The Principles of Collective Behaviours - Essay Example

? Choose a current and specific social problem or phenomenon (Vancouver Hockey Riot and analyze the social phenomenon employing a theoretical lens Introduction Communities have a deep impact on way individuals behave, interact or interpret things and incidents around them. Various research studies and observations made by academicians and practitioners in social sciences have studied and analysed the reasons why individuals behave in a certain manner and what are the various factors that contribute to their actions and reactions. The social theories and constructs claim that human beings are involved in a constant process of interaction and interpretation that form the basis for their actions and reactions to events (Nooy, 2009). The Vancouver Hockey Riot 2011, illustrates an excellent case study for analyzing the impacts of social problems and community unrest on group behavior and reactions to incidents taking place around them. In 2010, the Vancouver Hockey team won gold in the Winter Olympics and the streets of Vancouver were laced with people celebrating the victory. The scene was totally opposite in the year 2011 when thousands of individuals turned violent and the city witnessed violence in reaction to the loss of Vancouver Canucks in the Stanley Cup hockey tournament (CTV, 2011). The mob burnt cars and engaged in other forms of crime that included looting of shops, destroying property, and assaulting the policemen (CTV, 2011). The actions reflect the anger and humiliation of facing loss in the game. However, the event sparked off debates on the reasons behind this violent attack and analysis of various perspectives that explain human behavior in groups. Thesis Statement In light of Goffman and Blumer's theoretical insights, this paper will explore the organization and behaviours of individuals participating within the 2011 Vancouver hockey riots while analyzing the principles of collective behaviours, social cohesion, social construction and social positions. The paper will explore the behavior and organization of individuals engaged in the Vancouver Hockey riots 2011 based on the analysis of different social constructs and theoretical perspectives that explain the principles of collective behavior and social cohesion. The subsequent paragraphs provide an insight into mob behavior and community interaction theories that will help in analyzing the course of events and factors leading to the violent behavior of the mob in Vancouver. Theoretical perspectives related to symbolic interactionism 1 Herbert Blumer (1969) came up with the term “symbolic interactionism.” According to the symbolic interaction theory, a family consists of interacting personalities. This theory highlights the manner in which people through symbols. These symbols can take the part of words, gestures, rules and roles. Symbolic interactionism views individuals as free to interpret the meaning of the interaction that they witness, which allows for variation in responses to action and events. Herbert Blumer in his book (1969) introduced the primary concepts in symbolic interactionism as – 2 1. ‘Human beings act toward things on the basis of meanings which these things have for them.’ 3 2. ‘The meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person with regard to the thing.’ 4 3. ‘The use of meanings by the actor occurs through a process of interpretation’ (p2). Several studies by social scientists have concluded that the workings of the human brain and people’s actions and behavior are based on instincts. Social scientists were of the view that people’s conduct and behavior with respect to taking care of their children; not being open to change, and seeking new and exciting experiences were based on maternal, conservative, or novelty-seeking instincts. Human behavior and the way people conduct themselves in greatly influenced by their social surroundings. This influence of the society on human behavior takes place in various forms, degrees and over the period of a person’s life. Studies on human behavior that do not consider the factor of social environment can never be complete and come to a meaningful conclusion (Nooy, 2009). From the standpoint of symbolic interactionism, society is a function of communication and interaction between individuals who behave and act based on the stimulus of people’s conduct and actions in their surroundings. People’s behavior and conduct are the by products of society they live in. At the same time, people’s attitudes, beliefs, values and actions have an impact on society. Hence society and people and inter-linked and not mutually exclusive. One does not have meaning and purpose without the other (Stryker, 1987). Humans are the only living beings with the ability to think and reason. People’s opinion of themselves is affected by their external environment. The human mind is analytical and has the capability to choose the best course of action from the alternatives available. Sociology in its attempts to study, analyze and interpret human behavior must take into account the subjective experience of the people being studied and factor in those experiences in analyzing behavior. This imagery shows that people are not merely influenced by their external environment in their conduct and behavior. They have active and creative minds that can think on their own and exercise their right of choice in selecting a course of action. People’s actions are the function of complex, socially coordinated activities involving several people. For instance, the gesture of shaking hands cannot be viewed just as a reciprocal act of extending one’s hand in response to the extended hand of another. Rather it is also a socially coordinated act which is based on the past experiences and future hopes of two individuals. The established social norms also need to be considered. Collective action and its impact on community A basic definition of collective action is an activity undertaken goal-directed activity engaged in jointly by two or more individuals. It entails the pursuit of a common objective through joint action – that is, people working together in some fashion for a variety of reasons, often including the belief that doing so enhances the prospect of achieving the objective. Since collective action so defined obviously includes a large number of human behaviors, it is useful to differentiate those collective actions that are institutionalized or normatively sanctioned from those that are not and that fall outside of institutional channels. Social movements are driven by employing non-institutionalized means of action. This includes appropriating and using public and quasi-public places for purposes other than those for which they were designed or intended. As a result, differentiating between different types of collective action helps in distinguishing joint actions and movements (Marx, 1970). According to Sidney Tarrow (1998: 3), “collective action not only takes many forms – brief or sustained, institutionalized or disruptive, humdrum or dramatic, but most of it occurs within institutions on the part of constituted groups acting in the name of goals that would hardly raise an eyebrow’’ Traditionally, the role of culture in collective action has been classified under the heading of ideology. Ideology is a specific and integrated set of values, beliefs, and goals associated with a movement or a broader, encompassing social entity. It is the basis for questioning the status quo in society and acts as an impetus for bringing about changes in the social and cultural environment (Delamater, 2006). The excessively negative and psychological image of the crowd has been undermined by certain theoretical developments in sociology. Neil Smelser (1968) opposing the characterizations of crowd action as irrational, unpredictable, purposeless and unrestrained, has made a useful contribution by putting forth the argument that collective behavior can be explained and analyzed based on the same categories as conventional behavior .Much of human action, whether collective or in a more institutionalized setting, can be seen as goal-directed and purposive, involving a response to the exigencies of social life affirmation of that response by the assignment of positive values to it, and a definition of the situation in which it occurs. People’s views, beliefs and opinions about their surrounding environment has a significant role to play. In addition, collective outbursts follow the same pattern and structure of routine social life. Hence, conservative theorists were proved wrong in drawing rigid lines of distinction between individual and collective behavior. Individuals when they are a part of a group tend to have a reduced sense of responsibility. Larger number of people in a group results in reduced individual accountability (Howarth, 2001). In a group, when there is failure or error, it becomes difficult to put the blame in one person. It becomes easier to pass the buck and avoid being accountable. Functioning in a group may also reduce a person’s level of self-awareness. This could result in a person’s moral standards deteriorating and negatively impact his ability to display empathy for others (Schweinburger, 2000). As a result, these individuals in wake of undertaking illegal and immoral activities of throwing beer bottles, smashing windows with rocks and looting stores, do not think about the consequences of their actions; how it will harm others, and how in the long term will have a negative effect on themselves. Local bar owners were also quick to point out the excessive alcohol consumption could have had a negative bearing on the events that took place during the riots. Excessive drinking results in people losing all their inhibitions and reduced ability to control and regulate their actions. It severely hampers people’s logical thinking and critical reasoning. People under the influence of alcohol are more prone to undertake unwanted risks, get into more accidents and/or assaults, and have severe impairment in judgment (Bhatia, 2011). Emotions driving crowds at sporting events Collaboration is one of the age old methods used by human beings to relate and exchange information and ideas. Social gatherings and communities have been instrumental in relaying messages across individuals and groups that serve to satisfy the curiosity and interests of the members. The events industry has transformed itself to new heights under the influence of global cultures and the growing trend of corporatizing public events like FIFA and the Olympics.Community development framework is an innovative approach to crime prevention in communities. The events industry has hence become a booming global business that has made its impact felt on society and economy. Events like FIFA and Olympics are used to promote business goals and generate revenues through increased consumerism. The commercial appeal of such events is evident in the mass popularity of such games and the high rate of visibility offered during the global telecast of such games and events. Sporting events brings into play a lot of emotions in people. There is a logical reason for the term “fans” being used to refer to persons who love sports. The term “fan” originated from the word fanatic. It can be said that a lot of people have acted like fanatics during sports games particularly from the viewpoint of those who do not understand or follow sports and cannot understand the emotions at play. Hence people get deeply involved in the game. The emotional stakes could not be any higher for the fans: Game 7, Stanley Cup Finals in a Canadian city. Therefore, for some fans, rioting may have been an outlet to vent their frustrations and actions. As a way to deal with these extraordinary emotions, individuals may be spurred on to become aggressive, violent, and destructive. However, this does not justify their actions as it is a negative way to express feelings. But this emotional component does have an important part in influencing people’s behavior. People may question that even though these hockey fans passionately follow the teams they support and were frustrated and angry at the loss, it does not give them the right to undertake such violent acts. This can be answered in part based on the research done on the impact of the group on the individual. As a start, being a part of the big group like the one after game 7 of the Stanley Cup final can result in deindividuation. Deindividuation is a process by which there is loosening of typical restriction on behavior when people are in a group, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts (Bhatia, 2011). This means that those people may engage in violent and illegal behaviors as part of a large group which they would have otherwise not done on their own. As a part of a big group, people may have reduced ability to self-regulate and feel that they could get away with such deviant acts. While numerous research studies have focused on identifying the factors that have a direct impact on the public safety in mass gatherings, there is little consensus on the forces that drive negative behavior and rioting tendencies among crowds. Zeitz et al (2007) in their research paper observe that undesirable crowd behavior results from two primary causes - “ first, there must be a seed, an individual or small group who attempts to engage the crowd or take action that the crowd wishes to join with; second, the crowd engages with a seed and abnormal crowd behavior results” (p36). The process of crowd engagement is based on the assumption that the crowd behavior is influenced by groups of individuals who believe in something and that the action of one instigates the others in the crowd to act similarly. The conventional factors driving such behavior have been identified as “excessive consumption of alcohol, the emergence of pack or hooliganism behavior, and signs of individual aggression” (Zeitz et al., 2007, p36). Conclusion Riots are predominantly a combination of psychological and social variables. Individuals are not inherently “bad” per se. But at the same time not all are merely victims of circumstances. The specific reasons that trigger riots may be different each time it happens, but when they come together as they did after the game 7 in Vancouver, it can lead to disastrous consequences. Few people may have personality traits that may attract them to deviant activities. They will commit criminal acts because that is rewarding to them. Few people may not care about the cause or purpose of the event. They may just may use of the opportunity to satisfy their need to break rules, wreak havoc and disobey the law. Others could be incapable of controlling their emotions or may lack experience in controlling these impulses. Police Chief Jim Chu reported that most of the problems in the latest Vancouver riot were a result of criminals and anarchists whose main aim was to break the law (Bhatia, 2011). These people merely used the hockey game as an opportunity disobey rules and break laws in order to execute their own goals. References Bhatia, M. (2011). Reflecting on Vancouver: Why do people riot? Retrieved on July 27th 2011 from http://psychstateofmind.com/2011/06/17/reflecting-on-vancouver-why-do-people-riot/ CTV. (2011). Police actions questioned in the wake of Vancouver riots. Retrieved on July 27th 2011 from http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110616/vancouver-riots-110616/20110616/?hub=OttawaHome Denzin, N.K. (1969). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology: a proposed synthesis. American Sociological Review. Vol 34. No.6. Delamater, J. (2006). Handbook of social psychology. Springer LLC. Howarth, C. (2001). Towards a social psychology of community: a social representations perspective. Journal for the theory of social behavior. 31(2). Pp – 223-238. Keitz, K.M., Tan, H.M., Grief, M., Couns, P.C. & Zeitz, C.J. (2007). Crowd behavior at mass gatherings: a literature review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. Vol 24. No.1. pp 32-38. Marx, G. (1970). Issueless riots. American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol 391. Pp. 21-33. Nooy, W. (2009). Formalizing symbolic interactionism. Methodological Innovations Online. Vol 4. Pp 39-52. Ramsford, H. E. (1968). Isolation, powerlessness, and violence: a study of attitudes and participation in the Watt’s riots. American Journal of Sociology. Vol 73. No. 5. Schweinbruger, D. (2000). Mob sociology and escalated force: sociology’s contribution to repressive police tactics. The Sociological Quarterly. Vol 41. No.3. pp 371-389. Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., & Kriesi, H. (2004). The Blackwell companion to social movements. Blackwell Publishing. Smelser, N. (1968). Theory of collective behavior. Prentice Hall. Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol 50. No.1. pp 83-94. Read More