Psychology of Crowds

[Michael]

This is an issue I've been interested in a long time. I've always felt that when violence breaks out in a public protest, more often than not, it was instigated by the actions of police seeking to provoke a violent response.

THE protests that took place on the streets of London on the eve of the G20 summit in April lived up to many people's expectations. Around 2000 protestors turned up, and were heavily marshalled by police. There was a bit of trouble, but the police tactics - specifically, the decision to corral the entire crowd into a small area near the Bank of England, an approach known as "kettling" - kept a lid on the violence.

That, at least, is the official version of events, and it reflects a belief about crowds that is shared by police, governments and to a large degree the general public across the world: that they are hotbeds of trouble and must be contained. Trouble is seen as especially likely when something goes wrong at a large gathering. Under such circumstances, the expectation is that the crowd will lose its head and all hell will break loose.

The "unruly mob" concept is usually taken as read and used as the basis for crowd control measures and evacuation procedures across the world. Yet it is almost entirely a myth. Research into how people behave at demonstrations, sports events, music festivals and other mass gatherings shows not only that crowds nearly always act in a highly rational way, but also that when facing an emergency, people in a crowd are more likely to cooperate than panic. Paradoxically, it is often actions such as kettling that lead to violence breaking out. Often, the best thing authorities can do is leave a crowd to its own devices.

"In many ways, crowds are the solution," says psychologist Stephen Reicher, who studies group behaviour at the University of St Andrews, UK. Rather than being prone to irrational behaviour and violence, members of a crowd undergo a kind of identity shift that drives them to act in the best interests of themselves and everyone around them. This identity shift is often strongest in times of danger or threat. "The 'mad mob' is not an explanation, but a fantasy," says Reicher.

All this has profound implications for policing and the management of public events. "The classic view of crowd psychology, which is still widespread, talks about the loss of selfhood, leaving people at best out of control and at worst generically violent," says Reicher. "That is not only wrong, it's also counterproductive. If you believe all crowds are irrational, and that even rational people are liable to be dangerous in them, then you'll treat them accordingly, often harshly, and stop people doing things they have a right to do. And that can lead to violence."

Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.400-why-cops-should-trust-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds.html?full=true)

Seems like the 'science' of crowd studies is showing that every theory of crowd control used by police and authorities is wrong. No surprise there. Every one already knows that the most efficient way to create a riot is to invite the riot police - they seem to specialize in creating riots (again, no suprise there).

Indeed, I think the police response to 'crowd control' shows the fallacy (or illusion) of our democracy. We are ruled by elites who don't like to have their rule questioned in any way at all - and tend to react with extreme violence if/when they perceive a threat to exist. And peaceful protestors are always a threat to our ruling elites.

Anyone want to take a bet that police crowd control procedures will not be changed in the face of all this new information? Fact is, police crowd control procedures have nothing to do with 'managing crowds' and everything to do with 'managing politics'.

Crowds don't need police control. It is the police that need to control crowds. I think it is high time that people start to realize this.

[wphelan]

That's actually nice to read right about now. I'm helping put together an inaugural music and meat festival that is going to be held at my Dad's house in the country. I told him I'd take care of security. Basically, I just don't want anything on the property to get damaged, and I guess it would be a good thing if nobody got injured either.

There's absolutely no reason anything should get out of hand, but it's hard to get the possibility out of the back of my mind. We're only expecting a 200 to 300 people. As the article says, I figure everything will be fine unless the county sheriff's office decides to show up and agitate, but that's not too likely. We are in the far corner of the county after all. :cool:

[Americano]

Considering the levels of judicially appointed and military enforcement presently available in a majority of countries I think crowds are currently controllable. Hunger is a different perspective, which the world is viewing in particular Africa, on a global level.

If the standard of living is abruptly reduced by say 70% in countries where wealth is lodged in the upper 10% of the citizenry, it will take unlimited LE and military enforcement to maintain civil order. The US Patriot Act is now considered a way of life for most Americans.

[The Drunk Guy]

This is an issue I've been interested in a long time. I've always felt that when violence breaks out in a public protest, more often than not, it was instigated by the actions of police seeking to provoke a violent response.



Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.400-why-cops-should-trust-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds.html?full=true)

Seems like the 'science' of crowd studies is showing that every theory of crowd control used by police and authorities is wrong. No surprise there. Every one already knows that the most efficient way to create a riot is to invite the riot police - they seem to specialize in creating riots (again, no suprise there).

Indeed, I think the police response to 'crowd control' shows the fallacy (or illusion) of our democracy. We are ruled by elites who don't like to have their rule questioned in any way at all - and tend to react with extreme violence if/when they perceive a threat to exist. And peaceful protestors are always a threat to our ruling elites.

Anyone want to take a bet that police crowd control procedures will not be changed in the face of all this new information? Fact is, police crowd control procedures have nothing to do with 'managing crowds' and everything to do with 'managing politics'.

Crowds don't need police control. It is the police that need to control crowds. I think it is high time that people start to realize this.
Glad to know that I can openly blame pigs for starting shit where shit had no reason to be.

Riot gear, to me, just screams, "I want to beat you to death while you are powerless to resist." I have never been in a protest that involved riot gear, but I know it would add a level of fury.

I do have an anecdote, though. Years ago, my uncle's factory went on strike and my parents would take me to sit the line with him. For months, we spent a few nights every week, holding signs and booing scabs. To me, it was a good family bonding time until the pigs got involved.

One late night, a couple of the guys decided to fuck with the scabs' cars. They crossed into the factory parking lot and TPed and egged a couple cars and labeled one with a shaving cream "SCAB." It was funny, but the cops were called because it spooked the scabs. After that night, they began patrolling and even parking to watch the line at all hours of the day. It put the strikers on edge and escalated the whole scenario.

A couple weeks later, out of frustration, a couple guys tried to stop a delivery truck. They stood in front of the entrance to the factory and spread their arms. Within moments, the pigs were there telling them to move. People left the line to go yell at the cops, screaming about their rights. After a few minutes of arguing, a pig told the trucker to drive through them. One guy waited too long to move and had his arm banged by the grill of the truck. Retaliating, he grabbed a rock and through it at the truck. That's when the pigs went crazy. They started chasing every down that was nearby. The guy who tossed the rock led them on quite a chase, but ended up getting beaten pretty bad.

So, the pigs involvement created hostility where there was none, but they used that against the strikers. The tension turned violent and cost the strikers validity in negotiations. They lost the strike. Fifteen years ago, those jobs paid $6 an hour with no benefits. Today, they pay $7.50 an hour and offer health insurance after a year. What community do pigs serve?

[Michael]

Two political examples from Canada I think will show a striking difference in police action.

1. AIPAC Conference 2002. Organizers and officials sought to enclose protesters within a secure envirionment (essentially big cages away from the action). A fence broke, but the police were ready with water cannon and pepper spray (both used liberally).

Please note that there was no public safety issue since this was some remote vacation resort location, and there was no security issue since attendees to the conference were many miles away.

Constrast this with...

2. Two months ago, a very large group of Tamils popped up in a very busy intersection in downtown Toronto and militantly 'occupied' the intersection as part of their protest. There were literally hundreds of people sitting in the street here, singing and chanting. They had no permits, no permission - they just occupied a busy downtown street for their protest.

Police of course set up barricades to re-direct traffic around the protesters and refused to interfere in any way with the protest - for seven days!

The Tamil protesters then raised the ante by successfully shutting down a major highway (again, one that cuts right through the city of Toronto) by physically occupying the road in the middle of the night, blocking all the entrance ramps with their cars and having a big sit-down protest occupying the highway. Again, police just stood by and watched and did exactly NOTHING to interfere with these protesters in any way at all. Police even cited the 'presense of women and children' amongst the protestors as reason not to forcefully remove them.

* * *

Notice any difference between these two events?

Something tells me that our elites do not consider a bunch of Tamils protesting about events on the other side of the globe as a threat to the ruling order here. Thus, there is no police effort to control or even interfere with a very large crowd of protestors illegally occupying public space and endangering public safety - even though they were highly disruptive and breaking multiple laws while doing so.

Law-abiding protestors at AIPAC conference in 2002 were not disruptive and broke no laws. They got pepper-sprayed by the thousand for daring to embarrass the Government in front of the international media.

[Americano]

Two political examples from Canada I think will show a striking difference in police action.

1. AIPAC Conference 2002. Organizers and officials sought to enclose protesters within a secure envirionment (essentially big cages away from the action). A fence broke, but the police were ready with water cannon and pepper spray (both used liberally).

Please note that there was no public safety issue since this was some remote vacation resort location, and there was no security issue since attendees to the conference were many miles away.

Constrast this with...

2. Two months ago, a very large group of Tamils popped up in a very busy intersection in downtown Toronto and militantly 'occupied' the intersection as part of their protest. There were literally hundreds of people sitting in the street here, singing and chanting. They had no permits, no permission - they just occupied a busy downtown street for their protest.

Police of course set up barricades to re-direct traffic around the protesters and refused to interfere in any way with the protest - for seven days!

The Tamil protesters then raised the ante by successfully shutting down a major highway (again, one that cuts right through the city of Toronto) by physically occupying the road in the middle of the night, blocking all the entrance ramps with their cars and having a big sit-down protest occupying the highway. Again, police just stood by and watched and did exactly NOTHING to interfere with these protesters in any way at all. Police even cited the 'presense of women and children' amongst the protestors as reason not to forcefully remove them.

* * *

Notice any difference between these two events?

Something tells me that our elites do not consider a bunch of Tamils protesting about events on the other side of the globe as a threat to the ruling order here. Thus, there is no police effort to control or even interfere with a very large crowd of protestors illegally occupying public space and endangering public safety - even though they were highly disruptive and breaking multiple laws while doing so.

Law-abiding protestors at AIPAC conference in 2002 were not disruptive and broke no laws. They got pepper-sprayed by the thousand for daring to embarrass the Government in front of the international media.

Elites aren't concerned with traffic disruption or public safety if, as you point out, it doesn't directly affect them ot their image.

[drgoodtrips]

Glad to know that I can openly blame pigs for starting shit where shit had no reason to be.

Riot gear, to me, just screams, "I want to beat you to death while you are powerless to resist." I have never been in a protest that involved riot gear, but I know it would add a level of fury.

I do have an anecdote, though. Years ago, my uncle's factory went on strike and my parents would take me to sit the line with him. For months, we spent a few nights every week, holding signs and booing scabs. To me, it was a good family bonding time until the pigs got involved.

One late night, a couple of the guys decided to fuck with the scabs' cars. They crossed into the factory parking lot and TPed and egged a couple cars and labeled one with a shaving cream "SCAB." It was funny, but the cops were called because it spooked the scabs. After that night, they began patrolling and even parking to watch the line at all hours of the day. It put the strikers on edge and escalated the whole scenario.

A couple weeks later, out of frustration, a couple guys tried to stop a delivery truck. They stood in front of the entrance to the factory and spread their arms. Within moments, the pigs were there telling them to move. People left the line to go yell at the cops, screaming about their rights. After a few minutes of arguing, a pig told the trucker to drive through them. One guy waited too long to move and had his arm banged by the grill of the truck. Retaliating, he grabbed a rock and through it at the truck. That's when the pigs went crazy. They started chasing every down that was nearby. The guy who tossed the rock led them on quite a chase, but ended up getting beaten pretty bad.

So, the pigs involvement created hostility where there was none, but they used that against the strikers. The tension turned violent and cost the strikers validity in negotiations. They lost the strike. Fifteen years ago, those jobs paid $6 an hour with no benefits. Today, they pay $7.50 an hour and offer health insurance after a year. What community do pigs serve?

It sounds to me like the strikers created the hostility by vandalizing the property of innocent bystanders. It sounds like they then escalated it by bodily impeding the delivery guy. Neither the "scabs" nor the delivery guy represent the entity with whom the strikers seek to negotiate, but apparently the strikers view their property and time as acceptable collateral damage. Granted, the cop telling the delivery guy to drive through the crowd is ridiculous.

But still, I don't think that's a good example of the idea in the OP here, since it sounds to me like the strikers hurt their own cause by committing criminal acts for no good reason against people with whom they had no issue.

[Michael]

Elites aren't concerned with traffic disruption or public safety if, as you point out, it doesn't directly affect them ot their image.
One only has to look at US history of the official police response to civil rights marches and/or anti-Vietnam war demonstrations.

In both cases, protestors were treated like they were murderous criminals by definition. And there is a long record of violence erupting as the police forced and escalated every confrontation. Clearly, the elites felt threatened.

Thus, I believe that one can rationally predict police-riot-squad responses in any given situation. And any given 'situation' has NOTHING to do with the physical situation on the ground. It is only the politics of the issue that need to be consulted to see if the riot police will be seeking confrontation/violence.

If the elites feel threatened, then violence will errupt at any protest. If the elites don't feel threatened, mob violence is quite unlikely to occur. It really is that simple.

[Americano]

One only has to look at US history of the official police response to civil rights marches and/or anti-Vietnam war demonstrations.

In both cases, protestors were treated like they were murderous criminals by definition. And there is a long record of violence erupting as the police forced and escalated every confrontation. Clearly, the elites felt threatened.

Thus, I believe that one can rationally predict police-riot-squad responses in any given situation. And any given 'situation' has NOTHING to do with the physical situation on the ground. It is only the politics of the issue that need to be consulted to see if the riot police will be seeking confrontation/violence.

If the elites feel threatened, then violence will errupt at any protest. If the elites don't feel threatened, mob violence is quite unlikely to occur. It really is that simple.

Kent State immediately comes to mind.

[Michael]

Kent State immediately comes to mind.

Yes, exactly. I'd say that the amount of 'violence' that results from any given protest is directly in proportion to the level of threat perceived by the ruling elites.

Kent State was a very high level of state-sanctioned violence - ergo, we may conclude that the Ohio State protest was perceived as a huge threat to the ruling elites.

[The Drunk Guy]

It sounds to me like the strikers created the hostility by vandalizing the property of innocent bystanders. It sounds like they then escalated it by bodily impeding the delivery guy. Neither the "scabs" nor the delivery guy represent the entity with whom the strikers seek to negotiate, but apparently the strikers view their property and time as acceptable collateral damage. Granted, the cop telling the delivery guy to drive through the crowd is ridiculous.

But still, I don't think that's a good example of the idea in the OP here, since it sounds to me like the strikers hurt their own cause by committing criminal acts for no good reason against people with whom they had no issue.
Pranks turned into violence.

Still a fun story to tell. I haven't thought of it in ages. Makes me want to watch Harlan County, USA again.

[drgoodtrips]

Pranks turned into violence.

Still a fun story to tell. I haven't thought of it in ages. Makes me want to watch Harlan County, USA again.

Well, there is the (predictable) element of disproportionate police response to the event. I don't condone striking workers harassing "scabs" who I'd imagine are just earning a living (and my own predisposition not to want to engage in collective bargaining). But, a cop telling a delivery guy to drive through a crowd of people is, at best, dangerous negligence.

For some reason, I was just reminded of the fact that I saw the police tazer a guy in front of my house over the weekend. I think that the police were justified here, however. The guy was being questioned by the police following some form of altercation and for some reason, he leaped into the open door of the police car and toward and cop sitting in the passenger seat. They wrestled him out of the car and tazered him. Very surreal (and nothing to do with crowds - apologies for the digression)

[Americano]

Well, there is the (predictable) element of disproportionate police response to the event. I don't condone striking workers harassing "scabs" who I'd imagine are just earning a living (and my own predisposition not to want to engage in collective bargaining). But, a cop telling a delivery guy to drive through a crowd of people is, at best, dangerous negligence.

For some reason, I was just reminded of the fact that I saw the police tazer a guy in front of my house over the weekend. I think that the police were justified here, however. The guy was being questioned by the police following some form of altercation and for some reason, he leaped into the open door of the police car and toward and cop sitting in the passenger seat. They wrestled him out of the car and tazered him. Very surreal (and nothing to do with crowds - apologies for the digression)

I read countless stories of LE tazering people in the local rag and on forums and still can't get it out of my mind that force used to avoid scuffing the shoes, tearing the uniform or heaven forbid using physical capability is no different than dosing a crowd with pepper spray. Both are displays of power by civil servants sworn to protect the citizenry and batons/physical control are out of favor. The elites are way ahead of the general public in determining what levels of legislative control and subsequent LE actions are required to offset deeply rooted societal problems rapidly being expanded by economic decline.