Explain the topographic point of namelessness in theories of crowd behavior. Is it ever associated with a ‘loss of self’ ( Dixon and Mahendran. 2012. p. 13 ) ?
This essay will get down by explicating the construct of namelessness and how it is used in theories of crowd behavior viz. the contagious disease. deindividuation theory and societal individuality theory. Subsequently the essay will concentrate on critical treatment comparing the above theories in footings of how they perceive namelessness and the loss of ego. It will foreground the similarities between Le Bon’s theory and the deidividuation theory but will besides indicate out some of their differences. The essay will besides offer the history of the societal individuality theory which does non see the crowd behavior as associated with the loss of ego and explains it otherwise in footings of societal individuality. The essay will besides present grounds to back up these claims.
The crowd behavior theories are concerned with how persons experience being a portion of a big group and how this in bend influences their feelings and behavior. Crowd psychologists would reason that the experience of being a portion of a big group needfully means that a sense of namelessness is created. This namelessness so allows persons in the crowd to experience someway ‘safe’ in footings of what they are able to make or state without being straight responsible for it. However different theories view the construct of namelessness otherwise.
Le Bon argued that the construct of namelessness in the crowd is non good at all. In fact he viewed the crowds as unsafe because persons lose their reason which is substituted by a ‘group mind’ and as such crowds are a menace to societal hierarchy ( Dixon and Mahendran. 2012. p. 5 ) . Harmonizing to Le Bon the experience of being in the crowd involves namelessness therefore the persons are non responsible for their actions and experience a portion of the corporate therefore are more likely to acquire influenced by thoughts that are brushing through the crowd – a construct Le Bon called the contagious disease. This namelessness so leads the persons to act in an aggressive and crude manner. The deindividuation theory mentality on namelessness is a bit different. Whilst deindividuation theory would hold with Le Bon on the fact that crowd behavior generates namelessness and leads persons to believe that they are non personally accountable for their actions in the crowd. the thought of a ‘group mind’ is dismissed.
Alternatively Festinger. Pepitone and Newcomb argue that the sense of namelessness persons experience in the crowds is a psychological displacement in individual’s ego perceptual experience which is clearly mensurable ( Dixon and Mahendran. 2012. p. 6. ) . From the position of the societal individuality theory crowd behavior is non needfully connected with namelessness and the loss of ego. Harmonizing to Tajfel and Turner the loss of ego in the crowd behavior is replaced by the societal individuality which is constrained by shared societal norms amongst the group. Tajfel argues that we posses non merely one single individuality but besides a societal one in footings that we belong to assorted societal groups and portion and accept their norms and values. In this light the societal individuality theory would reason that persons do non lose their sense of ego in the crowd instead they are more forced by the shared group norms and as such can non experience anon. .
It could be argued that Le Bon’s construct of contagious disease and the deindividuation theory have some similarities. They both start with the premise that the crowd behavior involves namelessness which is associated with the loss of ego to a certain grade. Both of these theories besides agree on the fact that the crowd behavior alters individual’s feelings and behavior and makes them more unprompted and less accountable for their actions. However both of the theories use different construct to explicate this behavior. Whilst Le Bon explains the crowd behavior with the construct of the ‘group mind’ which takes over a rational individual’s head and leads them to be aggressive and crude ( Dixon and Mahendran. 2012. p. 5 ) . Festinger et Al. utilize the construct of deindividuation to explicate the psychological displacement in individual’s head whilst being portion of the crowd.
Another similarity between the construct of contagious disease and deindividuation is their perceptual experience of crowds being slightly negative in their nature. Le Bon argues that crowds are unsafe in footings of their crudeness and possible uncontrolled aggression. These characteristics of crowd behavior harmonizing to Le Bon pose a menace to the societal hierarchy and as such should be controlled and prevented ( Dixon and Mahendran. 2012. p. 5 ) . Similarly the deindividuation theories would propose that the effects of crowd behavior on the person are negative in a sense that they lead to increased aggression. Zimbardo focused on the links between namelessness and aggression in his experiment with administrating the electric dazes and the findings suggested that namelessness had so intensified the aggression.
Zimbardo explained this phenomenon as a ‘diffusion of responsibility’ and saw it as a byproduct of deindividuation. Harmonizing to Zimbardo being portion of crowd ( or a societal group ) makes persons feel like they are protected by the namelessness environing them and hence they do non experience a moral duty for their actions which leads them to being more violent and aggressive. In the visible radiation of the grounds presented by Zimbardo it could be argued that namelessness is so associated with the loss of ego.
On the other manus there are differences to be found between these theories and their mentality on the loss of ego. Whilst Le Bon and his construct of contagious disease and to some degree deindividuation theories would reason that crowds are non good. the societal individuality theory would show grounds to reason otherwise. As Tajfel and Turner argue herd behavior is non needfully associated with the loss of ego instead there is a displacement from the individual’s sense of ego to the corporate 1. Social individuality theoreticians do non see this characteristic of crowd behavior as negative but instead they explain crowd behavior in footings of its uniformity and spontaneousness. Harmonizing to the societal individuality theorists the fact that people belong to a certain societal group creates restraints and forces the persons to act in a manner that is acceptable and shared within the members of the group.
As such the societal groups act in a manner which is more uniformed and predictable than the persons themselves. Furthermore the societal individuality theoreticians would indicate out that thanks to the construct of ‘inductive categorization’ the crowds behavior can be seen as socially coordinated. This construct can be explained utilizing an illustration of football fans behaviour during the football lucifer where there is no leader who orders the fans to sing and cheer at the same clip. Rather if one of the fans starts singing or intoning the others join in because of the ‘inductive categorization’ within this peculiar societal group.
The grounds to dispute the claim that namelessness in crowd behavior is ever associated with a loss of ego can be found in a research conducted by Reicher on the St. Pauls public violences. Reicher argued that the public violences were no random Acts of the Apostless of force as Le Bon or deindividuation theory would propose. instead the rioters directed their force towards specific marks and maintain them geographically confined to the relevant country. This suggests that the rioter’s behavior was uniformed and predictable and hence tantrums in the account of the societal individuality theory. Further grounds can be found in the research of Reicher and Stott on the London public violences in 2011.
From the position of the deidividuation and Le Bon’s theory the public violences were explained as a premier illustration of a ‘group mind’ taking over any reason and ensuing in force and aggression. Harmonizing to these theories the persons lost their individuality in the crowd hence their duty and behaved like crude animate beings. However different position is offered by the societal individuality theoreticians. Reicher and Stott argued that the rioters did non lose their individualities in the public violences but instead they switched to the societal individuality which resulted in a corporate action. The rioters were non random felons but were members of the societal community with a shared thoughts and ends. The actions of the rioters were non random but they were directed at the symbols of authorization proposing corporate and uniformed action which was designed to contend inequality. The societal individuality theoreticians would therefore argue that there is no such construct as a loss of ego in the crowd behavior instead there is a displacement to a societal individuality which is distinguished by its collectiveness and uniformity.
In drumhead so it could be argued that from the position of the deindividuation theory and Le Bon’s theory. namelessness in crowd behavior is associated with the loss of ego. Le Bon and his construct of contagious disease argue that persons in crowd lose their ability to believe rationally and are consumed by the ‘group mind’ . Deindividuation theories argue for the psychological displacement in individual’s head which is caused by crowd’s namelessness and leads to unreason and aggression.
Zimbardo’s experiment on the diffusion of duty surely suggests this. On the other manus the societal individuality theory and its account of the crowd behavior argue strongly against the construct of the loss of the ego. This perspective suggests that societal groups are far more forced by its shared societal norms to be irrational. Social individuality theoreticians view the crowd behavior as a positive force in the societal alteration.
