Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Proposed article for Morning Star

Below follows an article I wrote for the Morning Star that was supposed to appear after the TUC anti-cuts demo in March, but I don't think it ever did, so it's copied here for posterity! 

Collective disorder- a psychological perspective
In the recriminations following violence on demonstrations (such as the recent TUC anti-cuts protest in London), the Police are often criticised in the right-wing Press for being too ‘soft’ and debates are often had about drafting new laws or giving the Police new weapons to deal with future protests. However, the problem is not a lack of resources, more a case of the Police using their public order tactics more sensibly in order to prevent mass disorder. Indeed, it could be argued that the more measured public order tactics they used on March 26th (the lack of mounted charges or mass containment- ‘kettling’) probably prevented comparatively isolated militant protests spreading into mass disorder, such as was seen during the 1990 Poll Tax riot. However, while such tactics were slightly more sophisticated than those seen at the tuition fees protests last year, this was probably in response to greater public scrutiny of their previous excesses, and there are still deep ideological perspectives underpinning public order policing strategy, that rely on fundamentally flawed views of crowds that risk making disorder more, rather than less likely at large scale protests. Furthermore, while attitudes amongst some senior officers are beginning to change, the view that the Police as an institution tend to have of crowds draws upon ‘classic’ theories that are not only outdated, but also largely rejected by current academic research into crowd behaviour.
‘Classic’ crowd behaviour theories:
Early approaches to crowd behaviour were led by the work of Gustave Le Bon, a French aristocrat living in Paris at the time of the 1870-1 Commune. His observations of the libertarian crowds he saw are almost all uniformly negative, and he believed that just being in a crowd resulted in a loss of one’s ‘normal’ sensibilities;
“By the mere fact that he forms part of an organised crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilisation. Isolated he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd he is a barbarian”
He also believed crowd members were inherently suggestible, and so easy to incite into disorder by agitators because of their gullibility. Finally, he suggested the concept of ‘contagion’ to describe how individual anti-social behaviour can spread quickly throughout the whole crowd, as people are sucked into a collective ‘mob mentality’. Therefore, crowds were an inherent threat to the status quo, and should be treated as such, as they were prone to violent and/or irrational behaviour. In response to this threat, the authorities had little choice but to prepare for the worst ravages of a crowd, and ensure that they had sufficient resources to defend the status quo from such potential collective outbursts. Le Bon’s theories are still influential today, and media coverage of violent protests is usually peppered with irrationalist descriptions of crowds, such as:  ‘anarchist thugs’, ‘violent extremists hijacking protests’ etc.

An alternative approach:
Social Psychologists who study crowd behaviour are critical of Le Bon’s approach because it is not supported by empirical evidence, and also deeply biased as his status and position would have been threatened by the crowds he observed. They argue instead for a more normative approach to crowd behaviour, such as the Elaborated Social Identity Model (ESIM). Numerous studies of inner-city riots and protest marches since the 1980s have found that crowd members behave in ordered ways that are governed by the social norms of the situation and the collective identity of protestors. While involvement in protests may involve a shift from a personal to a more collective identity, this does not mean that one loses one’s sense of personal identity altogether, and behaviour that conflicts with one’s own personal values is unlikely. Therefore, even in the fiercest of riots, crowd members can and do regulate their own behaviour and are often selective in their choice of targets to attack. For instance, in the 1990 Poll Tax riot, while there was looting of some shops, these tended to be banks and car show-rooms, and smaller shops that were less associated with wealth (such as local newsagents) tended to be left alone by the crowd, and some even remained open, selling produce to rioters. More recently, when students occupied Millbank Towers last November, and a fire-extinguisher was thrown from the roof, the crowd’s response was booing, followed by chants of ‘stop throwing shit!’
The reason that mass disorder occurs (as opposed to the isolated pockets of property damage and the largely peaceful occupation of Fortnum & Masons seen on March 26th) is often because Police Public order tactics are influenced by a LeBonian perspective of crowds, which sees them as an actual or potential threat to public order, and so leads them to plan their tactics accordingly. Unfortunately, this often becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is because protest crowds are usually comprised (at least initially) of diverse groups and individuals with differing views of what is legitimate behaviour, ranging from peaceful to more militant tactics. However, the Police tend to see crowds as a homogenous mass, and if commanders fear mass disorder, they often employ indiscriminate public order tactics such as containment (kettling), or dispersal (charges by mounted or foot Police) that treat the crowd in a uniform way. Such tactics often have the effect of psychologically uniting the crowd, meaning that previously isolated pockets of violent behaviour become more widespread, as violence becomes seen as more acceptable to crowd members. As the Police experience more militant behaviour from the crowd, it confirms their view that the crowd is a threat, which propels both groups’ behaviour into a cycle of escalation that is often difficult to break. Ironically, the belief that a violent minority of ‘trouble-makers’ can incite a peaceful majority into violence may also result in the very disorder that the Police seek to prevent, because if they act against the crowd as a whole in order to deal with a ‘violent minority’, this can result in others getting caught in the way and changing to consider more militant tactics as not only legitimate, but perhaps also necessary in the face of what they may consider to be an illegitimate attack against them.

The current climate of public spending cuts, (which will affect the Police as well) means that mass protests are more likely over the coming months and years. However, current crowd psychology models do not consider violence at such events is inevitable, as the vast majority of protest crowds are peaceful. It is certainly possible that individuals may turn up to protests with violent intent, but the idea that they on their own can incite the ‘unwilling’ masses into violence in the absence of wider factors is a myth. The use by the Police of indiscriminate public order tactics is a far better predictor of disorder than people in balaclavas trashing a few windows on Piccadilly. However, the way crowds in the UK have been viewed and treated by the state over the last 200 years suggests that a fundamental shift in how they are managed is necessary if the risk of widespread disorder is to be reduced significantly.

By Dr Chris Cocking, London Metropolitan University,

Friday, 15 April 2011

landmark judgement against kettling

The Guardian covers the High Court Ruling that criticises the Metropolitan Police for using their tactic of 'kettling' against the climate camp protestors in Bishopsgate, London during the G20 protests in 2009. The article and full judgement follow below. What I find rather ironic is that Police seem to have accepted that the climate camp was peaceful, but they used their kettling tactic against it to prevent other violent protestors from elsewhere 'hijacking' it. So they ended up using violent tactics (eg using their shields as weapons) against an almost entirely peaceful crowd for fear that they may be incited by others into violence! To me, this illustrates yet again a deeply irrationalist view of crowds, and an apparent lack of ability to consider the possibility that non-violent protestors might not be incited into violence just because others favouring more militant tactics may appear among them. However, I would say that that the Police advancing into them and kettling them in quite a violent way (while a lot were holding their hands in the air shouting 'this is not a riot') might be a much better way of inciting them into violence! 

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

I'm doing a talk at the London Met teach in 7th May

Students and staff from London Met are having a teach-in on may 7th at the Holloway Rd campus to protest against the cuts in HE & tripling of tuition fees, but also to highlight the positive things that HE teaching can offer if it's not considered in terms of profit. Check out the link below and download a flyer if interested- apparently I'm talking about my research into protests/collective action as well

Saturday, 2 April 2011

any questions rant 2/4/2011

Just listening to Any questions on BBC radio 4 and the panel's coverage of the anti-cuts demo, and how they all tunred on a New Statesman Journalist who was present inspired me to send them the following comment;

Listening to Laurie Penny get criticised by others on the panel (who were not there) for her description of what happened on the anti-cuts demo reminds me of the age old myths about crowds that keep getting churned out after each protest, despite there being no evidence to support them. The idea that those with violent intent can appear at a demonstration and incite others into a riot in the absence of other contextual factors, or that those engaged in property damage will automatically descend into violence towards individuals is utter nonsense and merely shows an ignorance of crowd processes. Studies of crowds over the past 30 years have found that by far the biggest predictor of mass crowd disorder is how the crowd is managed by the Police. Indiscriminate public order tactics such as kettling and mounted charges tend to have the effect of psychologically uniting previously disparate elements of a crowd together against the Police.
The belief that crowd members will uncritically follow a violent minority and get sucked into a mass mob mentality is rubbish and only reflects deeply pathological and distrustful views of crowds that may be common in popular discourse, but is not supported by numerous studies of crowd behaviour 

Friday, 1 April 2011

Morning Star spoiler article!

I was approached by the Morning Star a couple of weeks ago to write about crowds and the recent anti-cuts protests, so I dutifully agreed. However, in the meantime, a piece about me and my research (that had previosuly appeared in the Camden New Journal) has been published as well. So the link for that is below & it means I've probably got to re-write the article I was doing- dunno if it will appear as well yet.