評論
打印
It wasn't until the 19th century, as industrialising cities exploded in size,
直到19世紀，隨著工業化城市的擴張，
that the formal study of crowd psychology and herd behaviour emerged.
人群心理學和從眾行為的正式研究才出現。
Reflecting on the French Revolution a century earlier, thinkers such as Gustave Le Bon helped promote the idea that a crowd is always on the verge of becoming a mob.
在反思一個世紀前的法國大革命時，古斯塔夫·勒龐等思想家幫助發揚了這樣一種觀點：人群總是處于成為暴徒的邊緣。
Stirred up by agitators, crowds could quickly turn to violence, sweeping up even good, upstanding citizens in their collective madness.
在煽動者的鼓動下，人群可能會迅速訴諸暴力，甚至在集體瘋狂中掃除善良、正直的公民。
"By the mere fact that he forms part of an organised crowd," Le Bon wrote, "a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilisation."
勒龐寫道：“僅僅因為他是一個有組織的群體的一部分，一個人就在文明的階梯上下降了好幾級。”
While the discipline of crowd psychology has moved on considerably since the days of Le Bon,
盡管從勒龐時代開始群眾心理學的學科已經有了長足的發展，
these early theories still retain their hold, says Clifford Stott, a professor of social psychology at Keele University.
這些早期的理論至今仍有其影響力，基爾大學的社會心理學教授克利福德·斯托特表示。
Much of the media coverage of the riots that broke out across England in 2011 echoed the explanations of the 19th-century pioneers of crowd psychology:
2011年，英國各地爆發了騷亂，很多媒體報道都在重復19世紀眾心理學先驅的觀點：
they were a pathological intrusion into civilised society, a contagion, spread by agitators, of the normally stable and contented body politic.
它們是對文明社會的病態入侵，是通常穩定而滿足的國家的一種傳染病，由煽動者傳播開來。
Focus fell, in particular, on ill-defined "criminal gangs" stirring things up, possibly coordinating things via BlackBerry Messenger.
人們的注意力尤其集中在不明確的挑起事端的“犯罪團伙”，他們可能通過黑莓信使應用進行協作。
The foot soldiers – 30,000 people were thought to have participated – were depicted as feral thugs. Hordes. Animals.
據稱有3萬普通人參加了游行，他們被描繪成野蠻的暴徒。成群結隊。動物。
The frontpage headlines were clear: "Rule of the mob", "Yob rule", "Flaming morons".
頭版的標題很清楚：“暴民統治”、“暴徒統治”、“憤怒的白癡”。
Purportedly liberal voices clamoured for David Cameron to send in the army. Shoot looters on sight. Wheel in the water cannon.
據稱，自由主義者呼吁戴維·卡梅倫派兵。看到搶劫者就開槍。使用帶輪子的水炮。
"What we need to recognise is that from a scientific perspective, classical [crowd] theory has no validity," says Stott.
“我們需要知道，從科學的角度看，經典的群眾理論是不對的，”斯科特表示。
"It doesn't explain or predict the behaviours it purports to explain and predict. And yet everywhere you look, the narrative is still there."
“它不能解釋或預測它聲稱要解釋和預測的行為。然而，無論去哪里看，這種論述仍然存在。”
The reason, he argues, is straightforward: "It's very, very convenient for dominant and powerful groups," Stott says.
斯托特認為，原因很簡單：“這對占主導地位的強大集團來說非常、非常方便。”
"It pathologises, decontextualises and renders meaningless crowd violence, and therefore legitimises its repression."
“它是病態化，去文本化的，并使群眾暴力變得毫無意義，因此使其鎮壓合法化。”
As Stott notes, by shifting the blame to the madness of crowds, it also conveniently allows the powerful to avoid scrutinising their own responsibility for the violence.
正如斯托特所指出的，通過將責任轉移到群眾的瘋狂上，當權者也可以方便地避免審視自己對暴力事件的責任。
Last week, when the US attorney general blamed "outside agitators" for stirring up violence,
上周，當美國司法部長指責“外部煽動者”煽動暴力時，
and Donald Trump referred to "professionally managed" "thugs", they were drawing on exactly the ideas that Le Bon sketched out in the 19th century.
唐納德·特朗普提到了“專業管理的”“暴徒”，他們的想法完全是勒龐在19世紀提出的。
