Showing posts with label chaos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chaos. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

A Warning from Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim."
--Gustave Le Bon


I have long been interested in the subject of crowds and mass movements, perhaps stirred in part by having come of age during the antiwar Vietnam protest era. In my second semester I took a sociology class related to this theme (mass movements, not Viet Nam).


Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895; often subtitled The Psychology of Revolution in later editions) is a seminal work in social psychology. Le Bon argues that individuals in crowds lose rationality, descending into a collective mind driven by emotion, suggestion, and impulsivity. I witnessed this first-hand on two occasions while in college, the first during the Mayday protests in Washington D.C., 1971. The second was at Ohio University. 


I remember a hilarious Dave Berg cartoon in Mad Magazine in which four self-conscious teen-aged boys of the "Aw shucks" variety are hanging out. Once together they are suddenly hoisting a battering ram to break into a house where there's a party of girls. Berg's amusing cartoon illustrates how we often change when part of a group.

What is a crowd? Gustave Le Bon described it as a group of people brought together by a shared idea or belief. But this shared belief isn’t necessarily formed through careful thinking or by weighing evidence. Instead, crowds tend to accept ideas quickly and emotionally, often using them as motivation for action—sometimes even radical action.

According to Le Bon, when a person becomes part of a crowd, something changes inside them. They no longer think or act the same way they would on their own. In a real sense, they stop functioning as an independent individual and begin to take on the mindset of the group.

Crowds can become barbaric, credulous, and led by simplistic ideas, images, and prestige rather than logic, Le Bon correctly observes. He classifies crowds as heterogeneous or homogeneous, explores leaders' manipulative role via affirmation, repetition, and contagion, and applies this to revolutions (e.g., French Revolution), warning of democracy's risks from mass irrationality. His writings influenced both Freud, and Hitler, as well as modern crowd control.  


Le Bon argues that "when societies decay, it is always the masses that bring about their downfall. This is a controversial but thought-provoking idea, especially in today’s era of viral outrage and mass protests."*


Critique

Le Bon's insights on suggestibility and deindividuation prefigure modern psychology (e.g., Leary's deindividuation theory) and remain relevant in analyzing mobs, social media echo chambers, or populist movements. Deindividuation explains how people in groups or anonymous situations can lose their sense of individual identity and self-awareness, leading to reduced inhibitions, less accountability, and behavior that deviates from personal or social norms—sometimes impulsive, aggressive, or antisocial. LeBon's emphasis on emotional contagion explains rapid idea spread.


Critics, however, say the work is pseudoscientific: anecdotal, elitist, and racist (portraying "inferior races" as crowd-prone). They also say it overgeneralizes, ignoring rational crowds (e.g., protests achieving reform) or positive collective action. Deterministic and anti-democratic, it influenced authoritarian propaganda. Empirically weak by today's standards—no data, experiments—but historically pivotal for understanding group dynamics' dark side. Having witnessed the manner in which crowds can seduce people into abandoning common sense, I would suggest that LeBon was to some degree on target with his own early observations.


Tapan Desai

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Film as a Philosophical Lens

Last week I uploaded all my blog posts from 2008 to an A.I. called NotebookLM. I requested an analysis and overview of the contents of my daily entries from that year and was both intrigued and surprised by the feedback. 

The six page report outlined six categories which most of my content fit into. One of these, which surprised me but should not have, had to do with reviews or references to movies. There's a sense in which it became clear how much our culture shapes up more than we realize.

Here's the section of that report assessing my 2008 writings about film. This is followed by links to five movie reviews, three from 2008 and two others from later.

* * *

Film as a Philosophical Lens

The author’s film analyses consistently transcend simple plot summary or critique, instead using cinematic narratives to probe intricate philosophical and ethical themes. This approach is evident in his treatment of a wide range of films from 2007 and 2008.


Morality and Chaos: A preoccupation with the nature of evil and the struggle for order emerges from the reviews of No Country for Old Men and The Dark Knight. The author is captivated by Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chiguhr as a relentless, "pathological, human version of The Terminator," a force of pure chaos operating outside conventional morality. In The Dark Knight, he identifies a similar dynamic in The Joker, whose goal is to "destroy all notions of order and decency." The author is drawn to how these films explore the ethical compromises necessary to confront such chaos, noting that Batman must "violate his own code of ethics in order to reach an ethical conclusion." His assessment of No Country for Old Men is marked by a telling ambivalence. While he praises the film's execution as "flawless," he simultaneously identifies "a number of problems," including a performance by Tommy Lee Jones he found to be a "caricature of himself," the questionable "star power" of Woody Harrelson for such a brief role, and a "confusing" ending that undermined the film's intense buildup.


Reality and Illusion: The author uses the films Vanilla Sky and The Prestige to engage with classic philosophical questions about perception, reality, and self-deception. He praises Vanilla Sky as a "vision realized" that explores the "philosophical conundrum of the ‘brain in the vat’" and forces the protagonist—and the viewer—to choose between a perfect fantasy and the harder challenges of reality. He highlights the film's use of the two-faced Janus figure as a key symbol of this pivotal transition. Similarly, in his review of The Prestige, he quotes the film's central premise: "You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled," using it to discuss the human desire for illusion over truth.


Character and Storytelling: A strong preference for authentic, character-driven narratives over formulaic productions is a consistent thread. He praises a film like There Will Be Blood as a powerful "character study" and celebrates its director for employing the "preeminent rule of storytelling: show, don’t tell." Conversely, he criticizes films he views as shallow. Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, for example, is described as being trapped in a "bubble" without historical context. This contrast underscores his high valuation of deep character exploration and masterful storytelling craft over surface-level spectacle.



The Prestige

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2014/01/is-prestige-greatest-movie-about-magic.html


The Mission

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/10/missions-pointed-question.html


There Will Be Blood

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2008/04/there-will-be-blood.html


No Country for Old Men

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2021/04/throwback-thursday-no-country-for-old.html


Vanilla Sky

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2008/02/vanilla-sky.html


Friday, October 15, 2021

Flashback Friday: An Engaging Dialogue On the Role of Art in Society

John Heino
10 Years Ago Today

During the noon hour yesterday a half dozen of us met for a Red Interactive Brown Bag Lunch Dialogue about art around the theme “Engagement or Chaos?” The main objective was to get clarification on what appears to be a problematic dichotomy in the arts. Is anything and everything art? Or is art only considered art after it has been “blessed” by the appropriately certified critics from on high? John Heino served as moderator of the discussion as we explored these two apparently contradictory propositions. 

At the beginning of the hour we were each given a red marker that we were asked to place on a line that indicated where we personally stood with regard to this dichotomy. The line was numbered 1 through 10 with 5 being the middle of the road. On the extreme left we had Elitism and Control. On the extreme right we had Engagement and Chaos. 

The dot placements proved surprising. One was toward the left, most were toward the engagement/chaos side of center and one was off the grid completely. Erika indicated that her unusual outside-the-box placement came from a lifetime of observing that many false dichotomies have been created when we make either/or assumptions. She sees the need to re-phrase the paradigm and see it as a circle with room for all perspectives. It was the first of many unexpected insights. 
 
What follows are some of the notes John sent to me from yesterday's dialogue. An hour clearly proved too short and it became evident to all that we were just scratching the surface. Much more can be said. 
 
What was especially valuable, and not recorded here, were the many stories and experiences that informed our personal perspectives. It was helpful, too, that John set up the dialogue in a manner that provided a level of non-judgmental trust in which everyone felt free to be open. John's notes from the discussion are here.

AND (vs. or)
Think of a circle [or perhaps a sphere] instead of linear spectrum
• Room for diverse expression
• Avoid judgment
• Inclusive

Pretty much room for everything

• Whatever criteria you come up with, there’s always something that doesn’t fit
• Reserve the right to call something “crap”

Don’t like either word—“chaos” or “elitism” in the context of art

• Everyone has something “art” within her/his being
• What is “art” will always remain subjective
• Engagement is the better choice


Contradictions

• There is a place for “high” art
• Appreciation at certain levels requires training
• BUT creativity is innate in all of us

Engagement may be the future of art. People want to engage. Where is art going in postmodern society?

Capitalism run amok is a problem.

• It seems to be all about the money
What happens with organic growth when it begins to look like chaos?

We need a new paradigm.

• Spirit-based, flowing
• Listen to each other
• Really see
• Pay attention to the intuitive world
• Notice where everyone is coming from

Social and economic dynamics over the past 25 years or so have resulted in art being less valued and less of a priority in society.

• Schools can’t afford art classes? It’s a choice. Political dynamics have allowed that choice, but that wouldn’t be the case if a majority of taxpayers and political supporters insisted that the arts be made a priority.
• Everybody loses when the arts are treated like discretionary spending. It’s more than just the sad shortchanging of something very important that makes us human. The insights students gain in the arts give them a broader tool kit no matter what they eventually do for a living. One-dimensional students become one-dimensional employees and unimaginative managers if they make it that far.
• Think of the cumulative negative impact of turning out less creative graduates. What has it done to earning potential of our young people? To business productivity improvement? To the wellbeing, competitiveness and economic performance of America? In reality, we cannot “not afford” to include arts as part of a well-rounded education.

What is value?

• Utilitarian?
• Aesthetic/beauty?
• What about the assumption that if a piece of art is expensive, it must be good?

"I don’t accept that anything is art."

• But I want to decide. I don’t want to be told why I should appreciate a piece of art.

I don’t really think of myself as an artist, but I have impulses to make things.

• If someone else enjoys it, that’s great.

If something called art is strange or inaccessible on its face, it may be because we’re not trained to understand what is happening.


In the end it proved a most interesting discussion. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Engagement or Chaos: The Role of Art in Post-Modern Society

One feature of the Phantom Galleries Project, and especially our Red Interactive project, has been an attempt to engage the public. For our open house in September we invited people to wear red and bring something red that could be used in a collaborative sculpture. It thrilled us to see the interaction that occurred as the show visitors engaged in the making of that 3-D red expression.

Today the office-space-turned-gallery at 1410 Tower Avenue will be opened for an hour to discuss questions about the role of art in society today. John Heino and I will be moderators of this brown bag lunch public event titled “Engagement or Chaos?”

The main object of the discussion will be to get clarification on what appears to be a problematic dichotomy in the arts. Is anything and everything art? Or is art only considered art after it has been “blessed” by the appropriately certified critics from on high? Another way to break this out will be to explore these two apparently contradictory propositions.

Perspective 1
This idea that anyone with materials and an impulse can make art is just nonsense. More engagement? Maybe, but it’s a slippery slope to chaos. There are still very valid roles for art critics and art historians and that is to ensure that there always remains something legitimate about what gets to be called “art.”

Perspective 2
What is the art elite protecting? There never have been absolute criteria for determining what is and isn’t art. Now, more than ever, we need to foster engagement and not be overly concerned about what “passes for art.” Would the world end if a piece of non-art avoided detection? It hasn’t yet. Engagement is the antidote for elitism.

According to John Heino, photographer and co-founder of the Red Interactive project, “This is not a mere intellectual exercise. If we agree that some form of art is a desirable component of human existence, then we ought to be concerned about accessibility and practice as it relates to the entire population, not just a smattering of insular cults that are intentionally or otherwise incomprehensible to ‘average’ folks.

I, too, have questions. Is aesthetic appreciation innate, automatic and universal or something that also must be learned in order to be valued? If the latter, can this be part of why elites sometimes disdain the common to some extent? Is there a place for high art, high culture?

The dialogue is intended as a starting point for future discussions about the relationships between the arts, culture and commerce. Red Interactive is a sanctioned project of Phantom Galleries Superior.

Phantom Galleries Superior (PGS) is one of six Phantom Gallery initiatives in the state of Wisconsin supported by the Wisconsin Arts Board with funds from the state of Wisconsin and the National Endowment for the Arts. PGS is a unique partnership between Superior Public Art Creating Community Environments (SPAC2ES) and Superior Business Improvement District (BID), the property owners, the artists, and the community. Use of properties is generously donated by the owners. Additional support comes from multiple artistic resources, the BID, and the Morgan Fund of the Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation.

For more information about Red Interactive visit our on online interactions on Facebook. In the meantime, let's keep the dialogue rolling.

Engagement happens.

Popular Posts