Something To Mull Over For A Monday

I read an interesting article by Malcom Gladwell this weekend. It was published in the New Yorker and dealt with how school shootings spread. The central premise is that school shootings are like a riot in that people who may never have considered violence are sucked into it as the violence escalates.

But (Stanford sociologist Mark)Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

Granovetter was most taken by the situations in which people did things for social reasons that went against everything they believed as individuals. “Most did not think it ‘right’ to commit illegal acts or even particularly want to do so,” he wrote, about the findings of a study of delinquent boys. “But group interaction was such that none could admit this without loss of status; in our terms, their threshold for stealing cars is low because daring masculine acts bring status, and reluctance to join, once others have, carries the high cost of being labeled a sissy.” You can’t just look at an individual’s norms and motives. You need to look at the group.

His argument has a second implication. We misleadingly use the word “copycat” to describe contagious behavior—implying that new participants in an epidemic act in a manner identical to the source of their infection. But rioters are not homogeneous. If a riot evolves as it spreads, starting with the hotheaded rock thrower and ending with the upstanding citizen, then rioters are a profoundly heterogeneous group.

Finally, Granovetter’s model suggests that riots are sometimes more than spontaneous outbursts. If they evolve, it means they have depth and length and a history. Granovetter thought that the threshold hypothesis could be used to describe everything from elections to strikes, and even matters as prosaic as how people decide it’s time to leave a party. He was writing in 1978, long before teen-age boys made a habit of wandering through their high schools with assault rifles. But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model—to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?

I suggest reading the whole article. I know this is “heavy” reading for a Monday morning but it is an important topic and it does have an implication for our gun rights.


4 thoughts on “Something To Mull Over For A Monday”

  1. Lone wolf active shooters are different than the classic "riot."

    A lone wolf shooter does not cull other students to kill with the shooter.

    Conflating the two is wrong.

    There may be a "copycat" thread between them, one is relatively instant in the riot. The other very belated with the active shooter.

    1. The article isn't conflating the two, it's claiming exposure can desensitize and -expand- the risk pool to more marginal cases that, absent such exposure, would never consider the act. We know there will be copycats, this is stating the set of potential copycats might get larger. Based on the different backgrounds of the shooters as described, each having less in what we would see as rational basis for action, seems a solid observation.

    2. The article isn't conflating the two, it's claiming exposure can desensitize and -expand- the risk pool to more marginal cases that, absent such exposure, would never consider the act. We know there will be copycats, this is stating the set of potential copycats might get larger. Based on the different backgrounds of the shooters as described, each having less in what we would see as rational basis for action, seems a solid observation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *