Convergence Theory

The study of riots, mobs, crowds, and other forms of collective behavior is an important part of the social sciences. Convergence theory is a theory of crowd behavior that emphasizes the coming together of individuals with shared traits to explain why individuals participating in riots, mobs, and protests behave the way they do. There are two main strands of convergence theory. One strand focuses on the shared traits of all humanity and argues that explosive crowd behavior is a result of latent tendencies that are often violent. The other strand emphasizes that crowds are homogenous in their makeup and are a result of like-minded individuals coming together to take action collectively. Critiques of convergence theory include emergent norm theory and other theories of rational behavior that is mostly present in social movement research.

Keywords Battle of Seattle; Crowd; Collective Behavior; Contagion Theory; Emergent Norm; Extrainstitutional; Latent Tendencies; Lynch Mob; World Trade Organization

Convergence Theory

Overview

In 1896, Gustav Le Bon examined the behavior of crowds in The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. This work set the stage for the study of crowds and collective behavior for many years to come. In this work, Le Bon emphasizes the psychology of the crowd, but more specifically he emphasizes the pathology of the crowd. To Le Bon, what distinguished a crowd from other social groupings was, in fact, its psychological pathology. Le Bon's interest in crowds, then, came from a perspective of concern for the potential dangers of crowd behavior. Le Bon focused on how, within crowd situations, individuals lose their individual mental faculties and become wrapped up in a sort of herd mentality. This theory of crowd behavior dominated the study of crowds for many years.

Up until recently, when the study of collective behavior turned away from more pathological approaches and toward more organizational and interactional approaches, this view of the crowd as a deviant form of behavior was the dominant approach to the study of collective behavior. One of the theories of collective behavior that emerged which attempted to explain the behavior of individuals within the crowd is convergence theory. Convergence theory attempts to explain why individuals in crowds tend to act outside of prescribed social norms and yet seem to act similarly to one another.

Understanding Collective Behavior

Historically, collective behavior and the way that it has been studied and understood in general has been viewed as masses of people acting together in a deviant manner. Collective behavior — especially crowd behavior — was often viewed as unorganized as well. But as sociologists and social psychologists have begun to study collective behavior in a more systematic fashion they have begun to question these assumptions. Specifically, Turner and Killian (1972) explain that within the study of collective behavior, "the sociologist asks whether there may not be some sort of social organization present and conformity to some norms, no matter how deviant the behavior may seem as measured by ordinary standards" (p. 4). For Turner and Killian, collective behavior is seen as a social system and thus should be studied sociologically, just like any other social interaction. They argue that within collective behavior there is more than just an unorganized mass or unruly mob; instead, they argue that within crowds and other collectivities there are social units that have their own unique sets of interactions and rules (Turner & Killian, 1972).

The study of collective behavior, then, has become more concerned with the actions of groups rather than the behavior of individuals within the group, although this aspect of the study of collective action is not entirely gone. Collective behavior is understood as the interaction within groups and how groups create their own internal dynamics and norms. The study of collective behavior is not just interested in internal dynamics; it is also the study of how these groups act in a concerted way to achieve certain ends or goals. Although scholars have moved away from defining collective behavior as inherently disorganized and deviant, it is still seen as behavior that is extra-institutional, or as outside of traditional social institutions and to a degree is still viewed as irrational. Although collective behavior emphasizes group action and interaction, it is distinguished from organizational behavior because it is characterized by nontraditional forms of authority and membership in a collectivity is not formalized (as would often be the case within organizations). Further, collective action is still often viewed as a more expressive form of group behavior than organizational behavior, although the lines have begun to blur in recent years (Turner & Killian, 1972; Marx & Wood, 1975; Couch, 1968).

Convergence Theory of Collective Behavior

Within the study of collective behavior, one of the many theories that seeks to explain why crowds behave the way they do is convergence theory. Convergence theory places its emphasis on understanding crowds as social units that have a unitary focus, and on how individuals within the crowd tend to behave in similar ways. Convergence theory argues that rather than the crowd itself creating a certain behavioral disposition in individuals, individuals bring these dispositions to the crowd. This approach is distinguished from Le Bon's contagion theory.

Contagion theory argues that individuals in crowds are transformed by the energy and emotions of the crowd. This, combined with the anonymity of the crowd, causes individuals to act out in irrational and sometimes violent ways. In other words, the high energy and rowdiness of the crowd becomes contagious, spreading throughout the crowd to influence all of the individuals within it. Many collective phenomena, such as lynch mobs and urban riots, are held up as examples of contagion theory.

Convergence theory makes an important break from Le Bon's conception of the crowd and how individuals within the crowd behave. For Le Bon, the crowd creates the behavior within the individuals. Once an individual participates in collective behavior, he or she loses the ability to rationalize as an individual. Within the convergence theory approach, then, the crowd is still seen to be deviating from social norms, but this approach argues that individuals bring these dispositions to act with them. The crowd and its behavior is the result of like- minded individuals converging to carry out their actions (Macionis, 2001; Stott & Reicher, 1998; Turner & Killian, 1972).

Convergence theory further argues that the often deviant behavior displayed within crowds is a result of latent tendencies within individuals. These latent tendencies can be understood very broadly as tendencies that all people carry with them, or can be more narrowly focused on specific group traits.

Psychological Approaches

Within the broad conception of convergence theory, it is argued that all people carry with them certain instinctual tendencies that crowds bring to the fore. As explained by Meerloo, crowd behavior such as riots and panics are a "sudden consciousness of biological defenselessness against danger" (as cited in Turner & Killian, 1972, p. 19). Latent tendencies that are expressed in crowd situations, then, are rooted in historic biological programming of all humans. As Turner & Killian (1972) point out, this approach to convergence theory is much more rooted in psychoanalysis than sociology and point out that it is difficult to measure such latent tendencies.

Another approach to convergence is that people tend to act out their frustrations when they are in a crowd. The assumption is that individuals are unable to act out their frustrations, especially in a violent manner, in everyday society. So when people are in crowd situations, they vent their frustrations by directing them toward some object that represents their frustrations. In other words, crowds will find scapegoats on which to blame their frustrations (Turner & Killian, 1972).

Social Traits & Convergence

More sociological approaches to convergence theory have focused on social traits that might help explain crowd behavior. With this approach the crowd becomes the intervening variable for individuals' latent tendencies to be released. Turner & Killian (1972) explain this aspect of convergence theory:

“The problem is not to explain how heterogeneous individuals come to act in a uniform fashion. It is, rather, to identify the latent tendencies in people that will cause them to act alike, the circumstances that will bring people with such tendencies together, and the kinds of events that will cause these tendencies to be released.” (p. 19)

This approach, then, seeks to understand the variables that come together to create the unruly behavior that is often associated with crowds, rather than how the crowd corrupts individuals and makes them act out.

The lynch mob is often used as an example of crowd behavior. Within convergence theory, the lynch mob is understood as acting out of preexisting tendencies. In this case, it is argued that angry whites who are intent on harming a black person band together to form an angry lynch mob. This is different than the acting lynch mob as explained by contagion theory, which would argue that the crowd itself created the lynching. Beyond lynch mobs though, convergence theory can explain many types of collective action which do not necessarily have such negative connotations. Because convergence theory focuses on the similarities of individuals participating in collective behavior, variables such as race, gender, and class have all been examined as possibly relating to crowd behavior. For example, there have been many studies that examined the race, class, ideology, and background similarities between adherents of the New Left and other student activist organizations of the 1960s (e.g., Somers, 1965; Wood, 1974). These studies did discover that many student activists shared many of the same ideological dispositions and were often raised by parents with more permissive attitudes. Morrison and Steeves' (1967) research of the National Farmers Organization similarly found that many of the participants in that movement shared similar economic deprivation and discontent.

Convergence theory, then, places a great deal of emphasis on the traits of the individuals who participate in collective behavior. This approach has been fruitful in many regards because it has moved away from the idea that crowds somehow corrupt individuals and instead has focused on crowds as acting units attempting to accomplish some collective goal. By examining individuals within collectivities and their shared ideologies or class backgrounds, the study of crowds has moved to a more rational approach. Because similar individuals come together to act on shared grievances, crowds can be seen as acting rationally on the behalf of those participating.

Applications

The Battle of Seattle

From November 29 to December 2, 1999, the streets of downtown Seattle were flooded with demonstrations, riots, and teargas. The demonstrations were to protest the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was meeting in the city. Up to 40,000 people participated in the protests, which resulted in the declaration of a state of emergency by the city of Seattle. Hartel (2005) describes the situation below:

“To many observers, the World Trade Organization's Third Ministerial 1999 meeting in Seattle seemed like a circus. People dressed as sea turtles roamed the streets, protesting the environmental impact of the WTO's policies. Unionists marched alongside members of the clergy, decrying job loss and global poverty that they argued the WTO had aggravated. Thousands upon thousands of protesters sang, chanted, and rallied outside the venues where government trade representatives had gathered to broker international trade rules. Eventually, a violent band of protesters emerged from among the throng and began to engage in vandalism. Inside the halls, the Seattle ministerial collapsed owing to the inability of delegates to agree on basic issues or procedures for negotiation and mounting pressure from the streets.” (p. 105)

The protesters were from various backgrounds and orientations, including environmentalists, anarchists, and labor unionists. Although all of the demonstrations were not violent, there was a level of militancy at the WTO protests that is not often seen at mass demonstrations in the United States. Further, there were many violent confrontations between police and protesters, as well as window smashing, burning, and looting of businesses. These protests later became known as Battle of Seattle (Bunn, 2003; Verhovek & Greenhouse,1999).

What caused these explosive protests in Seattle? Convergence theory can be one clue to understanding this episode. As the above description illustrates, the demonstrators had varied grievances, but there was a clear opposition to the WTO meetings. Applying convergence theory to the protests can help explain some of the protests by illustrating these shared grievances.

Latent Tendencies Approach

Convergence theory argues that individuals act out in crowds because crowds bring to the surface latent tendencies of those involved. These latent tendencies can be either instinctual, a result of frustration, or a result of specific traits of the group involved. In this case, it could be argued, the protesters (because of the nature of their grievances, such as that the WTO is not open to citizen input) were acting out of frustrations with the nature of the organization. Protesters declared that the WTO makes decisions that affect their lives and yet it is closed to their input (Hartel, 2005; Bunn, 2003). Thus, the protesters’ actions could easily be interpreted as acting out of latent frustrations because of lack of input in political and economic decision making. In this situation, the WTO is out of reach for most protesters, thus their frustrations are carried out on the police and local businesses.

Shared Traits Approach

Another approach to the episode could be taken as well. Convergence theory also emphasizes the shared social traits of those engaged in collective behavior. Although the heterogeneity of the crowds in Seattle is often emphasized, especially by the protesters themselves, they all share the same opposition to the WTO. Further, although there were many groups represented, such as labor, environmentalists, etc., within those groupings the individuals shared many traits. Labor unionists share similar class backgrounds and ideologies, which could be seen in the content of their speeches at the rallies; environmentalists share a common concern for the environment, and many of those that participated in the most militant demonstrations shared similar ideological orientations. If the separate groups are looked at separately, then the similarity of the individuals within each group becomes clearer.

As the above quote highlights, and as has been reported in the various media accounts, there was a smaller group that engaged in the smashing of windows, burning, and looting that occurred in Seattle while other groups chose street blockades or permitted rallies. Each of these separate groups carried out actions in separate ways that the group deemed acceptable. The unions, for example, which much more closely resembles an organization than a collectivity, engaged in permitted and subdued rallies and marches. On the other hand, anarchist groups that believe that the existing social order is unjust and illegitimate engaged in much more militant behavior. Thus, the similarities within these groups represented a convergence of specific types of individuals. The behavior of these groups, then, is somewhat predictable in terms of crowd behavior. Unions, which have a stake in the current political and economic order, are not as likely to engage in risky behavior, while anarchists who have much less of a stake, at least ideologically, in the current system are much more likely to engage in militant behavior in crowd situations, not only because they share the same ideology but because they may be more frustrated by the current situation. A similar analysis to that of the Battle of Seattle can be applied to many forms of collective behavior such mass demonstrations and riots.

Viewpoints & Discussion

Although convergence theory helped move discussion of collective behavior beyond contagion theory and the view that crowds have a hypnotic influence over the individuals within them, there are still many critiques of this theory. Because convergence theory still emphasizes the individuals within the collectivity rather than the collectivity itself, it is placed within the individualistic category of collective behavior. It also places an emphasis on the irrationality and emotionality of collective behavior. Turner and Killian (1972) have argued that convergence theory focuses too much on the psychological predispositions of individuals within crowds, which ignores the crowd as a source of normative behavior. They state that:

“A convergence approach leads to formulations that take for granted that the crowd behavior is an automatic response to the nature of the situation which, in turn, is assumed to be self-evident to each individual. A situation may be perceived as ambiguous, however. Then the collective definition of the situation, developed through interaction, may be the crucial factor in determining the course of action.” (Turner & Killian, 1972, p. 21)

Emergent Norm Theory

They see the crowd, then, as a social system that creates its own norms rather than as a group of individuals who bring their own behavioral predispositions into the crowd. As a result, they argue for an emergent norm approach to the study of collective behavior. In this approach, crowds of people act according to a set of rules that emerges as the group interacts. This approach emphasizes the interaction of the individuals within the group and the context of that interaction as a way to understand crowd behavior. For example, a crowd gathered to listen to protest speeches and the crowd that gathers around a crime scene will be governed by different norms, as the situations are entirely different.

Social Movement Studies

Further challenges to convergence theory are evidenced by the rise of social movement studies, which emphasize the rationality of collective behavior as well as the planning that goes into most cases of crowd action. Couch (1968), for example, points out that most crowds are not, in fact, spontaneous. This is especially true for protests and other demonstrations, which are often the result of weeks or months of planning. He also argues against the emphasis on emotionality in crowd behavior that convergence theory seems to imply. He points out that most crowd action is rational, because it is often a result of individuals organizing themselves to a group to challenge an authority they could not challenge alone. He uses the example of labor actions as an illustration of rational crowd behavior, because workers are acting together to address grievances that may not be addressed as individuals.

Noakes, Klocke, and Gillham (2005) also present a challenge to the idea that convergence of specific individuals leads to a specific type of crowd behavior. They examine the policing of several antiwar events in Washington, DC, in 2001 and discover that the tactic police used to control space reflected the police department's perception of the groups’ ideology and historic tactics. Thus, the police were more aggressive with some groups than others. This illustrates that maybe the crowd's inherent tendencies to act in a certain fashion may be governed by how police respond to those groups.

Conclusion

Convergence theory emerged as a challenge to the traditional view of the crowd, which sought to explain how crowds overwhelmed participants with emotion and overwhelmed their ability act reasonably. Instead, convergence theory emphasized the already existing impulses of individuals to act out in a crowd. And the coming together of these individuals created the extreme behavior of the crowd. It argues in the more psychoanalytical version that all humans have an instinctual urge that crowds bring to the fore. Thus, the often highly emotional behavior of the crowd is a result of these instinctual urges. In the more sociological version, crowd behavior is seen to be a result of the coming together of like-minded individuals who then act on their impulses within the crowd setting. This approach has expanded the field of collective behavior to examine participant traits as a possible explanation for different types of crowd behavior. Convergence theory has been critiqued as still being overly concerned with the emotional crowd as well as insensitive to the ways in which a crowd can create its own norms according to participants' interactions and the context of the crowd.

Terms & Concepts

Battle of Seattle: Several days of protests and rioting in Seattle, Washington, in 1999 that were a result of World Trade Organization meetings in the City. Downtown Seattle was declared to be in a state of emergency and the National Guard was called in to quell uprisings.

Crowd: A group of individuals who are acting collectively and in a focused manner. Crowds are often seen as highly unstable and emotional.

Collective Behavior: Behavior that is undertaken by groups of individuals acting together for some end or goal.

Contagion Theory: Theory of group behavior that the highly emotional and often violent behavior of crowds infects individuals in the crowd and makes them behave irrationally.

Emergent Norm: Theory of group behavior that groups, rather than acting irrationally or through latent tendencies, create their own norms through interaction and context.

Extra-institutional: The area outside of formal political and social institutions in which collective behavior such as social movements operate.

Latent Tendencies: Tendencies toward a certain type of behavior that are ingrained in individuals, but which only come to the surface at certain times, such as within crowds.

Lynch Mob: A group of individuals who seem to be acting extremely irrationally but who focus their aggression on an individual to hang for some perceived crime. Lynch mobs of whites that would hunt down and hang blacks often happened in the Southern United States after the Civil War.

World Trade Organization (WTO): An organization of trade representatives and other economic elites that regulate and create rules for trade between nations.

Bibliography

Aguirre, B. E., Torres, M. R., Gill, K. B., & Lawrence Hotchkiss, H. H. (2011). Normative collective behavior in The Station building fire. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 100–118. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=57770208

Borch, C. (2013). Crowd theory and the management of crowds: A controversial relationship. Current Sociology, 61(5/6), 584–601. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89803078

Bunn, A. (2003, November 16). Them against the world, part 2. New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6D71139F935A25752C19659C8B63&scp=1&sq=Them+Against+the+World%2C+Part+2+&st=nyt

Couch, C. J. (1968). Collective behavior: An examination of some stereotypes. Social Problems, 15, 310–322.

Hertel, S. (2005). What's all the shouting about: Strategic bargaining and protest at the WTO third ministerial meeting. Human Rights Review, 6 , 102–118. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19183027&site=ehost-live

Drury, J., & Stott, C. (2011). Contextualising the crowd in contemporary social science. Contemporary Social Science, 6, 275–288. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67285752

Le Bon, G. (1896). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html

Macionis, J. J. (2001). Sociology (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marx, G. T., & Wood, J. L. (1975). Strands of theory and research in collective behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 363–428. Retrieved June 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10457449&site=ehost-live

Morrison, D. E., & Steeves, A. D. (1967). Deprivation, discontent and social movement participation: Evidence on a contemporary farmers' movement, the NFO. Rural Sociology , 32, 414–434. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13193343&site=ehost-live

Noakes, J. A., Klocke, B. V., & Gillham, P. F. (2005). Whose streets? Police and protester struggles over space in Washington, DC, 29–30 September 2001. Policing & Society, 15, 235–254. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17658675&site=ehost-live

Somers, R. H. (1965). The mainsprings of the rebellion: A survey of Berkeley students in November, 1964. In S. M. Lipsit & S. S. Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt (pp. 530 –557). New York: Anchor Books.

Stott, C., & Reicher, S. (1998). Crowd action as intergroup process: Introducing the police perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology 28, pp. 509–529. Retrieved June 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11830098&site=ehost-live

Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective behavior (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Verhovek, S. H., & Greenhouse, S. (1999, December 1) National guard is called to quell trade-talk protests; Seattle is under curfew after disruptions. New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4DA1E3FF932A35751C1A96F958260&scp=1&sq=National+Guard+Is+Called+to+Quell+Trade-Talk+Protests%3B+Seattle+Is+Under+Curfew+After+Disruptions+&st=nyt

Wood, J. L. (1974). The sources of American student activism. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Suggested Reading

Allport, F. L. (1924) Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cocking, C. (2013). Crowd flight in response to police dispersal techniques: A momentary lapse of reason? Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 10, 219–236. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88107379

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lacks, R. D., Gordon, J. A., & McCue, C. M. (2005). Who, what, and when: A descriptive examination of crowd formation, crowd behavior, and participation with law enforcement at homicide scenes in one city. American Journal of Criminal Justice 30, 1–20. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19435011&site=ehost-live

Meerloo, J. (1950). Patterns of Panic. New York: International Universities Press.

Opp, K. (2012). Collective identity, rationality and collective political action. Rationality & Society, 24, 73–105. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71865737