Encyclopedia of Sociology

CROWDS AND RIOTS

organization of social movements, and who are
linked together by social networks, the media, or
both. Examples of this form of collective behavior,
referred to as diffuse collective behavior (Turner
and Killian 1987) or the mass (Lofland 1981),
include fads and crazes, deviant epidemics, mass
hysteria, and collective blaming. Although crowds
and diffuse collective behavior are not mutually
exclusive phenomena, they are analytically distinct
and tend to generate somewhat different litera-
tures—thus, the focus on crowds in this selection.

Understanding crowds and the kindred collec-
tive phenomenon called ‘‘riots’’ requires consid-
eration of five questions: (1) How do these forms
of collective behavior differ from the crowd forms
typically associated with everyday behavior, such
as audiences and queues? (2) What are the distinc-
tive features of crowds as collective behavior? (3)
What are the conditions underlying the emer-
gence of crowds? (4) What accounts for the coor-
dination of crowd behavior? and (5) What are
the correlates and/or predictors of individual
participation?

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE CROWDS

OF COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND

EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR

There has been increasing recognition of the con-
tinuity between collective behavior and everyday
behavior, yet the existence of collective behavior
as an area of sociological analysis rests in part on
the assumption of significant differences between
collective behavior and everyday institutionalized
behavior. In the case of crowds, those commonly
associated with everyday life, such as at sports
events and holiday parades, tend to be highly
conventionalized in at least two or three ways.
Such gatherings are recurrent affairs that are sched-
uled for a definite place at a definite time; they are
calendarized both temporally and spatially. Sec-
ond, associated behaviors and emotional states are
typically routinized in the sense that they are
normatively regularized and anticipated. And third,
they tend to be sponsored and orchestrated by the
state, a community, or a societal institution, as in
the case of most holiday parades and electoral
political rallies. Accordingly, they are typically so-
cially approved affairs that function to reaffirm
rather than challenge some institutional arrange-
ment or the larger social order itself.

In contrast, crowds commonly associated with

collective behavior, such as protest demonstra-

tions, victory celebrations, and riots, usually chal-

lenge or disrupt the existing order. This is due in

part to the fact that these crowds are neither

temporally nor spatially routinized. Instead, as

David Snow, Louis Zurcher, and Robert Peters

(1981) have noted, they are more likely to be

unscheduled and staged in spatial areas (streets,

parks, malls) or physical structures (office build-

ings, theaters, lunch counters) that were designed

for institutionalized, everyday behavior rather than

contentious or celebratory crowds. Such crowd

activities are also extrainstitutional, and thus un-

conventional, in the sense that they are frequently

based on normative guidelines that are emergent

and ephemeral rather than enduring (Turner and

Killian 1987), on the appropriation and redefini-

tion of existing networks or social relationships

(Weller and Quarantelli 1973), or on both.

Crowd behavior has long been described as

‘‘extraordinary’’ in the sense that its occurrence

indicates that something unusual is happening.

Precisely what it is that gives rise to the sense that

something ‘‘outside the ordinary’’ is occurring is

rarely specified unambiguously, however. John

Lofland (l981) suggests that it is increased levels of

emotional arousal, but such arousal is not peculiar

to crowd episodes. The conceptualization offered

here suggests several possibilities: It is the appro-

priation and use of spatial areas, physical struc-

tures, or social networks and relations for purpos-

es other than those for which they were intended

or designed that indicates something extraordi-

nary is happening.

THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF

CROWDS

Crowds have been portrayed historically and jour-

nalistically as if they are monolithic entities charac-

terized by participant and behavioral homogenei-

ty. Turner and Killian (1987, p. 26) called this

image into question, referring to it as ‘‘the illusion

of unanimity,’’ but not until the turn toward more

systematic empirical examination of crowds was it

firmly established that crowd behaviors are typical-

ly quite varied and highly differentiated, and that

crowd participants are generally quite heterogene-

ous in terms of orientation and behavior.