"Floyd Allport was the first to reject Le Bon's and McDougall's 'group fallacy' or 'the error of substituting the group as a whole as a principle of explanation.' Only individuals, Allport believed (as did others) have minds. Nonetheless, these individuals are predisposed in similar ways to satisfy their basic drives. Crowds sometimes offer them an opportunity to find this satisfaction: 'The menacing and the drives of a large number of individuals simultaneously both draws them together and incites them to common action.' 'The individual sees with his own eyes that others are delivering the blow he longs to deliver, and are thereby expressing, not disapproval of acts of violence, but the strongest kind of approval.' Critically, the crowd adds nothing new to what the individual would do if her were by himself. The individual 'behaves just as he would behave alone, only more so.' He behaves 'more so' because 'the sights and sounds facilitate an increased fervor in the responses of each'" (p. 59-60).
I find this notion of crowd behavior particularly interesting when I think about the two distinct ways in which I experience affect in groups. The first way is in a situation which inherently makes me uncomfortable, a good example being the nature of the crowd at UT Football game. I quote by singer/songwriter Julian Casablancas effectively sums up my sentiments toward the competitive nature of the crowd at a football game, it reads as follows:
"Where cities come together to hate each other in the name of sport, America"
I often feel that the aggression associated with sports is unnecessary. Of the few football games I have attended, I rarely saw legitimate competition with UT's highly talented team. It often seems as though there are a large number of UT fans shouting rather derogatory and hateful chants at the other team, even though there are very few fans supporting the other team. It is clear to me that the other school does not take football nearly as seriously, and thus the thousands of UT fans shouting "make 'em eat shit" makes me uncomfortable.
My initial reaction the excerpt from "The Transmission of Affect" was that it was inaccurate, because in these situations I often find myself reacting in a hypersensitive nature opposite to that of the rest of the crowd. However, after thinking about it more it rings true that "The individual 'behaves just as he would behave alone, only more so.'" I feel uncomfortable toward the crowd mentality associated with sporting events when I simply think about everything that goes into the crowds mentality and behavior. Therefore, actually being at the sporting event the way I would be have alone becomes increased quite a bit. I experience the affective nature of the crowd and become increasingly introverted toward the crowd mentality.
The second way is a situation in which I have preconceived notions about enjoying the affect of the crowd. A good example of this would be a concert that I have sought out and have excitement about attending. I do not find myself at all uncomfortable or in opposition with the crowds affect. I embrace it, and the way in which I think about how I would like to be when listening to whatever music becomes heightened. Put differently, I feel more capable of dancing or singing along that I might if I were along or with a small group of friends.
I find the idea of expectations and opinions about the crowd mentality to be an interesting component of transmission in groups. This expands upon thoughts I have about the extent to which affect can effect the individual based on the particular way in which the individual orients him/herself respective to the crowd. This also supports Brennan's notion that affect can be controlled, in the instance of transmission in crowds it seems that affect is "controlled" without any conscious effort being exerted upon it. However, since this is an unconscious interpretation of the affect, it is not a proper form of control. The affect is still consuming the individual, even if the individual is not responding in accordance with the rest of the crowd. So affect is thwarted, not controlled.... but this supports the notion that affect is not homogeneous of forcefully encompassing, unless no effort is to taken to make it function to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment