WORK IN PROGRESS

This endless revision process feels like psychoanalysis -- there's something I want to write about and the last two versions of this paper have been more about barriers to writing about that subject than about the subject itself. I'm in the process of revising this paper a third time following my conversation with Anja at the bottom of the page. I'm trying to narrow my subject significantly. Once again, it'll look a little ragged for a while. I'm not sure what the schedule is for comments anymore (if there is such a schedule).

The Mob

This summer I witnessed the running of the bulls in New Orleans. A man dressed as a bishop with a bullhorn yelled from the balcony: "For he that drinks Sangria with me today shall be my brother!", and then hundreds of people dressed in white and red ran screaming down the streets of the French Quarter chased by roller-derby girls with curved horns and baseball bats. Men wore shirts that said "NOLA bulls 2009. Por Qué no?".

I've been fascinated by mobs, especially groups of people that get together seemingly for no other reason than just to be around other people. Pure groups. When large masses of people form, its not surprising that bizarre things happen. It's surprising when nothing abnormal happens.

The base of a political theory has to, at base, join up with the way masses of people function. Thurman Arnold begins The Folklore of Capitalism with this premise: "Today, when sophisticated men speak of democracy as the only workable method of government, they mean that government which does not carry its people along with it emotionally, which depends on force, is insecure." The need to connect with the enthusiams of the body politic is a cold fact recognized by leaders across the political spectrum.

Since our institutions are built to respond to the enthusiasms of masses of people, it would help to understand a little about the dynamics of groups of people. Arnold argues that since individuals are full of contradictory drives and goals, then the groups they form are full of contradiction. Thus, at heart, we want our leaders to reflect the contradictions we all feel. Bill Clinton was such a successfull politician because of his foibles. Whole organizations have to reflect the full spectrum of forces acting between and through individuals: "Thus the American industrial organization is a hard-boiled trader, a scholar, a patron of modern architecture, a thrifty housewife, a philanthropist, a statesman preaching sound principles of government, a patriot, and a sentimental protector of widows and orphans at the same time."

Individuals have an infinite capacity to contradict themselves. This capacity is only amplified when lots of them get together. The bulls are actually women on roller skates. New Orleans is not Pamplona. There is no danger of goring. And yet everyone becomes what they are not and runs screaming down the street. Nothing is produced except enthusiasm. There is no ulterior motive. Por qué no?

Organization

The New Orleans running of the bulls as about as close as you can get to the abstract limit of pure-getting-together-without-an-ulterior-motive. In general the enthusiasm of groups is organized towards some end: "political realism about democracy was brought home to us by the success of the dictatorships in Russia and Germany. In these countries the revolutionary governments undertook deliberately to arouse the intense enthusiasm of their poples and to keep it at a high pitch. The method used was not rational; it was the rhythm of uniforms, salutes, marching feet, and national games..." As Arnold recognizes, an organized body can be formed out of a mob by using rhythm, music, and ceremony in general. The undetermined enthusiasm created by what William McNeil? calls "Moving together in time" -- marching, saluting, moving rhythmically with others -- is given content. Music, to take only one tool that can form a unified body out of a mob, works because, like drives that respond to rhythm, it does not know the law of non-contradiction. Whoever, or whatever, attaches himself to music can take on the ability to (temporarily) resolve the contradictions that run through a group.

The organization of a body of people by music is most clearly seen at a concert of purely instrumental music. There is no content to a Mozart symphony. The musicians are playing with pure organization. The anxiety and tension created by a piece of music is produced by the danger of it all "falling apart". A (classical at least) composer approaches the edge of what a listener can keep organized in their head, only to bring it back from the abyss. This pure organization creates a body politic without a goal, without a content. It can do this because it suspends the law of non-contradiction for a period of time. Sometimes, though, it can all "fall apart". Take the response to the first performance of Stravinski's The Rite of Spring as an instance of the composer leading a group of people to an organization that was just too foreign. Or for the reverse processs, take the end of Robert Altman's movie Nashville. During a concert sponsored by a political canidate the diva is killed. It looks like a riot is about to break out. The other star singer, who has political ambitions, grabs the microphone and yells: "This is Nashville, you show 'em what we're made of. They can't do this to us here in Nashville. Okay, everybody, sing!" And as a young woman steps into the fallen diva's shoes, everyone sings: "You may say I ain't free. It don't worry me."

3

Arnold is emphatic that no one person can by pure force of will or pure creative power change the organization of a group. "Men--even learned men-- cannot 'think up' forms of social organization." Thus if you want to get anything done within a group of people, you need to abandon the dream of changing them: "The politican does not attempt to change the mythology. He works with it unscrupuosly to get results." The interia created by a group of people is too great to move by pure force of will or intellect. So a lawyer certainly doesn't create things from nothing. The idea is that the contradictions that animate a body of people must be respected. They need to be both spiritually and practically satisfied. On a spiritual level the contradictions are temporarily resolved by cathartic ceremony. And more or less behind the scenes the contradictory practical needs must be met by effective institutions. Right now

--PatrickCronin

Patrick - I just read this paper for the first time. I really think you're onto something, and I look forward to reading and discussing your final version. Like you, I have been thinking a lot about "mob thinking" or group mentality over the last few years, and I agree that understanding this better is the key to a lot of societal problems. In my third paper, I tried (but so far failed, will rewrite this weekend) to explore this issue as it relates to crime. What fascinates me about this is that a seemingly minor change in social norms has the power to trigger a surge in mob thinking. Our personal code of ethics is flexible and changes depending on our environment. I recently read the book "Machete Season," which is a fascinating exploration of the Rwandan genocide from the eyes of the killers - mostly farmers who were somehow "mobbed" into hacking their neighbors to pieces with machetes. How is it that most people tend to lose their capacity for independent decision making when swept up in a collective movement? How can we, as individual members of a collective society, maintain our ability to act intelligently?

--AnjaHavedal, 8 July 2009

Patrick - I too think that there is much to learn here. I think that the turn away from 'grand theories of everything' is very productive. A rejection of grand unifying theories is one of the underpinnings of the Pragmatism movement itself, which formed the foundation of much of the early reading this semester. If you are looking for curious pieces on group thinking and how it gets manipulated, I would recommend Bill Wasik's article describing how and why he invented flash mobs. There is a link here but Harpers charges for content so I would go to a library and get the March 2006 issue; the article is short. The world is changed by small courageous acts, not by grand unified theories.

--AndrewCase, 8 July 2009

Thanks for the support. Anja, I'm not sure how we can maintain our ability to act intelligently in groups. There's probably not a simply answer. But I don't think the answer is to completely forgo group thinking. I just don't think that that is something we can do. I think that we are inevitably part of a social body, and if we cut ourselves off from it in the name of reason or intelligence we will die. So the answer must lie within the group itself. Perhaps the distinction is between good and bad group thinking. I wonder what kind of horrible but subtle change in the way those farmers communicated caused them to kill their neighbors.

Andrew, I'll take a look at that article. Just looked at Wikipedia on Flash Mobs. Looks interesting.

--PatrickCronin, 8 July 2009

Patrick - While I really enjoyed reading this, and I think you've got some really interesting thoughts, I kind of feel like you have two essays going here - one on mob mentality, and another one on your realization that changing the world does not require you to first develop a theory to explain everything. In my opinion, you're not really doing either one justice. I think the connection is that your wish to understand the workings of collective desires has previously served your wish to change the world by yourself (right?) but this is not a self-evident connection. You lose me on the logical leap from mob mentality to theory of everything. Why does mob mentality have to explain everything? Is it not valuable to understand even if it only explains SOME workings of the world? At the end of your essay I am left a bit confused.

On a completely different note: I'm not sure that the Michael Jackson hysteria fits into your analysis - are you sure that this is an example of mob mentality, or is it rather just a bunch of individuals each mourning Michael Jackson because they feel like they have a personal relationship to him? (maybe you've read that study about how we care about celebrities because our brains are tricked to think that they are part of our "tribe")

I think exploring the "herd mentality that lies dormant in everyone" would be a valuable excercise. What brings it out? Under what circumstances does it spread? How do we prevent those who know how to manipulate it from using it for detrimental purposes (think Nazis or Pol Pot)?

Hope you're having a good summer!

--AnjaHavedal, 14 July 2009

Yea, I see what you mean Anja. Thanks for the honest criticism. I've been really struggling with narrowing down my topic in these 1,000 word assignments. I'm going to cut out the "theory of everything" stuff. Although it was cathartic to write, after looking at it for a week I agree with you that the only thing that ties it to the first topic is a perhaps idiosyncratic personal issue. I'm going to do some research on a particular example of the mob phenomenon. That should produce a more focused and substantial essay.

-- PatrickCronin? , 16 July 2009