ADVERTISEMENTS:
Collective behaviour generally centres around a phenomenon which is essentially ephemeral in nature. If, for instance, there is a street accident, a number of people would at once be attracted to the place where the accident had occurred. Their patterns of behaviour on such an occasion may vary. Some may proceed to assault physically the persons responsible for the accident.
Some may remain silent spectators. Those who proceed to assault exhibit all the characteristics of collective behaviour. That is, they behave in a way different from the way they would behave under normal conditions. Their patterns of behaviour do not conform to the ways of behaviour prescribed by the norms of society.
The second characteristic of collective behaviour is that those who are attracted by an accident or event do so haphazardly without any prior planning. Nor do they know one another. All of them remain virtually anonymous.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Anonymity encourages them to behave recklessly and irresponsibly. The third characteristic of collective behaviour is that it is a passing phase. As soon as the focus of interest which attracts individuals is removed, they disperse.
The fourth characteristic of collective behaviour is that it is unpredictable. People may react to the same or similar stimulus differently. When people go to see, say, a football match, some may shout and yell at some stage of the game, some may dance, some may pelt stones at the players and some may hurl filthy and abusive language at the umpires.
It is to be noted that, however unpredictable the nature of collective behaviour may be, it has some relationship with the broad cultural pattern of the community. For instance, an excited crowd in England indulges more in physical assault and battery than in destruction of property. In France, on the other hand, an excited crowd indulges less in physical violence and more in destruction of property.
The differences in the collective behaviour of the people in the two countries have to be sought in the different value-orientations of the two cultures.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The teachings of Catholic religion not to do physical harm to anyone as well as the prevalence of stringent laws against physical violence since the days of the French Revolution have created, in course of time, a climate of opinion against physical violence. In England, on the other hand, the people have been long accustomed to looking upon public property as sacrosanct and inviolable.
Collective behaviour apparently differs from the patterns of behaviour prescribed by the norms of society. It is, therefore, necessary to identify the circumstances which encourage people to act contrary to social norms. To begin with, when the normal social life is disrupted for some reason, some people may get bewildered as to how to meet the changed situation.
Some may react in fear and some others in anger. In either case, the pattern of behaviour influenced by such attitudes is likely to be at variance with the normal behavioural pattern of the community.
If, for instance, there is a sudden outbreak of ethnic, racial or communal violence, the affected people cannot obviously behave normally. Fear, anger and a determination to take revenge may, in combination, produce a state of mind which is inimical to observance of social norms.
They behave in the most irrational and irresponsible manner and throw to the winds, for the time being, the inhibitions which were built into the cultural fabric of the community over a long period of time extending over two, three or several generations. Similar behavioural pattern is displayed in cases of natural catastrophe when people have a feeling of having lost their moorings.
Second, sometimes elements of collective behaviour are built into the cultural life of the community deliberately in order to remove monotony from everyday life. For instance, social norms allow people to deviate, within limits, from normal pattern of behaviour and indulge in revelry — a kind of behaviour which is frowned upon and even castigated at other times.
This type of institutionalised deviation is sometimes explained in terms of what may be called a safety valve theory. People, in general, have many submerged cravings and desires which, if not fulfilled, may create emotional disturbance to individuals and tend to disturb social order.
The society, therefore, provides an opportunity to people to release their pent-up feelings and emotions by following behaviour of a deviant nature on some particular occasions.
For instance, during ‘holi’ young men and women are allowed to indulge in revelry and gaiety. Similar indulgence is allowed on many festive occasions, such as marriage, by allowing both men and women, young and old, to behave in a manner not considered proper at other times.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thirdly, loss of faith in the uprightness of law-enforcing agencies also creates conditions which favour the growth of collective behaviour.
For instance, if the impression gains ground among a section of population that the police sets at liberty the people apprehended for anti-social acts for some consideration, there would obviously grow a tendency among these people to take the law into their own hands and beat the alleged culprits mercilessly instead of handing him over to the police, contrary to canons of equity and established social norms.
Fourthly, if the social order is not based on justice and fair play, the people would naturally feel frustrated. Following frustration, discontent would grow. In the initial stages frustration and discontent may be diffused and unorganised.
But gradually frustration starts the process of circular response among people and feeling of discontent and frustration get crystallized and take the form of a purposive movement designed to disturb the social order. Collective behaviour is thus the off-shoot of an inequitable social order.