jim.shamlin.com

The Classification of Crowds

Thus far, the general characteristics common to all crowds has been explored, with the promise that they would be classified and the characteristics peculiar to certain crowds considered. The present chapter provides a basic schema for classifying crowds, those that follow will consider the properties specific to certain kinds of crowds.

The highest level of classification considers the degree to which a crowd represents a common identity - whether the people who compose a crowd are heterogeneous or homogeneous.

Given that crowds are collectives, and that in order to form they must coalesce, this is a significant factor. A crowd that is more homogenized will coalesce faster and remain consolidated for longer than one that is diverse, as in the latter case it is more difficult to define a common ground.

Consider the contrast between the Roman Empire, a homogenous crowd, and the barbarian hordes that destroyed it, which were heterogeneous. Rome remained more or less consolidated for a thousand years whereas the barbarian tribes that sacked Rome failed to remain united for even a year after accomplishing their common purpose.

Granted, Rome was a civilization whereas the barbarians were merely a horde, but the fundamental difference between a society and a crowd is uniformity, and as such provides support for the use of homogeneity as the primary taxonomy for classifying crowds.

Heterogeneous Crowds

Heterogeneity is significant because of the remote factors that determine the behavior of crowds, as discussed previously. A crowd composed of people of a given culture will have tendencies that derive from the common culture of its constituents, whereas a crowd composed of people of different cultures has no such basis. It may (and must) form a culture on its own, by a haphazard and superficial process of negotiation before determining how it may act.

Once we have identified a crowd as being heterogeneous, a second level of distinction is anonymity:

The primary difference between anonymous and non-anonymous crowds arises from the protection of anonymity. The members of an anonymous crowd have no fear of retribution against themselves once the crowd has been dispersed. If their actions be criminal in nature, no-one will be punished, as it was the decision of the crowd and its members were unknown.

Non-anonymous crowds do not have this liberty, and each member is well aware he will be held accountable for his actions afterward. While they may give themselves over to the sentiment of the crowd, it is with some reservation.

Homogeneous Crowds

A homogeneous crowd can congeal and decide upon an action more quickly than a heterogeneous one because the constituents of the crowd have a common culture and belief system. Their behavior also tends to be more predictable for this reason: if you understand the culture, you can likely identify which options are more or less likely to be selected.

Homogeneous crowds can be classified according to the elements of culture they have in common, for example:

The sect often represents the first step in the organization of homogeneous crowds, and is useful in gathering people together for a purpose. The fact that people have shared beliefs cause them to gather together and be prepared to take action. While they may not agree entirely, there is sufficient agreement to form a common ground.

A caste provides for the highest degree of alignment of interests, as crowds based on these factors have a tendency to gather repeatedly or to form standing organizations focused on their common interests, which form their common ground.

A class of individuals is the weakest of the three, as the people of a given class may have different political and religious beliefs, different professions and functional interest, and many other differentiations - the only thing they have in common is their lifestyle, often determined by their material wealth.

Conclusion and Transition

Le Bon acknowledges that this classification system is very high-level and lacks a great deal of granularity. He will reserve a more in-depth study "for another volume."

He then makes the transition to the final section of the present study, which will examine four specific kinds of crowd: criminal crowds, juries, electoral crowds, and parliamentary assemblies.