Manage crowds, don't control them
Crowd Management is a specialist area of expertise. However, more often than not, Crowd Control is used to influence the movement and behaviour of large crowds. It is suggested these chosen methods have a negative impact on crowd safety, customer experience and inter group relationships.
Gustav Le Bon’s seminal work from 1895, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” was for many years considered the key academic text in relation to crowd behaviour. Indeed this publication was cited in police literature into the 21st Century. Relying on Le Bon’s views and explanations of crowd behaviour naturally leads to a Crowd Control approach and as such, it is suggested, for many years crowds across the world have been mismanaged.
Le Bon suggests crowds are impulsive and violent, concluding “In the crowd he is a barbarian. He possesses the spontaneity, the violence and the ferocity and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings”. This classical view homogenises the crowd, and concludes these mindless mobs are beyond reason. As such, Le Bonian theory supports the idea crowds cannot be managed and instead control is required, achieved through exertion of power. Police officers and security companies are often able to repress crowds through the use of various tactics, support of legislation, imposition of sanctions or simply through deployment of large numbers of staff.
Such an approach has, without doubt, compounded many situations and contributed to disorderly behaviour, rather than achieved the aim of ‘controlling’ unreasonable, impulsive mobs
Applying a Le Bonian approach to crowd management can result in a self fulfilling prophecy; helping to explain it’s frequent and continued use. Classical theory (Le Bon 1895, McDougall 1920 and Freud 1922 for example) created a perception of crowds as a mad, impulsive, ignorant mob whereby personal inhibitions are masked and an individual is compared to a grain of sand which can be stirred up at will (Le Bon, 1895). The process of confirmation bias continues to strengthen this view following each crowd incident with media reports simply feeding the narrative. Once crowds are observed behaving in a disorderly, aggressive or impulsive manner, classical observers simply conclude this is what crowds do and therefore stronger control measures are championed. The cause of the incident is put down to the presence of the crowd itself – the actual proximate and distal causes are often missed or ignored.
Years of experience, primary research and many hours of studying, lead me to conclude that many crowd control measures are ineffective, unnecessary and often have a negative impact on crowd behaviour.
If the Classical view was correct then surely far more incidents of disorder would occur? Becoming mindless, impulsive and ferocious by simply being part of a crowd would result in far more aggressive, barbaric behaviours. Indeed, some crowds do on occasion exhibit these behaviours, but by no means all of them or even most of them. To provide context, Gustav Le Bon’s research was conducted in revolutionary France in the late nineteenth century. The riotous, politically and ideologically driven traits of these crowds are very specific. The lack of subsequent, substantial research into crowd behaviour left Le Bon’s theory as the accepted and most widely known.
These theoretical foundations and opinions of crowd behaviour naturally lead to a repressive and controlling style of crowd management, justified by the belief that crowds will become disorderly. Whilst French Revolutionary crowds may well have required firm control measures to prevent them achieving their aims, this is not the case with the majority of crowds. In fact, instead, the measures often cause the negative reaction rather than prevent it. The Elaborated Social Identity Model (ESIM), put forward by Drury, Reicher and Stott, explains this inter-group relationship in detail and their research provides ample evidence to support this notion. Involvement with numerous and varied crowds also leads me to the same opinion. (further detail provided in the ‘crowd theory’ article on this website)
Whilst, simply put, Crowd Control, involves doing things ‘to’ the crowd, Crowd Management can be seen as doing things ‘with’ the crowd.
Alexander E Berlonghi provides a more detailed definition; “Crowd management includes all measures taken in the formal process of facilitating the movement and enjoyment of people. As opposed to crowd control which includes all measures taken once crowds are beginning to or have got out of control” (1995). The imposition of hard cordons, the giving of instruction without explanation, the closure of roads or walkways, an impolite and authoritarian attitude, an over reaction to minor indiscretions, the use of force and the containment of crowds are all frequently used examples of ‘control’ measures. Whilst they may be relevant and necessary in some circumstances, by doing these things ‘to’ the crowd from the outset they are likely to increase tension, damage inter group relationships and create a hostile environment. Where such measures are used indiscriminately and without just cause or explanation, which is sadly all too common, crowds are more likely to perceive actions as illegitimate and therefore react with confrontational words or behaviour. This chain of events has been witnessed time and again whilst working at a variety of crowded events – most commonly at Football fixtures (see Policing Football article on this website for more information).
As already suggested, effective crowd management can be achieved by doing things ‘with’ the crowd. The provision of appropriate information, clear signage, the willingness / ability to see things from a customer point of view, the provision of options, effective queuing systems, an appropriate level of tolerance, a willingness to listen and react to opinions, clear explanation of tactics, appropriate site design and an empathetic, non authoritarian attitude are a few examples of crowd management measures. The key is creating an environment whereby the patrons and the staff feel they are part of one ‘event’ group rather than one ‘customer’ group and one ‘security’ group. Such an environment undoubtedly improves customer service, enhances safety and reduces the likelihood of disorderly behaviour. Crowd management should continually apply a common sense approach rather than create a controlling environment whereby patrons don’t understand or accept the measures being used and therefore view them as unnecessary or oppressive. The vast majority of people in most crowds are reasonable and well behaved. If the management of them is appropriate and effective the minority who behave inappropriately will be more readily identifiable, and further more, the crowd themselves will often self regulate the behaviour.
Effective Crowd Managers are able to respond to circumstance in order to maintain safety. They are able to use appropriate tactics to avert dangerous situations without the need for oppression. As such, Crowd Management should be seen as an area of expertise and a key role at any crowded event. If security staff or police officers are tasked with ‘crowd management’, they will often resort to ‘crowd control’ as this is what they are trained and experienced in. Thus the self fulfilling prophecy is more likely and more security staff / police are deployed to events with more control measures being deployed.