SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour May 2007 Lecture 2

1. Administrative course outlines? textbooks? make sure you are on course list

2. Review “Collective behaviour may be defined as those forms of social behaviour in which usual conventions cease to guide social action and people collectively transcend, bypass or subvert established institutional patterns and structures” (Turner and Killian, 1987) "an uninstitutionalized mobilization for action in order to modify one or more kinds of strain on the basis of a generalized reconstitution of a component of action" (Smelser)

2. Review we are clearly talking about ”social facts (”exteriority, priority (existing before and after us), constraint in the sense that Durkheim defined these as the subject matter of sociology something that develops out of, exists because of the formation of a group, that changes with the formation of the group - group phenomena, “emergent phenomena”, these are social facts. As distinguished from psychological facts about the individual people that make up the group the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - like a chemical reaction process of hydrogen and oxygen making something new, water. Or, put twenty 4 year olds in a room together and you end up with a collective phenomena to rival a nuclear reaction

3. Social Contagion Theory - LeBon note here the time frame - this is the period of positivism, belief that science could explain everything – tendency to explain all behaviours In biological/medical terms – hence the presumption that ‘mobs’ and the behaviour seen there must have some sort of biological/medical explanation – the use of terms like ‘instinct’ ‘contagion’, ‘social pathology’ Le Bon, Park and Blumer the three major theorists here an assumption that something happens in a crowd situation that can cause people to become irrational or ‘temporarily insane’

3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) contagion – ‘a rapidly spreading infection’ (Fracastor, 1546) the social pathology and social contagion perspectives – the idea that someone who already has the affliction (behaviour) can pass it on the someone else, and it can rapidly infect others idea that the ‘infection’ reduces the members of the crowd to the level of ‘its lowest members’ contemporary example: suicide epidemics – note here too Gabrielle Tarde’s work on the ‘laws of imitation’

3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) Gustave LeBon (1895) – The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind remember: the post-Revolution period and political disruptions, riots, mobs in Paris how is it possible that otherwise rational people, involved in a crowd, are capable of such irrational behaviour? – for example, the September Massacres of 1792 the concept of the ‘mass’ – note that Noam Chomsky uses a similar concept – the mass, and control of the mass, as an important factor in world history Le Bon witnessed first hand parts of this spread of ‘mob’ contagion

3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) when crowds are formed, acccording to LeBon, members’ behaviour is reduced to the lowest common denominator – the roughest, least intelligent, most violent the ‘unconscious activity of crowds’ – the crowd situation creates an energy of its own – in a mob situation, the crowd becomes like a beast on its own – impulsive, irrational, uncontrolled people don’t all have to be in the same place – but they can all be ‘infected’ by the same belief, act in similar ways – e.g. the Dutch Tulip Bulb Mania of 1634 – 1636 – or, now, ‘virtual crowds and mobs’ are the spread of rumours related to computer viruses, missing children, collecting pop can tabs, etc.

3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) the psychological crowd: 1. individuals feel invincible and anonymous 2. contagion occurs 3. members of group enter state of suggestibility LeBon does not really explain how contagion occurs crowds function on emotion, not reason the power of the crowd can even affect perception (e.g. collective delusions) immediate factors (time, temperature) and remote factors (attitudes, beliefs, predispositions individuals bring to the situation) interact with one another

3. Social Contagion Theory (cont’d) criticisms of LeBon’s theory: 1. not empirical 2. sexist 3. political 4. does not explain how contagion occurs example:

3. Social Contagion Theory - Park Robert Park (1921) – Introduction to the Science of Sociology the concept of ‘emergent action’ - that people will engage in unusually intense interaction during periods of stress or disorder a ‘circular reaction’ is created as this interaction takes place as individuals actions are reinforced, and in turn reinforce those of others (escalation) it is social behaviour because it is ‘referent’ – people are behaving as the take account of and respond to the actions of others (question: is all behaviour social behaviour?)

3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d crowd members lose their ability to think independently, rationally – the development of a collective mind the crowd suppresses differences among the members the concept of ‘milling behaviour’ – aimless, anxious behaviour, that is a signal to individuals of the emotive state of the crowd sets the stage so that anyone can potentially take on a leadership role that fits with the mood of the crowd also talks about ‘expressive’ crowds that exist to express, experience, release emotions – like religious revivals, sports, rock concerts, etc. (note Durkheim here)

3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d criticisms of Park 1.introduced concept of emergence, though did not develop it 2. sometimes confusing theory Example:

3. Social Contagion Theory - Blumer Herbert Blumer (1969) – “The Field of Collective Behavior” really, defined many of the phenomena to be included here – fads, fashions, social movements, crowds, mobs, panics, manias, dancing crazes, stampedes, mass behavior, public opinion, propaganda, revolutions, reforms (too broad?) usually, people engage in interpretive interaction – but in crowd situations people engage in circular reaction where they stopi interpreting, and merely act in response to others show Blumer’s theory (p. 19 of text)

3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d milling behaviour – creates anxiety, heightened awareness – a readiness for action (e.g. fight or flight instinct) Blumer’s theory – p. 20 in text social contagion created by excitement, leading to imitation of one another’s behaviour, responding to rumour, innuendo is the absence of other information concept of ‘the mass’ – a group of anonymous individuals, not directly in touch with one another, much more individualistic – e.g. people following the O.J. Simpson trial – but a volatile group in society, a force to be reckoned with (e.g. the end of cyclamates, Dow beer, others?)

3. Social Contagion Theory - cont’d criticisms of Blumer 1.good emphasis on interaction as key component 2. confusing to read 3. does not explain really how contagion takes place overall, social contagion theory influential, but not used in this form any more – because of emphasis on irrationality

3. Emergent Norm Perspective Turner and Killian (1957) Collective Behavior 1.Collective behaviour can occur whenever a group of people find themselves in a situation of uncertainty 2.When people don’t know what to do, they look around to see what other people are doing 3.Members watch the behaviour of others to see what happens – if no negative consequences, will assume those behaviours are acceptable – circular reinforcement 4.Members will conform to these new group norms as they emerge – because it seems to be the socially acceptable, the ‘right’ thing to do in the situation

“Collective behaviour may be defined as those forms of social behaviour in which usual conventions cease to guide social action and people collectively transcend, bypass or subvert established institutional patterns and structures” (Turner and Killian, 1987) emphasis is on the way definitions are defined and new norms emerge to make sense of these situations, to guide behaviour (e.g. how do you know when it is a real fire alarm, not just a fire drill?) emergent norms are ‘social facts’, external to and coercive with respect to individual behaviour theory strongly influenced by Symbolic Interactionism, and the W.I. Thomas’s concept of definition of the situation – also the concept of ‘taken for granted reality’

note here too C.H. Cooley and the concept of the ‘looking glass self’ – also Goffman, the presentation of self in everyday life – how do interactions with others come to define situations, what are the implications of this for behaviour, how can these definitions be manipulation and altered if situations are believed to be real, they will be real in their consequences (Thomas) – note the significance of this perspective (e.g. religious wars, the broadcast of Wells’ War of the Worlds) the emergent norm process – p. 26

the concept of the crowd – short lived, loosely knit, and disorderly collectivities note the influence of Durkheim on Turner and Killian as per the constraining nature of norms as social facts other people as ‘reference groups’ in terms of determining what the norms of behaviour are (e.g. how to behave when smoking dope; drinking; laughter norms) under normal circumstances, individuals have little influence over group norms – but in collective behaviour situations, one individuals can establish the norm, if the other members have defined the situation as needing action of some sort

not all members of the collective crow will behave in the same way - as in any form of social behaviour, they will assume different roles/statuses any behaviour that does not elicit social disapproval becomes defined as acceptable (e.g. looting) the six conditions for the occurrence of collective behaviour 1. Uncertainty in the situation 2. A sense of urgency 3. Communication of mood and imagery 4. Constraint by emerging norms 5. Selective individual suggestibility 6. Permissiveness

Uncertainty the importance of ‘informational influence’ in resolving uncertainty (rumour) e.g. propaganda; scape-goating Urgency milling as both a physical and psychological process, both in close proximity and remote e.g. Y2K; soccer riots; internet viruses; gas prices

Communication of mood and urgency both verbal and non-verbal Constraint even the emerging norms constrain, direct behaviour – note here the power then of a leader, initiator here again, the Asch experiments – can you think of any others?

Selective Individual Suggestibility the tendency to become more polarized to attitudes of other members of the crowd – and more likely to accept the definition of the situation promoted by the crowd if crowd is expressing violent attitudes, will be more likely to express angry sentiments Permissiveness of behaviours particular to the collective crowd, in the particular situation

Classification of participants in collective action: 1. Ego-involved/committed (personally involved) 2. Concerned 3. The insecure (anonymity, righteousness) 4. Spectators (included in counts, audience, may become participants) 5.The ego detached/exploiters (looters, merchants, serial killers)

Criticisms of Emergent Norm Perspective too ‘micro’? ignores structural conditions