Political Violence and Terrorism. Crowd Behavior

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
General Evaluation
Motivation
Leaders of the Crowd
Conclusion
Works cited

Introduction

Social affairs in their valuation are always in the dynamics. Different impacts are made by individuals or groups of individuals to provide piece in the masses. Others are attempting to destabilize such balance in society. The notion of crowd is vital in this respect. The crowd is the powerful as well as merely restrained community of people united by some major idea. The outlook on crowd behavior presented by Gustave Le Bon and George Rude provides the scope of bilateral characteristics of the crowd in terms of the history of mankind. In this case, the discussion in the paper is intended to point out similarities and differences in the works of both authors. The crowd depends on the will of those who coordinate its forces; thus, it can be described from points of harmful and useful effects for the development of the society.

General Evaluation

The significant role of the crowd is the force for making changes in a definite society. The basis for the crowd formation always reflects the common idea among individuals for their struggle for social, economical, and political, in particular, affairs. People are divided into various and numerous groups which are united by appropriate interests. This is felt on the example of financial differences among individuals. The difference in social status is another potential for making people grow into a crowd. This is why the urge of the studies by two authors under analysis is helpful to work out the essence of the problem.

The way of the discussion in the paper is colored with the remarks from primary sources. This is needful for further conclusions about both authors’ standpoints as of the crowd. The thing is that Gustave Le Bon in his book The Crowd describes the impacts of the crowd movements, as the most dangerous during uneasy times for a definite nation (Le Bon 27). This idea is fair because of the facts on the consequences of excited crowds. Bloody manifestations and harms toward everything surrounding the area of the crowd are mostly seen after global gatherings of people. In this respect it is necessary to admit that such effects can be expected when radical ideas are announced for meetings and revolts. On the other hand, George Rude in the book The Crowd in History: A Study of Popular Disturbances in France and England, 1730-1848 signifies the use of the crowd, as the power for rational and radical changes in the political life of a nation (Rode 19). Commenting on the ideas which the author represents, the picture of his arguments is rather appropriate. However, the factual material of the book is based on the facts from the history. Their representation and evaluation form the hypothesis that the historical background of nations presupposes eventual progress in social development. Facts of particular events are depicted in the book with an outlook on their significance.

Continuing the discussion on the role of the crowd, it is important to highlight that today’s picture of the crowd’s potential is shaped by the possible manifestation of terrorism in the society. Terror inflicts hazards when people gather in huge groups. In fact, by logical assumptions, it provides prepared ground for committing terrorist acts. Nevertheless, the general idea of the crowd may be a prerequisite for the terrorist idea of total destruction. In this approach the paper displays the parallels on the contemporary observation of the phenomenon of the crowd.

Motivation

The facts of the demonstrations or manifestations of the protest are considered with some initial motivation. This idea leads to the evaluation of the forces which are apt to organize the crowd into strong entity of people. Motivation is the engine for the social activity of individuals. When the crowd has rather persuasive points shared by each individual in it, then the primordial idea for such social event is apparent. In other words, it is a matter of great work of the “motivators” for gathering people in crowds. Particular stimuli are imposed on the significance of proper events. The crowd consists of the individuals. Its power can be compared to the power of an ant-hill. The general idea and personal intentions are the key features for gathering. Le Bon sees this perspective, as the paramount: “Personal interest is very rarely a powerful.motive force with crowds, while it is almost the exclusive motive of the conduct of the isolated individual” (Le Bon 28).

Personal point of view of Rude was the motivation for claiming the use of the crowds. The thing is that the author was a Marxist historian. As far as it is known, the role of revolutionary changes worldwide is indicated in the Marxist teachings. The research of his book touches upon the events related to the French Revolution. Thus, the author indicates that the motives of French people at that crucial time fell into two peculiarities. First, they were ordinary, “little” people; second, they needed conditions for work (Rude 123).

The intentions for the crowd can be modified into the spectrum of societal major features. Such huge developmental units are: the economical, social, and political perspectives. It is fair to think that the motives for demonstrations and revolutionary actions are straightforwardly considered with political issues. When the situation is unstable and far from progress in the society, then the outrage of individuals begins generating in their inner desire to change the situation. In this respect it is vital to admit that the effectiveness of the crowd is incorporated in its quantitative estimation.

The arguments of Le Bon share the points on violence and terror in society. The author intends to promote all sides of the crowd being totally dangerous for the society. Thus, he admits: “The usual motive of the crimes of crowds is a powerful suggestion, and the individuals who take part in such crimes are afterward convinced that they have acted in obedience to duty” (Le Bon 104)… In reality, individuals involved in the crimes of crowds feel no power of the law. It is followed with the objectivity for them to gain freedom in doing whatever the idea approaches. The words by N. Machiavelli that the end justifies the means are applicable here.

Rude, on the other hand, makes several assertions on the reliability of so-called crimes due to the long-lasting imperfection of society. The collective behavior is the result of the moral and economical prerequisites. Rude insists on the significance of “moral economy” for nations being at a dead-end (Rude 59). The Marxist theory is seen almost in every counterargument of the author in response to Le Bon’s presuppositions. However, both authors claim that the crowd possesses less intelligent or moral values. This means that the mechanisms and supporting means for the provision of manifestation rely on the current at the moment movements. Collective behavior of marginal layers of the French and English societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was in most cases rational. It was due to the general outrage of ordinary people. The irrationality of the riots and revolts caused by the crowd was concerned with grouping into gangs or mobs. Under the guise of revolutionary mottos, the terrorism can have shelter for a long time. This makes the idea of positive evaluation about the crowd incorrect. This is why it is vital to work out the issue of the leaders of the crowd.

Leaders of the Crowd

The collective action, as it is, cannot usually implement straightforwardness of ideas and intentions. The fullness of the primordial spirits and motives for riots, revolts, and manifestations can be evaluated due to a person of action. In this respect the role of the leader is emphasized with more abilities to organize and direct the crowd for the initial global purpose. According to this aspect of the discussion Rude implements the reliability of the crowd conduct in terms of the pre-industrial society. His approach goes toward understanding the successes and failures of revolutions in England and France. In this respect Rude follows the idea that the leader would improve the ideals of the revolution at all times. Such conviction is based on the idea that paramount significance of leadership in the crowd is vital. However, the role of a leader is not fully absorbed in the crowd. Spontaneous movements may happen within the dynamics of the crowd every now and then.

Le Bon directly argues the role of the leader supposing that this person should be more of acting than of thinking (Le Bon 73). In this statement the whole idea of demagogic and rather impulsive claims of a leader is highlighted. Looking at the historical cut, leaders are glorious by their short but rich in content slogans intending the crowd for actions. The aspects of dominance and obedience are favored in the crowd. This is why Le Bon correlates the idea of a despotic leader who will fulfill the violent requirements of the crowd (Le Bon 74). The idea of despotism and initial violence was the prerequisite for the creation of new political powers in different states. For instance, in the USSR after the revolution followed the time of so-called “red terror”. This is why the arguments by Le Bon are practically proven.

However, the role of the leaders during the crowd movements in France and other European states in the nineteenth century was really high. According to Rude’s analysis of time frame, the highest rates of the social conscientiousness of individuals in Europe fell into the period from 1840 to 1899 (Rude 89). The leadership, as it is, is the additional instrumentation for making crowd more cruel and excited about the standpoint of riots or revolts.

John Wilkes is the most obvious example of a leader in the English crowds of late eighteenth century (Mullan & Reid 237). This person, in fact, is characterized by his marginal origin and ability to demagogically excite crowds. All in all, leaders of the crowds are similar to every ordinary individual being a part of it. They possess the same points on disregard of the state power and other features which caused manifestations and riots. Politics is the domain using which the crowd can be involved in action. This is why in all times the crowd was associated with definite political movements. In this respect Le Bon admits the following assertion: “The opinion of crowds tends, then, more and more to become the supreme guiding principle in politics” (Le Bon 96). However, looking at the historical development of humanity, crowds are also the feature ritual. In other words, when there was no meaning of state power and politics, people gathered over leaders of tribes, so that to expand neighboring lands. Since that time the leadership has acquired different shaping. Today it is concerned more with political leaders having enough power and financial resources to provoke the manifestations of street riots.

Conclusion

To sum up, the works by Gustave Le Bon and Roger Rude show the bilateral outlook on the concept of the crowd. The dissent represented in the arguments of both authors is considered, first of all, with different points of view on political development in countries. Le Bon supported the humane position while evaluating the consequences of the crowd. Rude insisted more on the Marxist ideology in this respect. The historical data proves the idea that the syndrome of crowd is inevitable phenomenon in countries with unstable and problematic political relations and social backgrounds. Contemporary governments should take into consideration this claim to prevent possible terror caused by the crowds.

Works cited

Le Bon, Gustave. The crowd: a study of the popular mind. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications, 2002.

Mullan, John & Reid, Christopher. Eighteenth-century popular culture: a selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rude, George. The Crowd in History: A Study of Popular Disturbances in France and England, 1730-1848. Ed. 2. London: Serif, 2005.

Click Here To Order Now!