from unorganized masses does not invalidatethe hiddenaffinityofmassdis-
course with antidemocratic positions.Forsimilar reasons,the depiction of the
mass as lacking (e.g., in character,intelligence, and influence) cannot be eval-
uated apart fromacountervailingimaginary that (usuallywith equallynegative
connotations) presents the masses as expansive, excessive,and explosive,pro-
pelled forward by too much spirit,attitude, and, ultimately, revolutionary will.
During theWeimar Republic, sociologists continued to analyze the changing
structures of classsociety and did so increasingly in directresponsetothe rise of
white-collar workers.Afterthe historical rupture of war andrevolution, mass dis-
course thus brieflygained newrelevancethrough itsabilityto combine morpho-
logical and empiricalapproaches to social stratification–adevelopment closely
identifiedwith the names of LeopoldvonWiese and AlfredVierkandt. However,
even the most exacting scientific methodologies could not prevent these scholars
from reproducingthe polemicalequation of workers and masses with dangerous
irrationalityand turning to emotional registers to diagnose their destructive ef-
fect on the bodypolitic. Inalengthytreatise on“Dasgewerbliche Proletariat”
(1926,usually translated asTheProletariat:AChallenge toWestern Civilization),
Catholic social philosopher Goetz Briefs (1889–1974)presented massification as
an emotional and spiritual problem, includingthrough its detrimental impact on
publicmorality.And inDie Masse. EinBeitrag zurLehre von den sozialen Gebil-
den(1930,The Mass:AContribution to the StudyofSocialFormations), sociolo-
gistWilhelm Vleugels (1893–1942) proposed new approachestothe study of
mass movements by focusing on what he described as their elusive powers as
aGefühlsgemeinschaft(emotional community).
The most ambitious studyonnew social formations as emotional commun-
ities,Die Masse und ihreAktion(1926,The Mass and itsAction) was contributed
by Theodor Geiger (1891–1952),ascholarsympathetic to Social Democratic po-
sitions but highlycritical of Marxism.ForGeiger,die Masse–likemany contem-
poraries, he preferred the singular–represented an entirely new formation with-
out the structures and traditions found in comparable social forms–asocial
gestalt in its own right.Two propositions buttressed his argument: thatthe
mass is broughtforth by revolutionary situations–specificallythe Revolution
of 1918/19–and that the mass hasalargely destabilizingeffect.His initial de-
scription of“an unstructured complex of uncountable or at least uncounted uni-
form parts”²²speaks to widespread fears about the undifferentiated and fluid na-
Theodor Geiger,Die Masse und ihreAktion. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie derRevolution(Stutt-
gart:Ferdinand Enke,1926), 1. The implications of these developments areexampledfurther
inDie soziale Schichtung des deutschenVolkes(1932).
46 Chapter1