Praise for the Crowd? A Talk by Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht

Over the past months, I have been following quite a few webinars offered by different institutions ever since Covid-19 has taken us captive and has constrained and confined us in our movements. I used to physically attend a variety of talks and lectures in my vicinity, but ironically, Coronavirus has now given me more options by enabling me to attend lectures not only in my area but all around the world.

In fact, two of the series that I have enjoyed the most so far are the Rotterdam School of Management of the Erasmus University and the ETH lecture series of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Although the former has been a case of hit and miss, the latter has been pure gold so far, and the talk I shall discuss here is indeed by ETH in Zurich ably moderated by Chris Luebkeman.

I must admit that I had not heard of Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht - who shall from now on and with the greatest respect (hochachtungsvoll) be referred to with the moniker “Sepp.” Yet within the first minutes of the talk, Sepp did not fail to impress me. He is evidently erudite as well as passionate about his knowledge – he rightly claims that professors love to talk – but he also embodies an offbeat angle and quality that is bathed in and enveloped with a dry sense of humor, something I myself strive for, both in my writing as well as in my classes.

Case in point, apart from being an academic scholar, he also loves spectating sports, particularly soccer. So much so that he prefers to find himself in the Südtribune, the standing section of the Dortmund stadium that can, at least in non-Coronavirus times, hold up to 32,000 standing people. Herr Professor was told not to go for security reasons, especially considering his age, and then it was recommended he should at least go with a bodyguard. 

Sepp retorted that he would not mind the risks and dangers simply because they did not outweigh the pleasure of being immersed in the crowd, and that in no way he would take a bodyguard with him as it would serve as an invitation and a potential reason and motive for the crowd to beat him up.

This was within the first few minutes of this talk, and I knew right away that what would follow and what he had to say was certainly worth listening to. His topic and stance were also rather unusual. In his most recent book, he deals with and examines the concept of crowds. 

Contrary to most intellectuals, he praises crowds (Lob für die Masse) and does not necessarily share the pejorative and rather condescending view that crowds embody and signify ignorance, danger, and violence. As someone who tends to like crowds, I do not entirely disagree with him, but before my views be known, let us first examine, what Sepp has to say on the topic.

First off, the discussion of crowds comes at a very peculiar moment in time and history. Regardless of whether one likes or enjoys them or not, they are discouraged since they are a source of infection and contagion during this pandemic. In fact, even those who usually frown upon or hate crowds may miss them under these stringent and demanding circumstances, a seeming remnant and throwback of the good old days of careless safety and security.

Although the cause in and of itself is certainly important and significant, an additional component of why the Black Lives Matter movement managed to attract and draw massive crowds recently was the fact that people missed being in crowds and that it offered the perfect excuse and reason to be in one without facing any potential consequences by the authorities (although it still came with significant personal health risks and consequences). Despite limitations on mass gatherings, the police and politicians wisely sidestepped the issue during the protests so as not to incite further and more violent manifestations down the road.

The second thing that we miss out in a world run by webinars, Zoom meetings, Facetime, and Skype chats is the random encounter. This cannot occur as easily and frequently as used to be the case. We do not run into people anymore as our meetings and encounters are carefully planned, structured, and programmed in advance. Although I enjoy the Zoom meetings myself, I miss running into people in the hallway and corridors of our university or the brief chat at the water fountain, in the washroom, in the instructor’s room.

But what is a crowd, and what constitutes and sustains it? By definition, a crowd needs to be a certain number of people. Sepp claims that it may be hard to set an exact number, but in a lab or group setting, five to seven people seem to be an ideal benchmark, whereas in a family, more than twelve persons would be considered a crowd since not everyone would have the opportunity - or would at least find it challenging - to physically convene and assemble at the same dinner table.

Yet when it comes to the concept of crowds, there are three movements and directions to consider. Crowds function and operate in a lateral manner. That is, in a crowd, people will often find themselves standing next to each other, often elbow to elbow. 

Although we have a feeling of being in a crowd with the physical proximity of other bodies, there is also an element of solitude at play. In a crowd, such as a soccer stadium or during a rock concert, communication and conversations are generally excluded and often discouraged and frowned upon. Sepp told us that one of the worst things for him to occur during a soccer match would be a member of the crowd talking to him.

This leads us to the next direction as the crowds are also transitive, that is they are focused on a shared intentional object. That could be either a game (a soccer or tennis ball), an event, or music. These objects of desire almost always have a clearly defined and a set and determined boundary.

This is to accentuate their importance, and it is often enforced by security guards who ensure that this space is protected and not infringed upon. In a soccer match, it would be disrespectful to enter the field in the same way that the concert stage is only for the musicians unless one is invited up there – a special honor – or unless the musician decides to leave the comfort of the stage and to surf the crowds.

The third concept of importance is an upward vertical movement. A crowd tends to elicit feelings of elevation and euphoria. This happens when the crowd feels empowered. This can go in either direction towards the positive or the negative. In a soccer match in which the home team is ahead and winning or in an electrifying rock concert or even in a mesmerizing church service, people tend to sing and chant in unison.

There is a particular rhythm that is initiated, propagated, and sustained and that can involve dancing, clapping, and hopping as well. The rhythm produces intensity, and it is this intensity that translates into feelings of elevation and euphoria. In Sepp’s own words, you are then almost in a black hole, you block out everything else and only do and engage in what the crowd is doing.

Now we can see how synchronized movements could then lead to uplifting feelings and create a sense of harmony via identification and acceptance among and across all the individual members of the crowd. At the same time, we can envision individuals being hypnotized and becoming hysterical, of either speaking in tongues or shouting and chanting words of hatred and bigotry. 

We can also see the potential for violence, an unwanted and often unintended outcome of gatherings, which may have started out as a peaceful get-together and gathering. This also explains to an extent the dark spots of history and occurrences, such as lynch mobs and Nazi congregations.

Sepp accepts that where there is a crowd, there is a danger of violence. He defines violence in a broader sense as the occupation of bodies against the resistance and will of other bodies. Hence, whenever you find yourself in a crowd, there is a certain risk of things going (terribly) wrong. 

The same could occur in a rock or sports event in the case and context of a life-threatening emergency, such as a fire or an earthquake, that could potentially lead to a stampede as people are rushing for safety towards designated emergency exits.

But Sepp believes that we are underestimating and underappreciating the beneficial and empowering aspects of the crowd. Crowds do not always have to be intimidating, and he finds the intellectual stance of disregard (Verachtung) towards the masses to be somewhat anti-democratic as it also automatically precludes and imbues the masses with a lack of intelligence, volition, and intention.   

Yet crowds can also elevate and create a mystical feeling of union. When we look at and discuss crowds in social theory, there is less focus on the body itself, while it goes without saying that a crowd must be composed of separate physical bodies. 

These bodies on their own may exist in anonymity and solitude and could be lost in the crowd, but, in a different sense, they are also absorbed and harmonized and engulfed by the crowd. This could lead to a mystical feeling that is best expressed in Christianity with the concept of the church and its congregation as they come to re-present and em-body the mystical body of Christ.

In another sense, stadiums are also a ritual of presence. They are often used as a form of union and celebration since people gather for a common cause and are unified in their joy. 

On the other hand, they might also congregate in their grief as would occur with mass funerals of celebrated people or as in the case of the funeral made in solidarity with the family and friends of George Floyd, a victim and a living symbol to police brutality and injustice. To claim that the masses are always wrong or mistaken is not appreciating the extent and potential reach they have towards positive social change as well as their aim for justice and equality.

In fact, one of the most profound and ground-breaking effects in Western history was the French revolution. This may have started as an impromptu gathering as there was no strategic plan to storm and take over the Bastille, and which, on paper and in theory, would have made little sense and would have not been conceived as fruitful or helpful a priori. 

In other words, Freud’s concept of masses falling to leaders would not be pertinent in this case as there was no obvious or immediate leader, to begin with. It was a group and gathering of dissatisfied people who decided to manifest and air their grievances.

As they marched towards the Bastille, they grew in number since more and more people joined them, hence creating a massive crowd. Nobody had the intention, nor did anybody give the order to storm the Bastille on July 14^th 1789, but it happened nonetheless, and it had repercussions for the rest of human history. 

The loss of individuality had created a swarm of people who wanted effective change, and they were not manipulated nor were they easy to be dissuaded from their will and desire.

For the most part, I agree with Sepp, and I find his mystical view of crowds utterly fascinating. As someone who has always enjoyed crowds, I am to a large extent in favor of them. 

But I think, Sepp is overly enthusiastic about them, an enthusiasm I appreciate but do not personally share with him. I think when people gather in a crowd or in a rally, they tend to lose not only their judgment but often also their common sense, and sometimes even their reason. 

Crowds can be easily swayed and manipulated, and I intuitively agree with Sting’s song “All This Time” from his album The Soul Cages: “Crowds go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one.”

This inherent threat is mainly due to the make-up of our psychology. Freud was right that we would more easily succumb to a leader when we are in a crowd. There is a sense of hysteria and mass hypnosis that could permeate the crowd, and that is above each of the members, and this can be quite dangerous. People wish to fit in and conform, but they are also naturally inclined to copy their fellow members via mirror neurons. Hence, they might suddenly find themselves espousing beliefs or engaging in behaviors that they would otherwise not embrace nor condone.

We do not have to go as far back as Nazi Germany to see and prove this. The recent campaign rally of Donald Trump during which thousands of people decided to put their own health and safety at risk by refusing to wear masks during a pandemic is a concrete example. These people wished to act as to his bidding and desire, and it is an example where masses are led - or rather misled - by a person they see and envision as powerful or as a figure of authority.

There is a persistent risk and danger of crowds becoming mobs, regardless of the cause and political situation, and I believe that we cannot dismiss or diminish that troubling aspect of the masses. It is the lack of individuality that concerns me, so I think it is important to always be on guard and to preserve one’s right and option to stand up for one’s ideas and to go against the crowd. 

When crowds go blind and hysterical, the responsible and conscientious person caught in the middle needs to speak out and let his or her voice be heard, and they need to expose the truth, at the risk and expense of being criticized or ostracized.

So I shall not sing my hymns and praises on crowds but would rather remain silent or even hold my breath. And I shall avoid crowds like the pest, especially during this pandemic. Notwithstanding, I found Sepp’s ideas fascinating, insightful, and thoughtful, and despite my reservations, both timely and significant.