Mob Justice - A Socio-Psychological Enquiry into the Culture of Mob Lynching

Dr. AMITAVA KANJILAL,

Assistant Professor (Stage-III), Department of Political Science, Siliguri College,

Siliguri. Dist. – Darjeeling. West Bengal. PIN – 734004

Dr.amitavakanjilal@gmail.com, Mobile : 9832031786

ABSTRACT

The term "mob" can be described as a tumultuous crowd or an emotional crowd. "Lynching" refers to extrajudicial killing. Mob lynching indicates extrajudicial killing by a tumultuous or emotional crowd. Mob justice refers to justice determined by a tumultuous or emotional crowd. We often hear about the issue of mob lynching now. In Pakistan, Mashal Khan was killed through mob lynching for the crime of blasphemy. In India, people are killed through mob lynching suspected of possessing beef or for cow slaughter. However, it cannot always be said that mob outrage will result in lynching or killing. Many times, only beatings or vandalism occur. The mob does everything. Reactions to these vary widely. Many support the beating of rapists, thieves, and criminals, and support for mob justice is often greater in these cases. The events of beatings and mob lynching due to blasphemy, cow slaughter, carrying beef, kissing in public places, or a girl protesting against eve teasing (yes, this has happened in Dhaka) frequently make it to the newspapers. It is then seen that many welcome popular judgment and extrajudicial killings. Nevertheless, the aim of this writing is to discuss various aspects of mob justice and mob lynching from the perspective of social psychology.

Key-Words :  Social Psychology; Crowd Behaviour; Collective Mind; Anonymity; Extrajudicial Killing.

Introduction

 In social psychology, the crowd is an important subject. It can be said that discussions on this topic have been ongoing since the early days of psychological study. When the French psychologist Le Bon published a book titled The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind in 1895, many became interested in this subject.

A crowd is a gathering of individuals exhibiting collective behaviour. However, such gatherings and behaviours occur unexpectedly. Just as the creation of a crowd is sudden, its dissolution is equally swift. (“It is quickly created and quickly dissolved” - Maclver and Pagi: Society). Although the crowd forms spontaneously, individuals have a temporary objective in mind, which arises from the situation and is never predetermined. As a result, crowd behaviour is not orderly or organized. This is where the difference between an audience and a crowd lies. An audience always gathers at a specific time and place based on a predetermined objective. Although their attention is focused on a particular target, there may not be any exchange of thoughts between individuals. Nevertheless, because they have a predetermined goal, they remain organized.

In terms of size and nature, crowds can be of various types. Blumer categorized crowds into four types: casual crowd, conventional crowd, active crowd, and expressive crowd. Brown divided crowds into "active crowd" and "inactive crowd." By active crowd, Brown refers to a mob, while the inactive crowd refers to the audience.

When a group of individuals gathers around a road accident, it transforms into a crowd. In such situations, it can be seen that many surround the driver of the vehicle, some make obscene remarks and insults towards him, while others rush aggressively at him. At the same time, some are attempting to send the injured person to the hospital. At such moments, when the police intervene, many aggressive crowd members disperse. This is what defines a crowd. When a crowd becomes excessively unruly and engages in destructive actions, it is referred to as a mob.

On the other hand, when a group of individuals gathers at a stadium at a predetermined time to watch a game or takes their seats in an orderly fashion in front of a podium to listen to a speech, they are identified as an audience.

The Nature of Crowd Behaviour

The nature of the crowd can be explored through hypothetical scenarios regarding various aspects of crowd behaviour. Let’s consider a water polo game held at a swimming pool.

On a specific day, a crowd of spectators arrives at a swimming pool to watch a famous water polo match, eagerly occupying their respective places. The audience waits with excitement for the game to begin. Shortly before evening, the game begins with Team A on one side and Team B on the other. The game intensifies, and the spectators remain organized, all focused on the match. Up to that point, they are an audience.

Suddenly, due to a decision made by the game organizer, a few individuals raise questions and a commotion ensues. Gradually, the audience splits into two groups to support their respective teams, while others begin to make provocative gestures. When chaos reaches a peak, the organizer is forced to halt the game. People rise from their seats and start presenting arguments on behalf of their teams. At this point, the audience has transformed into a crowd. Following this, further excitement builds, and the crowd becomes unruly. Suddenly, the sound of breaking chair handles is heard. Bricks and stones start to rain down, and a brawl erupts. This situation continues to escalate for a while. In the meantime, several cars outside the pool suffer damage. To bring the situation under control, police officers fire shots in the air, causing the crowd to disperse.

In this incident, we see how the spectators become unruly and transform into a crowd, eventually becoming more aggressive and engaging in violent behaviour that leads to the emergence of a mob.

Psychologists such as Le Bon, Martin, Alport, Muzaffar Sherif, Sergeant Williamson, and others have extensively discussed the crowd. Their discussions highlight some characteristics of crowds, which we will briefly outline:

1. Mental Homogeneity: Individuals in a crowd exhibit uniformity in thought and behaviour, meaning they think and act similarly. Despite differences in education, intelligence, or profession, they react similarly due to a shared objective within the crowd. Le Bon introduced the concept of "group mind" to describe this phenomenon. According to this concept, individuals lose their individuality within a crowd. While there might be doubts regarding the existence of group mind, it is undeniable that individuals participating in a crowd demonstrate uniformity in thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and behaviours.

2. Emotionality: Crowd behaviour is highly emotional. Primitive instincts and emotions manifest within the crowd. This heightened emotional state makes crowds prone to violent actions. An individual's emotional reaction can be influenced by the behaviour of other crowd members. Suggestion and imitation play significant roles here.

3. Irrationality: Individuals lose their capacity for rational judgment within a crowd. Their sense of good and bad, right and wrong, becomes clouded. Consequently, they are inclined to believe whatever they hear. Individuals lack the ability to critically evaluate information based on logical arguments. As some psychologists suggest, the "collective mind" created in a crowd is inferior to individual mind, thus reflecting lesser judgment.

4. Diminished Sense of Responsibility: Individuals in a crowd often behave as though they have no sense of responsibility. Due to this lack of accountability, crowd members disregard others' rights, feelings, and welfare. This is why crowds can easily engage in antisocial actions such as fights, vandalism, looting, and arson. While destructive impulses can be a facet of human character, they are generally suppressed by social controls. In a crowd, the absence of social control leads individuals to behave impulsively.

5. Sense of Power: Individuals in a crowd often perceive themselves as wielding immense power. They believe there is nothing they cannot achieve. They deny the existence of any force that could hinder them. Thus, it is not uncommon to see a crowd, even unarmed, engaging in conflict with armed police forces.

6. Sense of Anonymity: The discussed features of crowds, such as mental homogeneity, emotionality, irrationality, diminished sense of responsibility, and sense of power, are fundamentally influenced by anonymity. Each individual in the crowd thinks that their actions are not solely their own responsibility but rather a collective responsibility of the entire group. They feel they are not acting alone. In a situation where there is opportunity for name and identity concealment, what is there to prevent them from becoming unruly?

Interpretation of Crowd Behaviour

In explaining crowd behaviour, Le Bon states that there is a dissolution of individual identity among crowds, leading individuals to become lost in the collective. This results in a "collective mind" that is fundamentally different from the "individual mind." A notable characteristic of crowds is that they are driven by excessive suggestion, causing a loss of personal restraint. In such cases, individuals may engage in actions they would never consider alone. E. D. Martin attempts to explain this phenomenon in his book "Crowd Behaviour." According to him, crowds are so heavily influenced by suggestion that the restraints on individual behaviour break down. As a result, the super-ego relaxes, and primitive instincts gain ascendancy. Martin likens crowd behaviour to madness. 

F. H. Allport acknowledges the role of the individual in crowd dynamics. He disputes the notion of a "collective mind," asserting that the individual's role is not negligible and that individuals do not lose their identity within the crowd. For Allport, social excitement and interpersonal arousal are crucial in crowds. He argues that personal dissatisfaction, frustration, and insecurity are necessary considerations for explaining crowd behaviour. M. Sherif posits that a norm forms within crowd behaviour, compelling individuals to act in accordance with that norm. He notes that crowd behaviour can be both destructive and constructive, highlighting that individuals can perform great deeds that may be regarded as acts of rare self-sacrifice for society. 

Sargent and Williamson emphasize that three elements must be carefully considered when discussing crowd behaviour: 

1. The Situational Field: A suitable environment is needed to create a crowd. Events like a road accident, a gambler's arrest by the police, or the presence of a mobile court at a sweet shop can provide such an environment. At times, rumours spread in a way that leads to distorted and false perceptions, which later serve as a fitting ground for crowd formation. 

2. Individual Motivations: How a person perceives a complicated situation largely depends on their motivations and emotional needs. For instance, when news spreads of a white woman being raped by a black man, motivations such as white aggression towards black people and black fear can come into play. When competition for economic and social status is intense, this aggression can escalate. In such cases, individuals may become galvanized around a rumour, while in another scenario, bystanders may rush to help a woman involved in an accident, even if the individual normally exhibits misogynistic tendencies. This kind of altruism can also occur within crowds. 

3. Tendency Towards Conformity and Suggestibility: A norm emerges from crowd behaviour. Individuals become united with the emergent goals and start acting according to new norms. As a result, one can observe individuals participating in mob beatings, attempting to gather information around a body lying by the roadside, or mobilizing for rescue efforts after an accident. 

Conclusion

It is quite common for individuals' opinions and judgments to change under the influence of the collective crowd, a phenomenon explained by normative social influence. This occurs due to a specific bias in individuals known as compliance bias or conformity bias. Psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous experiment highlighting how being influenced by many can lead an individual to doubting even the most certain facts, known as the Asch conformity experiments.

Thus, we see that mobs are not always destructive; at times they can be beneficial. However, mobs are often overly emotional, irrational, and irresponsible. These characteristics cannot be denied, no matter how good their actions might be. A mob can erupt in any criminal act, targeting thieves, rapists, eve-teasers, or drivers that run over people, where the crowd's anger can lead to physical assault on the perpetrator. If such actions result in the death of a criminal, however, it becomes mob lynching, which is extrajudicial killing. While receiving a few blows from a mob may not seem too problematic, once a couple of people join in after seeing someone being beaten, resulting in death becomes very likely. Moreover, in cases of mob violence, individuals lose their capacity for judgment, and the ability to discern right from wrong diminishes. Thus, relying on a mob for justice is never advisable. 

To you, theft and rape are crimes, but perhaps for the person shouting beside you, these aren't the only crimes; kissing in a public place is a crime for them, carrying cow meat is a crime, openly criticizing religion is a crime, free thinking is a crime. It is these very 'crimes' that can provoke them to contribute to mob lynching. Therefore, regardless of the crimes committed, as positive as mob justice may seem, it promotes a culture of impunity and public judgment, and while some aspects of this culture may appear beneficial at first, ultimately it harms society. This does not mean I am advocating for leaving thieves, rapists, goons, eve-teasers, or murderers unpunished. Capture them, hand them over to the police, take them to the station, but please also ensure that the judgment of such crimes does not fall into the hands of mobs.

I have also mentioned the relationship with impulsive and emotional demands. When racism is stoked among white people, instances of mob violence against them increase. In the same way, many claim that the culture of mob lynching in India arises from the provocation of beef-eaters and animosity toward them. We know that at various gatherings, political and religious speeches often contain hate speech, purposefully spreading animosity. The results of these lead to mob lynching. If one hopes to end the culture of mob lynching, this type of hate speech must stop, and demonizing any ethnic or religious group needs to be avoided. In any public assembly, the audience can easily transform into a mob, so we must exercise special caution in these cases, and training must be provided on how to control such mobs in modern ways.

There is a purpose behind all my words. We are all human, and whoever reads this is also human. Mob justice and normative social influence—these are normal phenomena. Anyone can be prone to react in situations like this. But if someone is already aware of this phenomenon, it may be easier for them to control themselves. Acknowledging biases significantly reduces susceptibility to those biases, and then individuals consciously try to rise above them. Thus, raising public awareness about this matter is also vital.

REFERENCE :

Bon. Gustave Le; (2008); The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind; imusti publication; Delhi. 

Allport. Floyd Henry; (2012); Social Psychology; Houghton Mifflin Company;  Boston.

Martin. Everett Dean; (2006) The Behaviour of Crowds: A Psychological Study; Kessinger Publishing; Delhi.

Sherif. Muzafer and Sherif. Carolyn w.; (1956); An Outline of Social Psychology; Harper; London.

Sargent. Claudia Karabaic and Williamson. Marianne; (1958); Social Psychology: An Introduction to the Study of Social Relations; The Ronald Press Co.; New York.

Blumer. Herbert; (1971); Collective Behaviour; Oxford University Press; New York.  

Feldberg, M.; (1980); The Turbulent Era: Riot and Disorder in Jacksonian America.; Oxford University Press; New York.

Goode. E. and Ben-Yehuda. N.; (2009); Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance; Wiley-Blackwell; Malden.

Rule. J. B; (1988); Theories of Civil Violence; University of California Press; Berkeley.