1. Summary
Collective behavior is a unique social process/event that do
not conform or deviate from normal social behavior. It does not reflect the
existing social structure, occurring when large groups of people are subject to
a certain form of social pressure or occurrence. It is spontaneous and it seems
contradictory to how an individual would react.
It is different from group behavior, because collective
behavior is limited and short lived compared to group behavior that is more
long-standing. Anyone can be part of a collective behavior, while group
behavior is more exclusive. The norms generated by collective behavior are weak
and unconventional, contrary to stronger and more conventional group behavior.
Studying collective behavior allows us to account for unforeseen
circumstances in the public arena, so that we can design better spaces and
methods to address different forms of collective behavior when they arise.
Analysis into collective behavior also allows better understanding of how large
groups of people function together and reacts to their environment and
circumstances, leading to better organization for events such as political
movements. This leads to safer and more successful movements.
Crowd study is a related aspect of collective behavior.
There are 3 main theories; Contagion, Convergence and Emergent-Norm. Contagion
theory explores the effects of crowds as a contagious influence on its members.
Acting as an ever-expanding group, growing as more and more people are
“infected”, the increasing anonymity leads the group to behave more and more
irrational and emotional. One thing to note though is that this theory sees
crowds as inherently irrational, and acting as a group, which are 2 aspects
that do not seem to occur in present times. Crowd behavior is usually born out
of rational fear and is usually instigated by a single person.
Convergence theory sees crowds as a coming together of
like-minded people, the convergence of similarity. A violent crowd thus arises
from a convergence of violent people, and is not born out of just the idea of a
crowd. Contagion theory can supplement this theory by showing how a crowd with
a few violent people is also able to turn completely violent. This combination
is known as Emergent-Norm theory.
Game theory can be used to explain how crowd behavior could
actually stem from rational thought before it spirals into confusion. Berk
(1974) proposes that in the event of a fire, people will decide whether running
or walking is better for reaching the exit. The combination of different
rational choices may lead to a seemingly overall irrationality in crowd
behavior.
Going back to social movements as a form of crowd study,
there are 4 main types, namely democratic, labor, ecological and peace
movements. Describing the development of social movements can be broken down
into 5 main theories.
Deprevation Theory explores social movement as born from
people who feel deprived of a certain good or resource within their society as
a defence of their survival. Mass-society theory thinks of social movements as
a group of people who feel dwarfed by how “massive” a whole society is, and is
seeking empowerment and belonging.
Structural-strain theory sees social movement born of a
combination of structural conduciveness, strain (deprevation), solution
seeking, precipating factors (catalyst for discontent), lack of social control
and mobilization (organizing the actual movement).
Resource-mobilization theory explores how social movements
are only made possible when the individuals involved have the resources to
mobilize. This factor of resource availability limits the amount of social
movements, as some people are not able to muster enough to start the movement.
Political-process theory builds upon this and introduces 3 more factors to the
creation of social movement; insurgent consciousness (collective thought),
organizational strength and political opportunity (vulnerability of existing
system).
2. Something of interest to me
In light of the various controversial events happening in
the world recently, namely the Trump Presidency and the controvery of President
Park Geun Hye’s actions, I am starting to realise another aspect affecting a
social movement’s success. In most social movements, the goal is to make as
many people aware of the movement’s cause and thus put pressure on the
governing body to change (whether it’s the government or an organization). In
an attempt to raise as much awareness as possible, some movements mistakenly
cause trouble for others as a side effect. For example, American protesting the
new presidency resort to violent acts, endangering the lives of the people they
hope to get on their side to influence the government. Some social movements
also involve blocking off major roads within a city, such as the case in the Seoul
protest of Park Geun Hye where police had to intervene with roadblocks to
ensure the safety of the participants. This has an adverse effect on the social
movement, which may lead to the general public disregarding the movement’s
claims because they created an inconvenience.
3. Discussion point
With regards to the above-mentioned factor of social
movements, one way to curb that would be to have a designated area where social
movements are held. In the case of Singapore, the government have allocated a place
called the “Speaker’s Corner” within the financial district of the country,
where dissatisfied people can voice their opinions. However, then comes the
question of the effectiveness of social movements if they are constrained and
controlled. Does the level of disruption caused by a social movement correlate
negatively or positively to its success rate, or is there even a correlation
between them?
No comments:
Post a Comment