Contemporary understanding of riots: Classical crowd psychology, ideology and the social identity approach

Abstract

This paper explores the origins and ideology of classical crowd psychology, a body of theory reflected in contemporary popularised understandings such as of the 2011 English 'riots'. The paper argues that during the 19th Century the crowd came to symbolise a fear of 'mass society' and that 'classical' crowd psychology was a product of these fears. Classical crowd psychology pathologised, reified and de-contextualised the crowd, offering the ruling elites a perceived opportunity to control it. We contend that classical theory misrepresents crowd psychology and survives in contemporary understanding because it is ideological. We conclude by discussing how classical theory has been supplanted in academic contexts by an identity-based crowd psychology that restores the meaning to crowd action, replaces it in its social context, and in so doing is transforming theoretical understanding of 'riots' and the nature of the self.

We predict a riot: inequality, relative deprivation and collective destruction in the lab

“…In the London riots of 2011, five people died, many more were 27 injured, and property damage was worth more than £200 million (Bencsik, 2018). In public 28 debates, riots are therefore often described as 'contagious' in character (Gross, 2011;Stott & 29 Drury, 2012; Stott & Drury, 2017;Warren & Power, 2015) and as reminiscent of the power of large 30 groups, with crowds being the objects of 'awe' and 'fascination' since Le Bon's crowd psychology 31 (Reicher, 2008). Academics have departed from pathologising views of rioting behaviour, and 32 riots are now understood as socially meaningful events that can bring social change (Reicher,33 2008; Reicher, 1984;Stott et al, 2018;Stott & Drury, 2017).…”

“…Why do people engage in riots? It is not uncommon for politicians to attribute rioting to the activity 36 of a small number of criminal-minded individuals (Stott & Drury, 2017). Terms like 'feral' and 'wild' 37 are used, echoing Le Bon's conception of the crowd as irrational and driven by base instincts (Le 38 Bon, 1900).…”

“…Contemporary research has distanced itself from those views. Rather than 39 irrationality, it is argued that collective violence emerges through group actions, dynamic changes 40 in social norms, values and standards, specified by the social identity crowd members adopt at a 41 time (Lewis et al, 2011;Reicher, 1984;Stott et al, 2018;Stott & Drury, 2017). Riot diffusion is 42 thus driven by social processes, such as social identities and the dynamics of self-and other-43 categorizations (Drury et al, 2020;Scacco, 2009).…”

Divide and conquer? Identity, threat, and moral justification of violence at the G20

“…Early crowd theories painted the crowd as irrational, homogenous, and unpredictable (Le Bon, ; see Drury & Stott, , for review). In contrast, social identity approaches to crowd behaviour place a greater emphasis on the functions and legitimacy of collective gatherings in a social space (Drury & Stott, ; Stott & Drury, ; Stott & Reicher, ). Specifically, the ESIM (Drury & Reicher, ; Reicher, 2001) acknowledges that most people engage in protest with legitimate and peaceful objectives; most people who go to a rally are moderate members of the community, who believe that they are asserting their legitimate right to protest and understand police presence as a neutral guarantor of social order.…”

“…Police may be empowered to curtail protesters’ behaviours in substantial ways (kettling protesters, using pepper spray) or subtle ways (declining to display or disclose police identification number) that symbolically delegitimise lawful protest. In turn, policing activity can inadvertently increase the likelihood of protesters becoming more oppositional towards the police (Stott & Drury, ). In such circumstances, escalation into conflict and violence is more likely to occur.…”