Does the Group Feel Better After Mobbing?
I just read a terrific article on mobbing. I learned that the term mobbing comes from ornithology:
Every so often birds in a flock will turn, as one, on a perceived threat (either outside, or inside their group) and harass some luckless victim into flight or exile. It often seems less a response to genuine danger, than a reflexive action making for collective cohesion (”we’re all in this together - except that bastard over there. Let’s get him”).
In an academic context: “mobbing is a way in which academic groupings - departmental or sub-departmental - create reassuring solidarity and togetherness for themselves.”
The most interesting observation touched on the irreversibility of the acts that feed the moment of mobbing: “But a spotlight is now constantly directed on the mobbee. In its glare, very few people can maintain impeccability. Any lapse is seized on as confirmation. The dossier swells. It never shrinks.”
Recently, I’ve seen attempts to make the ex-president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, the posterboy of mobbing. I just can’t buy that because Summers used (abused?) his position as the leader of an elite institution to push out others, and degrade women as a group. Sometimes it’s hard to tell mobbing from democracy, but I would say that when someone has long benefited from leading the mob, and he’s finally on the receiving end of a sorting out - that’s probably democracy.
Also, I wouldn’t want to see mobbing used as a shield by the corrupt leadership of the University of California.
The people who are really vulnerable to mobbing are those at the bottom, those who people don’t give a second thought about after they’ve been “disappeared”. I wish there was more high profile media coverage focusing on them. I want to hear about the file clerk who was mobbed - perhaps to preserve group solidarity based on sex, race, or religion.
Online, I’ve seen many cases in forums where the group leader (a “moderator” or an “admin”) signaled open season on a target, and hordes of people who were just passing by will jump in on the pile-on with obscene glee.
Mobbing is also a form of rankism. Instead of a high-ranking person abusing their power, mobbing is about abusing group authority. Members of the group are granted rank to enforce the “general will”. The result is the opportunity to release frustrations that have been suppressed in other areas. This sort of bloodletting reveals all that is horrifying about human nature. Hopefully the problem can be mitigated by education and social consensus.
I was the victim of mob mentality in my first two years of high school. I was at this private school and was always ganged upon by all the rich kids because while they all drove fancy cars or had parents pick them up in fancy cars my Mom picked me up in a beat up old minivan. THe garbage that uniforms remove class distinctions is just that garbage.
Comment by Miguel — August 11, 2006 @ 11:59 am
I agree. Even when uniforms are required, students will find another way to establish and signal who is dominant. For instance - an expensive haircut and a manicure might be used to display a girl’s wealth and privilege. Since people want to suck up to her, she has heightened power to select and exclude others.
Comment by Elisa — August 11, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Skorupski’s Law: The more vain one’s ambition, the more redundant one’s grasp of morality.
Farlie’s Law: If in one’s professional career one reaches a position way above what is merited, then one can only maintain this position or progress further by surrounding oneself with incompetent people.
An Extension to Farlie’s Law: If the people surrounding you are not incompetent, filter their every communication so that they appear incompetent and that you’ve rescued them.
‘…The persistent and unchecked administrative behavior towards the faculty members signals others to find fault in the faculty member as a way of self preservation. If they can keep the victims as victims then there is less likelihood they will become victims. For example, out of frustration and a sense of hopelessness, faculty members decide to take public concerns about the actions of the administration. Administration is upset about the public exposure and makes it known. Furthermore, former administrative individuals and active administrative personnel are used to put in place a strategy to oust the faculty members who dared to go public. The strategy worked in dividing faculty members so the administration now has a clear newly generated list of potential victims…’
Comment by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — November 25, 2006 @ 3:06 pm