINK
- Wikipedia List of Social Movements LINK
- University of California Santa Barbara study of social Movements LINK
- United nations Research for Social Development LINK
- Notre Dame’s Institute for study of social movements LINK