BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The herd mentality, why it exists, and good old anarchy

  
 
Rage
00:55 / 21.05.02
I'm sure this has been done here before, but my question is when and where. And if this hasn't been done in a while:

Do you think the herd mentality exists because of

A. the general stupidity of the average mind
B. humanity and its natrual instinct to depend on others
C. humanity and its natrual instinct to form massive masses
(and are these natrual instincts?)
D. the government
E. combinations of factors and forces
F. none of the above, dumbfuck

Basically, is there some governmental force convincing the masses that they need to herd herd herd, or are people just plain idiots? I assume the cause consists of many political, psychological, and social parts- but I'm very much interested in finding out what exactly has been causing this horrid groupthink for oh so long?

I'm also interested in finding out if anarchy would increase or decrease this mentality. I'm guessing decrease, but I could be wrong here. Would "the herd" loose its power due to nil government, or would it simply become larger and more powerful due to cowardly reactions towards such "chaos". (springing meta unity of the mindless sort)

And yes, I know that it's natrual for animals to herd, but humans aren't just any animal now. Humans have the ability and option to lead herdless lives. Also, we can never ultimately know if animals have a "government", being that we can't communicate in animal tongue. So. I figure it would be silly to make comparisons between animal and human herding.

And stuff. There's a lot I want to say here, but I figure you guys will go ahead and take care of things.
 
 
the Fool
01:27 / 21.05.02
How about good old fashioned Fear. Fear of being alone, fear of isolation, fear of others, fear of being the other.

Being in a group provides protection, creates identity, reduces fear. Being in a group allows you to identify with others easier, produces commonality.
 
 
SMS
01:28 / 21.05.02
What is this herd mentality?

You make it sound absolutely ghastly.
 
 
netbanshee
03:58 / 21.05.02
Seems to all come down to procreation if you ask me. The need to find a suitor and pass on genes happens more effectively when surrounded by an environment that's more comfortable and proper. Out of chaos arises order. And since of course this isn't an endevor we all consciously pursue every waking moment of our lives, we need to work together in the other aspects as well.

Trying to do it all on your own may not be possible or available nowadays but would be difficult to undertake nonetheless. Would be hard finding time to talk here when I don't know where my next meal will come from, knowing that some ruffian isn't trying to take my life, shelter, or belongings, etc.

But it is a bit strange when all of the basics are met and the weird social abstractions that arise from the free time of likeminded individuals...
 
 
Saveloy
08:22 / 21.05.02
Ragel, can you explain what you mean by 'herd mentality'? Give us some examples of herd behaviour, please, and explain why you think it's an out-and-out negative thing (which I'm guessing from your first post).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:44 / 21.05.02
I for one certainly find it very dull the way people cluster together like sheep to condemn the herd mentality...
 
 
Ganesh
08:46 / 21.05.02
We're social animals. We like herds.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:18 / 21.05.02
Um, I think herds are a grazing thing. I think we have a troop mentality. One reason why we have a strong social element (perhaps that's too mild a way of putting it) is surely that we evolved that way. It's not an artifact of the evil system - it's an inherited trait, like walking on two legs. We could buck the trend, but it's not just a matter of rebelling against consumer culture, and the result might not be positive over all.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:18 / 21.05.02
I like herds, it means we get pretty clothes and overturn nasty political situations faster. Of course it also means we get in to nasty political situations faster. My god, it's all circular, what an epiphany. My god, I don't know how to spell epiphany. Run to the hills.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
10:56 / 21.05.02
i'm guessing that Ragel was referring more to the negative side of group behaviour, basically the tendency for large groups of people to stand around saying "moo" until someone tells them what to do, whereupon most of the crowd will follow the suggestion no matter how dumb the idea. Ref. the Mardi Gras assault thread a while ago. Mass hysteria being somewhere on the far end of the spectrum.

That mostly comes down to how easy life can get if you let others make your decisions, manipulated by certain agencies whose interests are best served by this. Be individual, be special, wear Nike, that kind of thing.
 
 
Gibreel
13:46 / 21.05.02
Who are you calling a dumbfuck, you dumbfuck?

Can we have a "Herd Mentality: Are You an Arrogant Teen Ubermensch or Mindless Sheep Drone?" online quiz, because this question keeps on coming up and rarely turns into anything interesting.
 
 
SMS
15:21 / 21.05.02
Mass hysteria should be distinguished from the group thinking on other levels. We're in a completely different state of mind, at this point. People do things they don't even remember doing later because they're using different functions of their brains.

When group thinking manifests itself in the form of group knowledge, then it can be a good thing. We all believe this business about DNA, but I've never seen sufficient evidence to justify this belief. We take our cues from the experts. If I went up to my average classmate and told him that I didn’t think DNA was real, he’d think I was a loony. I bet he hasn’t seen the evidence, either.

Group thinking also manifests itself in an ethical or philosophical way. One society may be more focused on honor and duty, while another focuses on rights and priveleges. And there is a general agreement about each of these. It is your duty to provide for your children or your right to worship as you please, and so on... This kind of group thinking is neither right nor wrong. Ethics can not be proven, and very intelligent, free-thinking people can hold to some fairly horrifying principles. When it comes to this, we tend to follow the charismatic, articulate, confident among us.

But the relationship is not entirely sheep and shepherd. There is a feedback process, so that if the leadership speaks in ways that ring true for the people, then they will respond with praise, and the leadership will say it louder and with more confidence. He might be talking about privatization, regulation, freedom, or a pogrom. These things only work when the people already have beliefs conducive to the new ones. Try forcing the Jews to wear a star of David in the United States today. If you say it loud enough, you’ll probably get a few people to come out in support of you---those who have always hated Jews, but were too afraid to say it. However, it won’t be a very successful movement. People won’t just follow anything you tell them to follow.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:22 / 21.05.02
Note to self: more examples, less exaggeration. I remember a psychological test where they sat the subject in a room with a number of poeple who were in on the test. They were all told to sit there until they were fetched. Few minutes later they started sending smoke into the room (not much, just noticable) which was studiously ignored by all but the subject. Then they timed the subject to see how long they would accept the group 'consensus' and do as they had been told. I think one of them didn't leave until 10 minutes after the smoke started.
That's what I was talking about, the tendency to ignore your own judgment in order to stick with the group you are in.
 
 
Ganesh
16:58 / 21.05.02
Fear of expulsion from one's tribe?
 
 
Rage
22:50 / 21.05.02
I love this place. Nobody else calls me on my shit quite as well as you guys. Thank you. I know that you were me once, and all that fun. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to mock me with such biting wit. Or maybe you're just a meanine, Mr. Online Quiz? Hey, you know what, I should actually make that quiz. Self mockery, and all that.

Now, back to Debate, I think you guys missed my intended point, and this is probably because I wasn't clear enough. Damn me.

I will admit that I may have negative generalizations about what I refer to as "the herd." I sometimes even think of "the herd" as the epitome of all that I loate, as strong a word as that is. Maybe this somewhat relates to my childhood experiences of endless torment by extremely large groups of girls? Whatever combinations springs this loathing, the loathing is still loathing merrily. (in a creative sense)

What do I think "the herd" is, Testers? "The herd" can be anything you refer to as "the herd". It can be large numbers of people gathering in large groups, large groups, larger larger larger- churches, government organizations, subcultures, media elite tribes, military tribes, school systems, corporations (including Adbusters) etc. etc. etc. the usual etc. etc. etc. My own personal definition of "herding," Testers, is grouping yourself with others and forming a larger entity that can be used to bring forth power and supresses any form of individuality, creativity, thought expression, freedom from any type of "norms," and freedom from any type of persecution from "unspoken norms."

This is the definition of "the herd" that I was talking about. Should have been more clear. Now can we get back to the "if anarchy would increase or decrease this?"
 
 
Trijhaos
01:10 / 22.05.02
Sorry I have to be the one to say this but Anarchy wouldn't do shit. Let's say you take the government away and everybody's left to do their own thing. Ok, so this goes on for awhile, but eventually people are going to start looking to the stronger members of their little communities and asking, "What should we do?". The intelligent people set their children up in positions of power. After awhile the descendents of these people become unfit to rule, but you've got the whole power structure in place. Anarchy eventually leads to feudalism and we're back where we started.

Now I'm sure someone will come in and tear my argument to pieces, but that's how I see things.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:03 / 22.05.02
Oh, that kind of herding. In that case, what do you call a group of anarchists getting together to change the world, or at least a little bit of their worlds?

These groups form, as has been mentioned before, simply because there is strength, comfort and safety in numbers. It's mostly a practical arrangement. Anarchy might give people slightly greater self-confidence, and would probably prune some of the more ritualistic of the comfort groups (organised religion, Oprah, that kind of thing) but probably not much more than that.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:46 / 22.05.02
I normally stay out of these conversations, but anyway...

I wonder if it's based in biology. As simple hunter/gatherers we developed certain patterns of behaving in synch, those famous tales of women's menstral cycles coming together (though I don't know how close they have to be for this to work), and if someone ate something that made them vomit people nearby would often start vomiting too, in case something had poisoned the groups food. Could this carry over in to making herd behaviour common when we stopped being quite so monkeylike and started being human? Plus, psychologically, whoever had the biggest tribe had the greatest chance of surviving in a battle, so it's in the groups best interest to sand down any rough edges, or eject them...

And I didn't even mention memes once...
 
 
No star here laces
17:56 / 22.05.02
Some views of why people like to conform.

Erich Fromm, coming from a psychoanalytic perspective says that all humans long for the melding with another being that existed when they were in the womb. He proposes a number of ways that people try to regain this melding.

1) Art. Some people try to express themselves creatively to let others experience a bit of themself and also for the admiration that success at artistic endeavour engenders.

2)Love. True one-ness with another being. The drive towards love can also be pathologically expressed through seeking for power over other humans (they do your will and thus are part of you) or submission (you do their will and are thus part of them).

3)Conformity. By behaving like others and 'fitting in' you assert your commonality with humanity.

Fromm considers true love to be the only one of these stratagems with any hope of success or satisfaction.

Another way of looking at it is Mary Douglas' "Thought styles" hypothesis about different ways people attempt to use their cognitive capacity to engage with the world.

1) The individualist. Driving in the fast lane - aiming for a wide-flung open network, enjoying technology, arty, risky styles of entertainment and freedom to change commitments. Individualists attempt to engage the world head-on and position themselves as being at the forefront and reject the other three styles. Individualism is at root a highly material lifestyle.

2) The hierarchical. Formal, adhering to established traditions and institutions, maintaining a defined network of family and old friends. As material as the individualist, hierarchical individuals instead of attempting to keep pace with change instead prefer to try and construct an oasis of calm and stasis that requires ostensibly less energy. The hierarchist admires the individualist lifestyle but prefers not to engage with it.

3) The egalitarian. Rejected by the first two groups, the egalitarian in turn rejects their values, preferring simplicity of culture and dress and seeking out intimate friendships without artifice. The egalitarian attempts to engage with society at a root, human level less dependent on culture. This is, of course, a culture of its own and the egalitarian makes consumer and lifestyle choices to reflect this.

4) The isolationist. Eclectic, withdrawn and unpredictable the isolate prefers not to be troubled by other humans at all. Ze is not imposed upon by friends or society and can use all their time and capital to indulge hir solitary interests. Depending on your frame of reference ze is either free or alienated.

Another outlook is simply Darwinian.

Humans are weak and vulnerable. Our strength comes from our ability to cooperate - Xmen: "Cassandra cannot conceive of cooperation, that is how we will beat her". We have an innate drive to work together because it is our best strategy for survival. From this perspective, the isolationist is a parasite upon society - ze does not contribute but only leeches on the work of others by enjoying the fruits of their collective labour. Rejection and persecution of isolationists is therefore simply a survival strategy.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:04 / 22.05.02
one thing i will say about the herd mentality, as a contemporary phenomenon (rather than historical or prehistorical) - is that, now that 'cool' has come unmoored from its contercultural (or at least alternative) roots, and its definition rendered entirely circular - ie. 'i wear these labels, which are cool - they are cool because they are labels - that people like me wear, etc' - 'cool' generally equals conformist.
 
 
SMS
22:55 / 22.05.02
Not to say that you're necessarily wrong that 'cool' generally equals conformist, but I cannot think of a single person I have ever met who has used it in this way. I can think of ten or twenty who say it is used this way all the time.

Sorry if this is a bit off-subject.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
15:40 / 23.05.02
i don't think it is.

i think it does beg the question, 'is a self-aware herd still a herd?'
 
 
YNH
06:55 / 24.05.02
Aren't successful anarchy and "the herd" intimately (codependently even) linked?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:03 / 24.05.02
Exactly how many people does it take to make a herd, then? Bearing in mind that Barbelith is, apparently, made up of more than 900 people.
 
 
Rage
01:56 / 28.05.02
I feel quite stoopid now.
 
 
Cloudhands
18:02 / 30.05.02
quote: 'is a self-aware herd still a herd?'

I'd just like to reopen the debate with a bit of Heidegger. Heidegger refers to the 'they'- the herd who are characterised by 'averageness'. What's important to Heidegger is not that we think 'I'm going to be an individual' and completely rebel from the herd, but that we chose things for the right reasons 'our' reasons rather than just doing something because everyone else does it.
Being individual doesn't isn't necessarily about being different, it's about being aware of what your doing and why.
 
 
MJ-12
18:46 / 30.05.02
For example, Heidegger having chosen National Socialism for his own reasons?
 
 
Cloudhands
18:50 / 30.05.02
well...I'm not claiming Heidegger actually followed his philosophy but it is a good principle to follow!
 
  
Add Your Reply