评论
打印
It wasn't until the 19th century, as industrialising cities exploded in size,
直到19世纪，随着工业化城市的扩张，
that the formal study of crowd psychology and herd behaviour emerged.
人群心理学和从众行为的正式研究才出现。
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.
在反思一个世纪前的法国大革命时，古斯塔夫·勒庞等思想家帮助发扬了这样一种观点：人群总是处于成为暴徒的边缘。
Stirred up by agitators, crowds could quickly turn to violence, sweeping up even good, upstanding citizens in their collective madness.
在煽动者的鼓动下，人群可能会迅速诉诸暴力，甚至在集体疯狂中扫除善良、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."
勒庞写道：“仅仅因为他是一个有组织的群体的一部分，一个人就在文明的阶梯上下降了好几级。”
While the discipline of crowd psychology has moved on considerably since the days of Le Bon,
尽管从勒庞时代开始群众心理学的学科已经有了长足的发展，
these early theories still retain their hold, says Clifford Stott, a professor of social psychology at Keele University.
这些早期的理论至今仍有其影响力，基尔大学的社会心理学教授克利福德·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，英国各地爆发了骚乱，很多媒体报道都在重复19世纪众心理学先驱的观点：
they were a pathological intrusion into civilised society, a contagion, spread by agitators, of the normally stable and contented body politic.
它们是对文明社会的病态入侵，是通常稳定而满足的国家的一种传染病，由煽动者传播开来。
Focus fell, in particular, on ill-defined "criminal gangs" stirring things up, possibly coordinating things via BlackBerry Messenger.
人们的注意力尤其集中在不明确的挑起事端的“犯罪团伙”，他们可能通过黑莓信使应用进行协作。
The foot soldiers – 30,000 people were thought to have participated – were depicted as feral thugs. Hordes. Animals.
据称有3万普通人参加了游行，他们被描绘成野蛮的暴徒。成群结队。动物。
The frontpage headlines were clear: "Rule of the mob", "Yob rule", "Flaming morons".
头版的标题很清楚：“暴民统治”、“暴徒统治”、“愤怒的白痴”。
Purportedly liberal voices clamoured for David Cameron to send in the army. Shoot looters on sight. Wheel in the water cannon.
据称，自由主义者呼吁戴维·卡梅伦派兵。看到抢劫者就开枪。使用带轮子的水炮。
"What we need to recognise is that from a scientific perspective, classical [crowd] theory has no validity," says Stott.
“我们需要知道，从科学的角度看，经典的群众理论是不对的，”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."
“它不能解释或预测它声称要解释和预测的行为。然而，无论去哪里看，这种论述仍然存在。”
The reason, he argues, is straightforward: "It's very, very convenient for dominant and powerful groups," Stott says.
斯托特认为，原因很简单：“这对占主导地位的强大集团来说非常、非常方便。”
"It pathologises, decontextualises and renders meaningless crowd violence, and therefore legitimises its repression."
“它是病态化，去文本化的，并使群众暴力变得毫无意义，因此使其镇压合法化。”
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，通过将责任转移到群众的疯狂上，当权者也可以方便地避免审视自己对暴力事件的责任。
Last week, when the US attorney general blamed "outside agitators" for stirring up violence,
上周，当美国司法部长指责“外部煽动者”煽动暴力时，
and Donald Trump referred to "professionally managed" "thugs", they were drawing on exactly the ideas that Le Bon sketched out in the 19th century.
唐纳德·特朗普提到了“专业管理的”“暴徒”，他们的想法完全是勒庞在19世纪提出的。
