I was considering writing an essay on an updated booklet that is available to individuals and groups involved in social activism, “If An Agent Knocks” (IAAK), by the Center for Constitutional Rights. This publication could be of interest to a number of people here at the Democratic Underground in the context of their efforts to promote progressive change in the larger society. But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it should be read by the vast majority of D.U.ers, because a good portion of it actually involves dynamics that we see on political discussion sites on the internet. I am not suggesting that the police per say are keenly interested in all of the discussions on this forum, or that they are not interested in some threads. Rather, I think that we should be aware that industries in this country have private operations that indeed take an active interest in what group discussions and activities may influence the public.

Perhaps by coincidence, my wife recently told me that she is considering teaching (part-time) at the local university. She enjoys teaching psychology and sociology. In the past, I have served as a guest speaker in her classes. Thus, I have been thinking about things such as “groups” and “the public,” and some of the dynamics that we have all seen – and probably participated in – here at the Democratic Underground.

A “lackawanna” is where two streams meet. In this case, it is two streams of thought. Because, as so often is the case, I could speak about this general topic for hours and hours, I decided that it might be a tad less tedious if I attempted to break this down into a couple separate, though related, essays that I hope to post over the holiday season.

For today, I'd like to concentrate on three things: the public; groups; and collective behavior. For many people here, these are familiar topics. But, because many others may not have sat through an “intro to sociology” course, or attempted to apply some basic concepts to help understand some of the highly emotional debates and arguments taking place on this forum – for example, about the proposed health care legislation – it might be worth reviewing them.

More, because in terms of industry and politics (another lackawanna!) those seeking to peddle any product base their approach to advertising and sales on these very concepts, I hope that you will find this worth reading.

“Public(s)” is, of course, a broad term which includes a population, or a combination of populations. The public is not restricted to a particular collection of people that inhabit a single space at one period of time. Rather, it is a larger collection, that tends to support the social order.

All of advertising, be it a commercial for a “new and improved” product, or a political campaign commercial, is aimed at creating a “public” that will view that product/politician as something worthy of their investment. Often, in politics, those selling a product are aware of their ability to manipulate the public, by using highly charged words that intend to unite their target audience: “abortion,” “ gun control,” and “protecting the institution of marriage” are obvious examples.

Another example that comes to mind would be Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1968. He was presented as the “new and improved” candidate, who targeted “the silent majority.” Today, it may seem hard to believe that the public bought this product, not once, but twice. How did this happen?

Corporations and political interests often seek to organize groups within the public, which were previously “unorganized groups,” into what is known as an “interest group.” An interest group can be best understood, I think, as a group that shares a common interest which is important enough to them, that they will take steps beyond buying a product, signing a petition, or writing a letter. Thus, in order to maintain control of the interest group's potential activities, those in charge make full use of a closely related set of corporations, known as the “media.” As a rule, when the public begins to show signs of forming interest groups, the corporate media goes into overtime in manipulating how it presents the products/politicians that its advertisers are attempting to sell. Now, that may sound both simple and obvious, but the implications are neither simple nor obvious.

There are many types of “groups” that combine to create the “public.” For today, I'd like to focus on a category that can be organized or unorganized, and which frequently involves some type of common interest: the crowd.

If you happen to go to a store today, such as a Wal-Mart, you are likely to encounter a crowd. This is a specific type, known as a “casual crowd.” It is comprised primarily of individuals who share a common focus – in this case, some last-minute Christmas shopping – that results in their being at one place for a relatively brief period of time. (“Brief,” of course, includes annoyingly long lines of disorganized individuals and families.)

The next type that should be of interest is known as a “conventional crowd.” These are gatherings of people who tend to have a greater number of connections with others in the crowd, who are at a specific event as spectators. It could be a rock concert, or a political convention. Because the individuals have connections with others, there is a much higher degree of personal interactions between members of these crowds, than there will be today at Wal-Mart. Still, because of the setting, the casual and conventional crowds' behaviors are highly structured, patterned, and predictable.

Much, if not most of the time, this forum is a conventional crowd. We gather as a group of spectators, watching the theater of the absurd in Washington, DC, and discuss the good and especially the bad that is found in the public. The forum is structured, the discussions tend to follow patterns, and for the most part, things here are predictable.

Every so often – for example, during the primary season – there are events that we watch unfolding in the media, that result in a rapid increase in emotional outbursts. When this takes place, either a casual or conventional crowd morphs into an “expressive crowd.” An expressive crowd is, simply put, a crowd where individuals express strong emotions. Sometimes, such as the night Brack Obama was elected president, the outbursts are of joy. But, more frequently, these outbursts of emotion are in response to something negative. In those cases, there is an increased potential for hard feelings and divisions.

In these instances, the response includes efforts to maintain some type of order: threads may be locked, individuals may be tombstoned, and/or a respected member may attempt to inject rational thought into the heated debates.

Still, a number of phenomenon can take place, which tend disrupt – intentionally or unintentionally – the structure of the crowd. These tend to fall into three categories, and are common within any emotional crowd where some member(s) has an agenda that is not highly structured, patterned, or predictable. These include: rumors, which are generally anonymous, unconfirmed information that plays to existing fears and prejudices; panic, which is rooted in anxiety and fear, and results in “herd” activities; and hysteria, which is usually an environmentally-based form of extreme panic, which often results in the crowd identifying some members as “the enemy.”

By this time, I suspect that anyone who is still reading this is thinking, “Well, this is all good and wonderful, H2O Man, but what are you really trying to say? And why haven't you mentioned that the initial news reports about the Kerner Commission's Report were made public on March 1, 1968?”

These are valid questions. And considering that the health care debate shows that we are at least two distinct publics, separate and unequal, I appreciate your asking. Now, the Kerner Report was one of several studies that showed that crowds often engage in disruptive group behaviors, not so much when the group has tired of constant oppression, but rather at a time when after having expectations for progress raised, they find those opportunities being denied.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, we know, was mystified at the “race riots” that destroyed large sections of American cities, after he had raised hopes with civil rights legislation. His administration had endorsed a type of “interest group” in poor, often non-white neighborhoods, known as “Political Action Agencies” (PAA), which engaged in “Political Action Programs” (PAP) which were intended to benefit the poor communities. When the promise of progress was unmet in a meaningful way, crowds of people rioted.

In the years since, some republicans have lied – shocking, I know – and blamed the riots on the PAA and PAC attempts to bring progressive change in America. Obviously, I do not endorse rioting; I didn't then, and I don't now. I do endorse group efforts to bring about progressive change in America, and I believe that we are approaching a point where enough of “the public” realizes our continued problems are not the result of those interest groups which advocate for social justice. No, the majority of our problems come from those corporations and their puppet-politicians that are attempting to sell us their lies, and to capitalize on our fears and anxieties.

And, as I said earlier, we see the corporate media working overtime, trying to spread rumors, create panic and hysteria, and disrupt our ability to unite and go beyond simply letter-writing and petition-signing.

The majority of members here, who either support the proposed legislation, or oppose it, are good and sincere people. I believe that. Some believe that while the legislation isn't perfect, that it is a valid first step in the right direction. They are concerned that we do not have fractures within the party, that benefit the republicans. Others believe that the proposed legislation may benefit a number of people, but that because it doesn't go far enough to help the majority of us, and goes way too far in enriching corporate interests, it does not deserve their support. I understand both positions, though I do not support the legislation.

We should be able to have discussions here, without letting emotions get so out of control that threads are locked and people tombstoned – unless they are the few who are identified as intent upon stirring the pot and disrupting the forum. We might disagree, even strongly, but we can respect each other's right to hold their own opinions, and act on them accordingly. For me, that means recognizing that the majority of elected democrats in Washington in no way share my values, much less represent them. I will continue to support the minority of democrats who do advocate those values. And I will look to create and participate in “interest groups” that seek to identify and elect more progressive candidates.

Thank you for reading this.

H2O Man